Artistico

Artistico

Lives in United Kingdom Inverness, United Kingdom
Works as a Artist
Has a website at http://www.galleryhakon.com
Joined on Nov 1, 2007

Comments

Total: 241, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

Artistico: Even without the red dot, I like that it still looks like a Leica. Perhaps it's a stealth thing. Without the red dot, it's less likely to be noticed or stolen. Then again, the resale value might suffer, so I'm sure you'll get people adding a red dot themselves, just like I've seen someone add red rings to non-L Canon lenses and selling them on eBay. Interestingly, the buyers actually bought them for more than the lenses cost new, which goes to show what we already knew: people like showing off their iconic brand looks.

Surely, if all hipsters have a Leica, it's not hip anymore, so they would need to get something else. The Hasselblad Solar springs to mind...

Direct link | Posted on Aug 22, 2014 at 15:43 UTC
On Sony a7S used to shoot Chevrolet commercial article (265 comments in total)
In reply to:

dash2k8: All these haters coming out of the woods! I see this situation as Company A decided to use Device B to shoot Commercial C. Who cares what they use, as long as they get the desired results? The Mona Lisa was painted with a 0 megapixel camel hair brush but the result wasn't so bad, was it?

If you don't like the A7s, say "I don't like the A7s" or "I would use something more powerful/expensive/professional." To dump on this camera just because it's not an Arri is nothing but self-service.

Oh yes, Rafael was brilliant. Michelangelo, on the other hand, was vastly overrated as a painter, but better as a sculptor. DaVinci was okay, but it's not his paintings that are his best or most interesting work.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 22, 2014 at 15:41 UTC
On Sony a7S used to shoot Chevrolet commercial article (265 comments in total)
In reply to:

dash2k8: All these haters coming out of the woods! I see this situation as Company A decided to use Device B to shoot Commercial C. Who cares what they use, as long as they get the desired results? The Mona Lisa was painted with a 0 megapixel camel hair brush but the result wasn't so bad, was it?

If you don't like the A7s, say "I don't like the A7s" or "I would use something more powerful/expensive/professional." To dump on this camera just because it's not an Arri is nothing but self-service.

There is no such thing as a camel hair paintbrush. For some reason someone called cheaper soft brushes camel hair at some point, to make it sound more exotic and exclusive than horse or pony.

Brushes used by DaVinci would have been similar to the kind of natural animal hair brushes you get today: squirrel, sable, badger, mongoose, boar - to list them roughly in order of firmness.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 22, 2014 at 09:31 UTC

Even without the red dot, I like that it still looks like a Leica. Perhaps it's a stealth thing. Without the red dot, it's less likely to be noticed or stolen. Then again, the resale value might suffer, so I'm sure you'll get people adding a red dot themselves, just like I've seen someone add red rings to non-L Canon lenses and selling them on eBay. Interestingly, the buyers actually bought them for more than the lenses cost new, which goes to show what we already knew: people like showing off their iconic brand looks.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 22, 2014 at 09:20 UTC as 45th comment | 4 replies
In reply to:

hookah: Slater's equipment,Slater's property,Slater's copyright!!!!!!!!!

If someone sets up a camera and shot and asks you to press the shutter release, you do not own copyright. Legally, the second you agree to do it, you're contractually hired to do the job of taking the picture, so it's no different from work for hire, really.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 21, 2014 at 09:11 UTC
In reply to:

hookah: Slater's equipment,Slater's property,Slater's copyright!!!!!!!!!

If you set up the shot and someone else presses the shutter, that could easily be argued in a court of law to be your shot and copyright should the "monkey" who pressed the shutter release dispute it.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 20, 2014 at 21:39 UTC
In reply to:

hookah: Slater's equipment,Slater's property,Slater's copyright!!!!!!!!!

@John Clinch. Copyright does not reside with the owner of the recording media. In the case of a press photographer, however, it's work for hire, which implicitly - but also probably explicitly stated in their contracts to avoid disputes - belongs to the employer, ie the news agency or publication. Though the employer might own the media, the camera, or both, that is not what gives them copyright.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 19, 2014 at 14:24 UTC
In reply to:

hookah: Slater's equipment,Slater's property,Slater's copyright!!!!!!!!!

@Omexis - technically, if you wanted to dispute it, you would own the copyright if someone asked you to take a picture of them.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 17, 2014 at 21:12 UTC
On Behind the Shot: Flames of the North article (67 comments in total)
In reply to:

jerrith: Excellent step by step explanation. I've forwarded this article to a friend who will be visiting the northern cape in Sweden, so he can use the technique described to get a stunning shot of the northern lights there.

I suppose it should be possible to see it in September, at least quite late at night as there are very long twilight periods: the sun goes neither high above or below the horizon that far north. I've never been at those latitudes in September - only to Svalbard which is a lot farther north again, and where I do think it was too bright to see any auroras, and the wrong time of year to see too many polar bears either - so I can't say for sure. You definitely get very long sunrises and sunsets at the North Cape, which can look quite astounding. I'd think November to January, when the sun doesn't rise, would be the ideal time for the northern lights up there, though.

Anyway, even without the northern lights, northern Norway is beautiful and worth a visit. I am definitely going back there some day. Not sure I'll get my wife to go there, though - especially not in aurora season, as she'd be worried about the cold...

Direct link | Posted on Aug 11, 2014 at 18:19 UTC
On Behind the Shot: Flames of the North article (67 comments in total)
In reply to:

jerrith: Excellent step by step explanation. I've forwarded this article to a friend who will be visiting the northern cape in Sweden, so he can use the technique described to get a stunning shot of the northern lights there.

There is actually an area called Northern Cape in South Africa, easily confused with the North Cape, which is the one in Norway. The latter is not the ideal place for northern lights, by the way, which is in a belt around the magnetic north that crosses Norway 1.5 degrees farther south, at Tromsø, near which is the island of Andøya with its northern lights and weather observatory. Of course it would get dark a bit earlier at the North Cape, increasing the time one can see the Aurora.

I presume it's a late autumn, early winter trip? It'd be too bright around the clock this time of year to see anything.

I've been up north in winter several times myself when I was in the Norwegian Navy, but only on a few occasions did I see the northern lights. I did spend most of my time indoors in the continuously dark command and control central, though, never doing lookout duty, so I'm sure I missed some spectacular sights because of that. At least I was inside, dry and warm all the time.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 11, 2014 at 14:13 UTC
On Behind the Shot: Flames of the North article (67 comments in total)
In reply to:

jerrith: Excellent step by step explanation. I've forwarded this article to a friend who will be visiting the northern cape in Sweden, so he can use the technique described to get a stunning shot of the northern lights there.

There are as far as I know no capes in the north of Sweden. Might it be the North Cape in Norway he's going to?

Direct link | Posted on Aug 11, 2014 at 09:45 UTC
In reply to:

Benoz: Interesting and different point of views below!
Obviously the the issue is a serious one for the photographer and I wish him a successful outcome with Wikimedia. I still am of the opinion that he is entitled to the copyright of those shots.

Just to throw in a bit of a funny note...how did the photographer managed to get his camera back from the monkey?? If by any chance he got the camera back by giving the monkey a...banana, he could claim that he bought the images, and copyright, for a banana!! ;-)

Ah... but the images were not the monkey's to sell. As the monkey took them, they had already moved into public domain and he can't transfer ownership of something he doesn't own, regardless of how yummy the banana might have been.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 8, 2014 at 21:32 UTC

Why is this news? I thought most photos these days were taken by monkeys with cameras - especially selfies.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 8, 2014 at 11:33 UTC as 203rd comment

I think any three-dimensional work of creativity in a public space, such as monuments, should be considered public domain. Also, when you take pictures of them, your choice of angle, exposure, background, focal length, etc, makes it an entirely unique transformative work of art very different from the original. It is not possible to confuse with the original: who can hold this postage stamp in their hand and think that they are actually holding the monument itself? They do not take the livelihood away from the original artist. if someone wants a sculpture done, they ask a sculptor, not someone who have taken a picture of one. Also, you'd not settle for just a photo or drawing of a sculpture instead and place that in the middle of the park.

I think copyright laws have gone completely overboard. I think it should last a limited time after a work first is published, say 25 years or so, and not extend to significantly different mediums, like statue to photo or vice versa.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 8, 2014 at 09:33 UTC as 8th comment
In reply to:

Buttons252: Everyone is talking about what is legal, but why aren't we talking about the moral principle of right and wrong?

In my opinion if i purchase a sculpture, a car, a magazine I should be able to do whatever I please with it because I own it. In my opinion it is no longer his creation when he sells it. If he leased it to the government then I could see this being an issue.

And if you purchase an original painting, you would want to reproduce it and sell it for profit, because ownership of the original entitles you to?

Direct link | Posted on Aug 8, 2014 at 09:13 UTC
In reply to:

rinkos: is it the photographers camera which he held just before the monkey took it ? ..then case closed .

such nonsense . there is the law and there is the spirit of the laws intentions .

obviously the lack of copyrights situation is not related to the case of a monkey taking your camera ? ...

i had a gun ..i let a person take it from me and do as he will with it and he shot some people..therefore he alone is guilty of murder ????? ..LOL

Anyway, I do agree with you in that in the spirit of the law, the photographer should get copyright. I'm just disagreeing with your terrible analogy.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 8, 2014 at 09:07 UTC
In reply to:

rinkos: is it the photographers camera which he held just before the monkey took it ? ..then case closed .

such nonsense . there is the law and there is the spirit of the laws intentions .

obviously the lack of copyrights situation is not related to the case of a monkey taking your camera ? ...

i had a gun ..i let a person take it from me and do as he will with it and he shot some people..therefore he alone is guilty of murder ????? ..LOL

Of course you're not accessory to murder automatically if you give someone your gun. At least not initially. If you know their intent to kill someone at the time of handing the gun over, you might be. If you tell them to kill someone, you would be, and if you know it happens and helps cover it up, you also will be.

But the action of lending someone your gun is either completely legal or disallowed by your local gun laws, and in the latter case you could - at worst - be charged with the breach of those if all that could be proved was that you unknowingly lent a killer your gun.

Regardless of whether you get charged with murder or not, however, it still doesn't make any sense as an analogy for the case of the monkey photos.

To follow your analogy, the photographer lent the camera to the monkey and was therefore accessory to the photos? So therefore photographers' assistants who prepare cameras for the photographer should get copyright of the images shot?

Direct link | Posted on Aug 8, 2014 at 09:06 UTC
In reply to:

rinkos: is it the photographers camera which he held just before the monkey took it ? ..then case closed .

such nonsense . there is the law and there is the spirit of the laws intentions .

obviously the lack of copyrights situation is not related to the case of a monkey taking your camera ? ...

i had a gun ..i let a person take it from me and do as he will with it and he shot some people..therefore he alone is guilty of murder ????? ..LOL

I see what you think is right, but it's a terrible example. If you give someone a gun and they kill someone of their own free will, they are alone responsible for murder.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 7, 2014 at 14:04 UTC

Shame it's not really a very nice picture to start with, so that any discussion about it would have been more interesting.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 26, 2014 at 09:30 UTC as 76th comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

Joriarty: "Even if you post at low resolution, people will find the full-res image anyway." Only if you upload the full resolution image to somewhere else in the first place. /derp

My thought exactly...

Direct link | Posted on Jul 26, 2014 at 09:27 UTC
Total: 241, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »