zigi_S

zigi_S

Lives in Slovenia Slovenia
Joined on Mar 1, 2009

Comments

Total: 155, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On What is equivalence and why should I care? article (2071 comments in total)

I guess the DP staff had enough of equivalence fights in its comment section :-)

Direct link | Posted on Jul 7, 2014 at 10:22 UTC as 407th comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

bobbarber: It's interesting to see all of the outrage on this topic.

What else do you truly get offended about? N.S.A. breaking into your computer? Bankers selling bad mortgages and taking people's homes? Anything like that, or only a college kid doing the dumb kind of thing that college kids do?

It'll be hard, but I'll try to get over this one.

DP geeks are outraged someone stole a photo of their dog.

Direct link | Posted on May 29, 2014 at 18:03 UTC
In reply to:

wansai: this is a complete non issue. most ppl who have photoshop would know how to do this even without the tutorial. it is a simple process, something i would, at most categorise as intermmediate level ps skill, but likely one that any basic user should know.

i havent seen his blog post. unless he specifically states to do the shop then pass the image off as your own, i see no issues with it. also, if it is a picture of you and you have not signed a release, the photographer has no merits in trying to use it for commercial purposes. you have as much claim as the photographer.

"If a painter puts brush to canvas should it be stolen from him because he painted someone he saw on the street that day?"

Imagine a photo of you on every corner. Without being asked. Or your photo used in jokes. Like some unfortunate people on the internet, to gross "beautiful people" out.

Direct link | Posted on May 29, 2014 at 17:59 UTC
In reply to:

Donnie G: Don't think for a minute that people who remove copyright info from an image don't know that they are stealing. Of course they know. They just don't think they will get caught at it, or, if caught, they don't think they should be punished for the theft. (They always fall back on the same old worn out excuse of, "well, eveybody else is doing it"). And even when they don't get caught, they get embarrassed when someone points to them and publicly labels them for what they are, THIEVES.

You stole the light in the first place.

Direct link | Posted on May 29, 2014 at 17:43 UTC
In reply to:

zigi_S: I don't know what the majority of "photographers" on this site think. But I don't think a photographer has the right to publish a photo from an individual on the internet, without prior explicit permit. When a photo is on the internet, it can't be deleted. The right to a persons privacy ABSOLUTELY TRUMPS any copyright. Did the graduates permit the photographer to publish pictures of them on the internet? I don't think so. So the problem with the watermark is negligible in contrast to a serious trespass in a person's privacy.

"How could you possibly have televised news coverage or any kind of photojournalism in your fantasy world?"

In my "fantasy world" reporters ask the interviewed person. Reporting on public events doesn't breach privacy of an individual. There is a difference between a shot from an individual or a scene with people. I am sure that in most of the civilized world, law agrees with me.

Direct link | Posted on May 29, 2014 at 17:41 UTC
In reply to:

alpha90290: If he want free photo of himself, he should put his own camera on tripod and shoot himself. Or ask a friend/family member to do it.

There is no need to break the law to get it.

There is also no need to ask others to break the laws.

All stupid excuses just make him looks dumber.

Photographers where I live don't use such clauses in contracts. I'm sure the court would deem them null and void.

Direct link | Posted on May 29, 2014 at 17:36 UTC
In reply to:

alpha90290: If he want free photo of himself, he should put his own camera on tripod and shoot himself. Or ask a friend/family member to do it.

There is no need to break the law to get it.

There is also no need to ask others to break the laws.

All stupid excuses just make him looks dumber.

Photographer has no right to publish his photo on the internet. I would sue if a photographer I hired and paid him would use my photo in the public.

Direct link | Posted on May 29, 2014 at 16:23 UTC
In reply to:

zigi_S: I don't know what the majority of "photographers" on this site think. But I don't think a photographer has the right to publish a photo from an individual on the internet, without prior explicit permit. When a photo is on the internet, it can't be deleted. The right to a persons privacy ABSOLUTELY TRUMPS any copyright. Did the graduates permit the photographer to publish pictures of them on the internet? I don't think so. So the problem with the watermark is negligible in contrast to a serious trespass in a person's privacy.

I'm sorry, it looks like you understood me. I don't care what law says. I'm talking what is right. Everybody should have a right to privacy, no matter what a corporate sponsored law says.

Direct link | Posted on May 29, 2014 at 16:18 UTC
In reply to:

zigi_S: I don't know what the majority of "photographers" on this site think. But I don't think a photographer has the right to publish a photo from an individual on the internet, without prior explicit permit. When a photo is on the internet, it can't be deleted. The right to a persons privacy ABSOLUTELY TRUMPS any copyright. Did the graduates permit the photographer to publish pictures of them on the internet? I don't think so. So the problem with the watermark is negligible in contrast to a serious trespass in a person's privacy.

Public and private sphere are different things. To graduate does not make you a public person. Holding a public office, does.

Direct link | Posted on May 29, 2014 at 14:43 UTC

I don't know what the majority of "photographers" on this site think. But I don't think a photographer has the right to publish a photo from an individual on the internet, without prior explicit permit. When a photo is on the internet, it can't be deleted. The right to a persons privacy ABSOLUTELY TRUMPS any copyright. Did the graduates permit the photographer to publish pictures of them on the internet? I don't think so. So the problem with the watermark is negligible in contrast to a serious trespass in a person's privacy.

Direct link | Posted on May 29, 2014 at 13:47 UTC as 59th comment | 10 replies
On Hungarian law bans photos taken without consent article (321 comments in total)
In reply to:

Henry McA: Hungary is a great country plagued by a neo-fashist government.

What HUNGRY is a country? :-)

Direct link | Posted on Mar 19, 2014 at 00:12 UTC
On Hungarian law bans photos taken without consent article (321 comments in total)
In reply to:

Funduro: Is Putin writing the laws in Hungary ?

Better no laws than totalitarian ones.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 19, 2014 at 00:10 UTC
On Hungarian law bans photos taken without consent article (321 comments in total)
In reply to:

Henry McA: Hungary is a great country plagued by a neo-fashist government.

They came to power after a catastrophic streak of leftists.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 18, 2014 at 22:29 UTC
On Hungarian law bans photos taken without consent article (321 comments in total)
In reply to:

Funduro: Is Putin writing the laws in Hungary ?

When it's about idiotic laws, I almost always hear about USA, UK or EU. Russia is mostly apart from the gay laws quite free.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 18, 2014 at 22:27 UTC
In reply to:

oluv: wow 349$ = 399€ for the 14-42! shouldn't it be the other way round?

Just don't buy it. Olympus always overprices their products and later firesales them for nothing. A bunch of morons setting prices in olympus if you ask me. And all japanese companies sell in europe their products for more. And it's not taxes. It's just to offset the subsidizing the american customer.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 30, 2014 at 12:50 UTC
In reply to:

Hans Bolte: Wonderful photographs by a true artist! I think most of the critics posting here have probably not taken one photo nearly as good as any of hers.

These photos are top notch. I have to figure how to get the same dreamy look.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 26, 2014 at 18:59 UTC
On Consumer SLR Camera Roundup 2013 article (112 comments in total)

The slt-a58 is recomended for high iso? All slt cameras are inferior in this compartment for losing a third of light. No matter how good the sensor behind is, it has to work with less light.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 3, 2013 at 14:22 UTC as 17th comment | 1 reply
On Entry-Level Mirrorless Camera Roundup 2013 article (95 comments in total)

You can get an Olympus e-pl3 with kit lens for 249€ in Europe. A current model the E-PM2 with kit lens for 420€. A fuji x-m1 the most cheap you can get with a kit lens is 799€. I don't see how these cameras are comparable. The fuji just doesn't belong into this group. For that money you can get a canon 60d and a nikon d7000. Cameras certainly not belonging to entry class.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 30, 2013 at 14:08 UTC as 23rd comment | 3 replies
On Nikon Df preview (2817 comments in total)

Nostalgic Nikon folks have dreamt about such a camera ever since the digital age. Now that nikon listened to them these spoiled brats have nothing better to do than moan and whine. I don't get these people.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 28, 2013 at 13:38 UTC as 98th comment | 3 replies
On Adobe expands Photoshop and Lightroom offer article (628 comments in total)
In reply to:

Marty4650: I think Adobe is willing to lose a lot of customers, in order to make a WHOLE LOT more money from their remaining customers.

They simply can't be stupid enough to switch to a a subscription service without running the numbers first. They KNOW they will end up with fewer customers, but they will end up making a whole lot more money by renting software, rather than by selling it.

Sure.... for the high end users, it will make little difference. Because they bought every upgrade, and it works out about the same as paying subscription fees. But I'd wager that MOST of Adobe's past customers would skip an upgrade or two, or three, or more. Because when you buy software, it still keeps working even if it lacks the new features.

With a subscription service EVERY customer must pay for every upgrade, whether they want it or not.

"Because you would be paying less if you bought the subscription for the next three versions worth? You don't like paying less?"

The thing is, he doesn't have to buy any more new versions and his copy will work for ever. Rent your software means that he can't use even old versions. With a bought copy, your software will work always. And it's not as if even CS2 is useless. There is hardly anything new in photoshop. That's why ADOBE tries this scam.

Is it now more clear to you?

The only way I see a subscription would work is if it's only for new features that become yours after a period of renting.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 23, 2013 at 17:08 UTC
Total: 155, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »