Lives in United States NV, United States
Works as a Web Usability Specialist / Librarian
Joined on Aug 26, 2010


Total: 130, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »

Copyright exists "To...promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts."

Nothing in the lawsuit furthers that goal. Seeking to get paid retroactively because something you sold years ago is now more valuable promotes nothing. This guy had his chance, and blew it.

Additionally, Nike's lawyers will find 10,000 images throughout the history of basketball showing players in identical poses

Direct link | Posted on Jan 30, 2015 at 03:00 UTC as 5th comment
In reply to:

cgarrard: "Our commitment to photography is as strong as ever"

No it isn't, all you care about is how this bad move is going to further hurt your publication and you're trying to save face.

I can't take it any other way than that.

For all the handwringing here, this move just makes sense. Every sports league has their own photographers; SI has nothing to gain by keeping their own in-house staff. If they need pics from any events, they'll save a bundle by contracting out for it (rather than paying yearly salary+benefits).

Direct link | Posted on Jan 23, 2015 at 21:39 UTC
In reply to:

Ergo607: What is flickr?

@Ergo607: No one said that. Learn to use google and stop asking dumb questions.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 18, 2015 at 19:20 UTC
In reply to:

quezra: I like how the same people who love to bash Sony are nevertheless slavish in their attention to every move Sony does or doesn't make... jumping to comment on some very old news (all the lenses shown here are identical to those at Photokina last year).

Inasecurity perhaps? If they don't bash Sony, they fear Sony will take over? They don't seem to bash other brands with nearly the same gusto. What about bashing EOS-M or Nikon 1 or Samsung for their lackluster sales and systems? The difference appears to be that this is the one system that is threatening their beloved brand(s).

I love how Sony fans get their panties in a bunch over the slightest suggestion that Sony is anything but perfect.

Insecure perhaps?

Direct link | Posted on Jan 11, 2015 at 00:46 UTC
In reply to:

HowaboutRAW: VT + Duckie,

Is the step occuring on every picture taken with the D750? 10%? 5%? 1%?

Y'all understand that oil spots on a sensor affect every file shot right?

Y'all understand that you don't have to post the same inane comment 25 times right? Y'all?

Direct link | Posted on Jan 9, 2015 at 01:26 UTC
On Nikon D750 Review preview (1838 comments in total)
In reply to:

Frank C.: dumbed down piece of photographic equipment for 2k$+... I don't think so! 1/8000 and 1/250 x-sync was around decades ago, srry today it's fuel injectors, not webers! LOL

@abolit said: "The camera is a TOOL and it should meet the today's standards. "

No. The camera is a TOOL and it should meet the user's needs. I have no interest in how you or anyone else uses a camera; I care about how *I* use a camera. Having capabilities I'll never use is not on my list of priorities, because that would be foolish.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 24, 2014 at 19:22 UTC
On Flickr Wall Art removes Creative Commons prints article (44 comments in total)
In reply to:

Edgar_in_Indy: This doesn't make sense to me. What is the purpose of the CC images, if not to use them? Of course it's going to cost money to make a print, and the bigger and fancier the print, the more it will cost.

As long as Flickr wasn't charging extra for a CC image, I don't see what the problem was. Now people just have less choices for their art.

If I'm a photographer who agreed to have my work on CC available for free use, then I would be flattered if people chose to pay to have it made into large wall-art.

(But I don't know much about Creative Commons, so if my understanding is flawed, I hope somebody will clarify it for me.)

Edgar is right. They didn't sell ALL Creative Commons prints; just those with a license that specifically allowed commercial use.

The real question is why anyone was at all upset by this at all. If you don't want people to use your photos commercially, why not use one of the Creative Commons licenses that specifically disallows it? Better yet, just don't use any license, and you automatically retain ALL rights.

All the umbrage here is from people who don't understand what happened, or don't understand basic copyright (which is strange on a photography site).

Direct link | Posted on Dec 23, 2014 at 00:16 UTC
On Have your say in our 2014 Readers' Polls article (64 comments in total)
In reply to:

D1N0: there's a list, you click it. Nothing happens. #Fail

They made the mistake of thinking that people who use some of the most technologically advanced gear ever made could figure out an interface that the average 4-year-old could master in 2 seconds.

They gave you too much credit.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 17, 2014 at 00:41 UTC
On Lomography adds Lomochrome Turquoise film to lineup article (90 comments in total)
In reply to:

Raist3d: You can tell how many people just don't get art or photography by all the negative comments instead of simply accepting this is just another brush and canvas of light, different from digital.

Obviously just because something exists doesn't mean you have to use it or buy it, while still be a valid good option for those who know how to and want to use it. Why else would Lomo bottler if there wasn't a market for it?

Saying this as a guy who does not regularly shoot film.

AlanG said: "I also encourage people to have something to express with their photography and not depend totally on an effect"

Let's be honest, AlanG: You expect people to be reliant on photoshop rather than being photographers. Otherwise, you wouldn't be so against film.

Have you ever even shot of film? You certainly don't act like it.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 27, 2014 at 06:22 UTC
On Canon EOS 7D Mark II: A professional's opinion article (501 comments in total)
In reply to:

brownie314: to all the people complaining about the "adds for Canon". Lets assume - worst case scenario - Canon is paying DPR to get some space in the articles section. So what - you are getting all of this content for free. So you have to skip over a few articles that you are not interested in - what harm is done? On the up side - they are funding reviews of other equipment. So lets say Canon is behind this - get over it. Doing all of this equipment review isn't cheap.

"to all the people complaining about the "adds for Canon""

Only people who can't read are complaining about this, so ignore them.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 22, 2014 at 22:44 UTC
On Canon PowerShot G7 X First Impressions Review preview (947 comments in total)
In reply to:

ennemkay: still no auto hdr or sweep pano. canon is the only one without these features.

It won't go out and take pictures for you, either. And they call this a "camera."

Direct link | Posted on Oct 21, 2014 at 17:29 UTC
On Accessory Review: LaCie Rugged Thunderbolt article (39 comments in total)
In reply to:

steve_hoge: Does that orange case help you find the drive after it's fallen overboard? Or is it just screaming "steal me"?

Yes, criminals are always looking to steal small orange things.
<eyeroll />

Direct link | Posted on Oct 17, 2014 at 16:33 UTC
In reply to:

mpgxsvcd: Haters going to Hate no matter what. Wait till we see some RAW files to make final decisions.

I'm a m4/3 fanboy, and these pics are terribly soft.

Very sad.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 6, 2014 at 21:49 UTC
In reply to:

piezoe: None of the photos are sharp. Something is seriously wrong! These are a far cry from the shots used to promote this camera on the panasonic Lumix site. I had planned to purchase this camera as soon as it is out, but I'd return it immediately with results such as these. The main reason for purchase is the lens. Surely this can't be the fault of the lens. Could these files have been condensed before uploading to this site.

Seriously. My em10 takes better pics than this even with an old kit lens.

Very disappointing.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 6, 2014 at 21:47 UTC

Nice. So now I can use the same type of controls that I've had on Android for 2 years, on the same size devices that Android has had for 2 years.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 25, 2014 at 22:50 UTC as 16th comment | 5 replies
On Olympus PEN E-PL7 First Impressions Review preview (501 comments in total)
In reply to:

zarabo: Ok, if this is intended for beginners, why not have a built in flash, while the more serious EM10 has one? I know they provide an external flash, but doesn't that make the whole thing bulky? I don't get it.
Also, if you have the flash installed, that means you can't install an EVF since the flash uses the hot shoe and the port?

I never thought I'd agree with Tedolph, but he's right. The EPL2 was nearly perfect in form factor and features. Give it a modern sensor, better screen, fast focus, and 5-axis IBIS, and you have the best PEN camera available.

This EPL7 is a step down, as far as I'm concerned.

(Then again, I just bought an E-M10, so I guess I don't care all that much.)

Direct link | Posted on Sep 5, 2014 at 19:33 UTC
On Olympus PEN E-PL7 First Impressions Review preview (501 comments in total)
In reply to:

Marc J: I am horribly appalled by the marketing of this thing, and by the accompanying change in the marketing of the whole PEN line. I was fairly proud of my E-PL5, but with the current marketing, I should feel embarrassed to ever pull it out. What happened to photography? Anyone want to tell me that those who like to match their cameras with their purses have any clue of, say, sensor size? Or of a difference between lenses? And that they actually want to know about it?

"I was fairly proud of my E-PL5, but with the current marketing, I should feel embarrassed to ever pull it out."

I use my camera to take pictures. Why would I ever be embarrassed at the tools I choose?

If you really need your camera to be a fashion accessory that badly, either buy a Leica or just shoot with your iPhone.

And while you do that, I'll be busy taking pictures.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 5, 2014 at 19:28 UTC
In reply to:

Daniel Lauring: I have a feeling this is just another low IQ superzoom that duplicates existing lenses. Tamron and Sigma should concentrate on some high quality fast zooms to support m43. How about a 12-60 F2.8 or F4? That would make a dynamite semi-pro walkaround lens.

"if they're still leary about joining m4/3 at all, targeting only the smaller group of high end m4/3 users is an even bigger gamble."

That's better than targeting no one by duplicating lenses that are already there (and good).

Direct link | Posted on Jun 19, 2014 at 15:50 UTC
In reply to:

ray-ray: The fact is, the digital age has changed and everything heretofore has gone out the window in regard to intellectual property. We've seen this time and time again with digital music and digital imaging suffers the same plight. The days of original tape recordings and original negatives have faded into history. The onus is on the artist and photographer to accept the fact that the rules of the game have changed. It's way too easy to copy, manipulate, alter and otherwise pilfer digital files. You can't count on everyone being honest, because history has proved that not everyone is. The primary reason for protecting one's work is to protect the revenue it potentially can generate. That being said, new ways are going to have to be discovered to guarantee the revenue stream.

The answer really isn't that difficult. If all it takes to defeat your business model is removing a watermark (something any idiot can figure out how to do with 10 seconds of googling and some free software) then your business model is crap.

Charge for the shoot, with the agreement that all images from it belong to the client. Collect half up front, and half when you show the client the images on YOUR computer. Problem solved.

Jesus, no wonder the photographers here complain about losing revenue -- use your heads! The world has changed; change with it or find a new line of work.

Direct link | Posted on May 29, 2014 at 03:20 UTC
On Walmart sues photographer's widow over family pictures article (200 comments in total)
In reply to:

Wubslin: I'm with Walmart on this one. No-one has the 'right' to take pictures of people.

That's irrelevant. Legally, all that matters are the circumstances under which the photos were taken, which isn't at all clear based on this article.

Direct link | Posted on May 20, 2014 at 19:32 UTC
Total: 130, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »