forpetessake

forpetessake

Lives in United States Transylvania, United States
Works as a exorcist
Joined on Oct 3, 2011
About me:

I don't reply to private messages.

Comments

Total: 531, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On 'See Impossible': Canon counts down to... something. article (1666 comments in total)
In reply to:

ilikefood: Curved sensor that gives you great edge-to-edge sharpness even with cheap lenses?

I guess it's too early for that, so yeah, probably just a wi-fi printer.

No, it's a curved lens to allow shooting around the corner for the 'street' photographers.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 6, 2014 at 22:53 UTC
On 'See Impossible': Canon counts down to... something. article (1666 comments in total)

It's getting tiresome. Seems like many companies nowadays are using some cheesy sensationalist headlines, which ends up in nothing. Soon people will stop paying attention to all that cr@p.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 6, 2014 at 22:46 UTC as 621st comment
In reply to:

Nuno Souto: This same nonsense was tried here in Australia. It's nothing more than pure consolidated revenue raising.
There is no way that "license" money will ever be used specifically to improve o help anything with the parks. It's pure bureaucracy.

It's even worse than simple revenue raising. One thing to pay tax, another thing to depend on some fat a@@ bureaucrat deciding to issue or not a permit. It's yet another source of government harassment and corruption.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 2, 2014 at 04:25 UTC
In reply to:

stevo23: They're only clarifying the language, not the original intent. If you read the directives, it's pretty clear that they're not restricting us from photographing the wilderness.

The proposed language for the amended directive was put up and comments invited. They have comments and are going to adjust accordingly. This is nothing more than a step in the process and nothing to worry about.

"I wouldn't discredit the valuable work many federal park workers do to keep things clean, safe and available for us to enjoy"

And those same workers could have been the employees of the private companies running the same parks if there were no government grab of the land. They would have also earned more, because they wouldn't need to support the huge inefficient bureaucratic pyramid above them.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 2, 2014 at 04:17 UTC
In reply to:

forpetessake: Outrageous intrusion of government. Ansel Adams must be turning in his grave. First they annexed the land for the 'public' use, and then that government bureaucracy made themselves judges and de facto owners prohibiting that same public from the free use of the land.

" If it weren't for Aneel Adams, many of these places wouldn't BE national parks."

Sure, they would have been private parks, many times more friendly to the visitor with no bureaucracy wrecking the havoc. Ansel Adams would shudder if he knew what the government is doing.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 2, 2014 at 04:12 UTC

Government stupidity and corruption is abominable (and obaminable). They should either privatize all those lands or at least lease them to the highest bidder.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 2, 2014 at 04:04 UTC as 76th comment
In reply to:

Jun2: I saw some overly aggressive photographers chasing animals around in the National parks. I can understand the requirement of the permits

Complete nonsense! There are already laws protecting the animals, too many in fact.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 2, 2014 at 03:59 UTC
In reply to:

stevo23: They're only clarifying the language, not the original intent. If you read the directives, it's pretty clear that they're not restricting us from photographing the wilderness.

The proposed language for the amended directive was put up and comments invited. They have comments and are going to adjust accordingly. This is nothing more than a step in the process and nothing to worry about.

Yeah, just a bureaucracy at work, nothing special. I wish they would just shut off the government for a year or so to give some respite to the people. Keep the military operational and send the rest of them home for common good.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 2, 2014 at 03:58 UTC
In reply to:

Gunzorro: Who's running this country anyway? Strip off another freedom, add another fee. Enough with the nanny state.

Obamacrats are running the country. I'm not surprised by all the damage they do, I'm surprised by the stupidity of the electorate who voted them in the office.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 2, 2014 at 01:50 UTC
In reply to:

forpetessake: Outrageous intrusion of government. Ansel Adams must be turning in his grave. First they annexed the land for the 'public' use, and then that government bureaucracy made themselves judges and de facto owners prohibiting that same public from the free use of the land.

"When a wealthy nation chooses..."

A nation doesn't choose, people do. And the primary problem is that the government bureaucrats are those people. Instead of nationalizing the land they should have been privatizing it, then none of those problems would have existed, a free market always provides what people involve in free market activities want, not what some bureaucrats sitting on his fat behind waiting for a cushy pension wants.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 2, 2014 at 01:22 UTC
In reply to:

falconeyes: IMHO, there is something wrong with the US national park concept.

Compared to, e,g., Europe, the Alps in particular,, only a fraction of the US is preserved for giving priority to nature. No signs to restrict building activities outside national parks. So it seems to Europeans. Where are all the opportunities to hike and spend time in nature, outside nat. parks? And why is access to nat. parks restricted and costing money. It shouldn't. It is just nature. The US is so sparsely populated compared to Europe that it seems almost absurd. And to restrict photography of US nature certainly IS absurd.

Because Europe's both feet steeped deep into the socialistic/communistic morass, and the American society is only one foot there.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 2, 2014 at 00:33 UTC

Outrageous intrusion of government. Ansel Adams must be turning in his grave. First they annexed the land for the 'public' use, and then that government bureaucracy made themselves judges and de facto owners prohibiting that same public from the free use of the land.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 2, 2014 at 00:24 UTC as 90th comment | 12 replies
On Exposure vs. Brightening article (21 comments in total)
In reply to:

David Hull: Barryhk --

The exposure slider in LR is adjusting "brightness". In earlier versions of LR this control was called brightness. Essentially it takes the "raw numbers" and scales them multiplying them by a constant to make the image brighter and dividing the numbers to make the image dimmer. This is digital "amplification".

Look at how he defines "brightening".

Dave

Another thing is the "exposure compensation" on the cameras, which depending on the mode can actually adjust the exposure or the brightness (ISO).

Direct link | Posted on Sep 30, 2014 at 00:43 UTC
On Canon PowerShot G7 X First Impressions Review preview (850 comments in total)

People find so many faults with this cute little bugger, but the most important one nobody noticed -- you can't make calls with it :-)

Direct link | Posted on Sep 23, 2014 at 22:49 UTC as 107th comment | 2 replies
On Canon PowerShot G7 X First Impressions Review preview (850 comments in total)
In reply to:

george2013: Finally an articulating viewfinder. A touchscreen. But no hotshoe. That is a no no. Or in other words. My money stays in my wallet.

Ridiculous comment.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 23, 2014 at 22:43 UTC
On Canon PowerShot G7 X First Impressions Review preview (850 comments in total)
In reply to:

tutek: I'm waiting for the G17, I hope that Canon has not forgotten, slightly larger body, a longer zoom lens, external flash, grip ... and most importantly, a better quality lens.

You don't need to wait, Canon is already producing 5D-III with everything you desire. This type of camera is designed for carrying in a pocket, and the only requirement to it is to beat the cell phones in reach and image quality.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 23, 2014 at 22:42 UTC
On Canon PowerShot G7 X First Impressions Review preview (850 comments in total)
In reply to:

Le Kilt: Sounds like a very nice lens and sensor.
As usual with the G series, Canon make a great camera with one or two important things missing.
Canon, please add a viewfinder (and don't remove something else like you usually do).
A full tilt and swivel screen would have been nice too, there are many more uses than just selfies!
But just a good viewfinder and I would get one... for now, I'll wait.

Nobody cares about EVF on such a tiny camera, it's targeting cell phone crowd, which don't even know what EVF is.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 23, 2014 at 22:38 UTC
On Canon PowerShot G7 X First Impressions Review preview (850 comments in total)
In reply to:

veroman: There's no hot shoe! How could they have left that off?

What kind of dork attaches something to a hotshoe on a miniature P&S camera? There isn't one because it targets normal P&S shooters.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 23, 2014 at 22:36 UTC
On Canon PowerShot G7 X First Impressions Review preview (850 comments in total)
In reply to:

sdh: I don't see the review discussing whether this camera has a focal plane or compact camera (whatever it's called) type of shutter.

And more to the point, will this camera have the max sync speed limitation that hinders DLSR shooters trying to use the on-camera flash for fill in bright sun.

Oh snap.

Geez, this is a P&S camera, it's for people, who want something better than their cell phones but still fitting in the pocket. None of them could care less about the shutter type or sync speed.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 23, 2014 at 22:32 UTC
On What is equivalence and why should I care? article (2062 comments in total)
In reply to:

photohounds: Further ...
.
"That's the way we've always done it" is not enough to fool everyone into thinking large equipment is needed for quality pictures. It is FUD - there are many articles like the one below, from PROs who have switched and never looked back.
.
http://www.smallcamerabigpicture.com/how-to-overcome-fears-using-micro-43rds-cameras-in-a-professional-environment/

The "big" advantage mostly isn't. _ Both my EM-1 and my EM-5 trounce my 6x7 camera in every sharpness/grain/noise measure I can muster. The MARGIN by which these small Olympus EM cameras defeat this great (but huge) camera (Mamiya RB-67 Professional S), astonished me.
.
Large is NO longer needed except for SOME extreme technical photography.
.
Most of the larger format adherents use maths to support their quasi-religious belief that a faster lens is "needed" to compensate for photographers who have no skill or inclination to watch the background.
.
see .. http://photohounds.smugmug.com/6x7-early-80s/

It's like saying most people don't need large trucks, or big cars, because I bought a small scooter and it works better than all other vehicles I had before.
This article talks about the physical limitations of the cameras and lenses, you can't have both smaller and more light, because there can't be more light collected by the sensor than the light collected by the lens aperture. Everyone can choose what he needs, whether he wants less noise and bigger lens or a smaller lens and more noise. Arguing what other people should and shouldn't want is simply stupid.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 19, 2014 at 22:43 UTC
Total: 531, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »