BobORama

BobORama

Lives in United States Allentown USA, Earth, United States
Works as a kernel application developer
Has a website at blog.trafficshaper.com
Joined on Jun 20, 2006
About me:

Find someone with a better plan, hit them over the head, steal their plan.

Comments

Total: 59, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous123Next ›Last »
In reply to:

Nereo: Um... I'm beginning to think we need a new standard other than "ISO" to measure light sensitivity.

ISO came from the sensitivity of coated glass collodian plates (ISO ~1 !) Then came the films, and it was still easy to keep track that ISO 100 was 4x as sensitive as ISO 25. But now we've got cameras with ISO 102,400 and now 4 million?! Quick: how many stops between 1600 and 102,400?

Since camera sensitivities now exceed two orders of magnitude, why not have a sensitivity measurement that matches? e.g. ISO 100 = 1, 200 = 2, 400 = 3, 1600 = 4... each double the previous level in sensitivity.
This new camera exceeds "16" on our sensitivity scale!

Suntan,

In the end you can sugar coat shutter speed, sensitivity, and aperture in whatever way you like and they will still be confusing to people who can't do basic math. There have been many attempts at this simplification over the decades to varying degrees. But magically millions of photographers managed to do this - as evidenced by billions of photos taken prior to automatic exposure.

As for these things being "nerd stuff" that is equine excrement.

That would be like saying that measuring cups and temperature settings on an oven are obstacles to learning how to bake a cake. Or having to know how to use a torque wrench is an affect imposed upon us by the vast right wing mechanics conspiracy.

Why not argue that thermometers are too complicated. Why not just have 3 temperatures: ice, fire, and and tepid - like your argument.

How to make a cake:

Pile up some ingredients, preheat oven to "fire" and bake for some unspecified amount of time - because cakes are magic!

Direct link | Posted on Jul 30, 2015 at 18:34 UTC

The cartoon is fine - at least it took some talent.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 15, 2015 at 01:28 UTC as 45th comment | 1 reply
On article Canon warns about dangers of counterfeit camera gear (154 comments in total)

Another victimless crime. Canon charges premium prices for a product made in China. Customers got a "better deal" by saving a few bucks on the counterfeit.

When a thief thieves a thief, God laughs. In this case, twice.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 3, 2015 at 01:45 UTC as 50th comment | 3 replies
In reply to:

CharlesB58: Well, it's obvious some of the comments posted here are not only made by people who are not working music photographers, but not working photographers at all. The return a photographer gets of a given use of a photo is usually a fraction of what the record label saves with their unlimited use provisions. If you know the industry, you know that labels do all they can to screw their own artists out of money. The greed factor trickles down hill and is often disguised as Intellectual Property Rights.

I've dealt first hand with musicians who loudly protest the idea of of not receiving fair compensation for performances or distribution of recordings then tell me with a smile that they want to use my photos "for credit". I smile back and point out that I am every bit the professional they are. Sometimes we then agree on a usage fee. Other times they resort to using crappy smartphone photos taken by people who are thrilled to get their names on the artist's website.

Many times an artist would like to use my photos, but his/her contract requires approval by his/her label's publicity department. Dealing with those people, who are the ones who come up with the crappy photo contracts, is like undergoing dental work without anesthesia, unless you are already on their approved list.

So please, if you aren't an actual music photographer, consider that your comments don't have much weight in this discussion.

Thanks for what is a truly refreshing level of intellectual honesty!

Direct link | Posted on Jun 26, 2015 at 19:32 UTC
In reply to:

CharlesB58: Well, it's obvious some of the comments posted here are not only made by people who are not working music photographers, but not working photographers at all. The return a photographer gets of a given use of a photo is usually a fraction of what the record label saves with their unlimited use provisions. If you know the industry, you know that labels do all they can to screw their own artists out of money. The greed factor trickles down hill and is often disguised as Intellectual Property Rights.

I've dealt first hand with musicians who loudly protest the idea of of not receiving fair compensation for performances or distribution of recordings then tell me with a smile that they want to use my photos "for credit". I smile back and point out that I am every bit the professional they are. Sometimes we then agree on a usage fee. Other times they resort to using crappy smartphone photos taken by people who are thrilled to get their names on the artist's website.

Many times an artist would like to use my photos, but his/her contract requires approval by his/her label's publicity department. Dealing with those people, who are the ones who come up with the crappy photo contracts, is like undergoing dental work without anesthesia, unless you are already on their approved list.

So please, if you aren't an actual music photographer, consider that your comments don't have much weight in this discussion.

Perhaps you need your own forum to whine about the deficiencies of your chosen profession's revenue model. If you don't don't like an agreement, don't enter into it. Its that simple. The fact is that "photographers" are a dime a dozen - and so its a buyers market.

To try to convince the unwashed masses you are part of a special / protected class of creative artist who deserves something better - that's clearly not true. Otherwise you could name your terms.

If you are taking pictures for hire, then you are an employee. If you want to be an artist, I recommend being financial independent first. Then you won't have to soil yourself with being beholden to your patrons. Until then, either sign your life away or not.

But the moment you take a dime for your work, its transmutation to a product has begun, and instead of an artists you are a craftsman. And further down the road, a factory worker - liek the rest of us slobs.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 26, 2015 at 19:28 UTC

Slow news day?

Direct link | Posted on Jun 25, 2015 at 23:57 UTC as 29th comment
On Connect post QromaScan uses your smartphone for digitizing prints (45 comments in total)

Nice try, DPR, but it is a little late for an April Fools piece, guys!

Direct link | Posted on May 6, 2015 at 12:12 UTC as 14th comment

If you put it on a Pentax, you would have 3+ stops of image stabilization. I have a 400mm lens from the 1950's and can get tack sharp shots hand held. That's why Pentax rocks!

Anway, with many pieces of similar glass in the secondary market already available, no need to save up for the Heliar. If you want to play with manual focus lenses, give it a try on whatever camera you have.

Direct link | Posted on May 6, 2015 at 12:06 UTC as 16th comment | 3 replies

If you look CAREFULLY at the R, G, and B ray path images provided, you see the problem immediately. While the lens is achromatic for in focus subjects, the OOF image areas are not. And they cannot be. "Show me the bokeh." I expect it to be an incredible melange of badness.

-- Bob

Direct link | Posted on Mar 13, 2015 at 00:23 UTC as 13th comment | 4 replies
On article Opinion: The myth of the upgrade path (1523 comments in total)

As a Pentax user, we have been ready for 50 years, given that the announced FF Pentax offering will use any lens that worked on any Pentax body going back 50 years.

The in-body share reduction technology means every lens I already have is image stabilized, and will provide a 2-3 stop advantage, and handles rotation around the optical axis, like shutter press blur - which OIS cannot.

There are already many decent older ( but not necessarily great ) full frame lenses for me to use. I have a couple of them. And some of the cheap lenses, by Samyang for example, which have very high image quality but lack OIS ( for your platform ) are magically image stabilized on the Pentax.

So yeah, I guess some platforms do not have an upgrade path. Weird, huh?

-- Bob

Direct link | Posted on Feb 22, 2015 at 19:47 UTC as 60th comment
On photo Under Water Selfie in the Underwater Photography challenge (1 comment in total)

Mission accomplished!

Direct link | Posted on Feb 14, 2015 at 03:43 UTC as 1st comment
On article CP+ 2015: Canon shows 11-24mm in cross-section (63 comments in total)

Who has the incredibly fun job of cutting lenses in half? Because that looks like a lot of fun.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 13, 2015 at 22:36 UTC as 11th comment
On article Nikon D750 Review (1970 comments in total)

To summarize: "That can't be a problem, its a Nikon."

Direct link | Posted on Jan 23, 2015 at 01:26 UTC as 142nd comment

"Raping the Internet has never been so easy!"

How is this any different from downloading the CC images and printing them? Not very different at all.

As for these images competing with "fine art" photographers - how? Not everything that is CC is something you'd want a poster print of. e.g.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/45/Dog_feces.jpg

And to be honest, the difference between "artist" and the rest of us is time and money.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 23, 2014 at 03:06 UTC as 10th comment | 5 replies
On article Light Field Cameras - Focusing on the Future (142 comments in total)

The silly physical design of the camera betrays the struggle to differentiate it from "normal" cameras.

Consumers do not care HOW the camera arrives at "focus as a afterthought." The way the Lytro does it is unimportant to consumers. Most people use phone cameras, so they will not be a Lytro customers.

The market for such a camera is therefor "true believers" - which does not bode well.

Direct link | Posted on May 18, 2014 at 14:10 UTC as 23rd comment | 3 replies
On article Did Amazon just patent the seamless background setup? (133 comments in total)

Congratulations, Amazon, on re-inventing the usage of the cyclorama.

Direct link | Posted on May 8, 2014 at 01:17 UTC as 24th comment
On article Is it true? New service detects processed photos (89 comments in total)
In reply to:

Mark Banas: It seems to accept, and trust, falsified EXIF info (via EXIFtool) with no problem, so my Pentax K-5 must actually be a 16MP Nikon D800? Not terribly sophisticated service...

If I stand where Ansel Adams stood, take the exact same shot, and do the same PP in the dark room, can I sell it as an Ansel Adams? Because that's the argument... Provenance matters, so by extension the EXIF matters.

Direct link | Posted on May 7, 2014 at 21:11 UTC
On article Is it true? New service detects processed photos (89 comments in total)
In reply to:

Marky boy: who cares.... really....we like what we like, regardless of how, what and where. We can tie ourselves up in knots about post processing, however, it is no different to darkroom skills of old......

The value to this goes beyond the trivial use of determining if the supermodels eyebrows were digitally waxed. It could easily establish forgeries, and settle ownership issues. Furthermore, a system could be constructed to create a certificate chain like verification mechanism that would establish derived works. So photo B is an edited version of photo A, but B's crypto gobbledygook is chained to A's.

PKI + EXIF

-- Bob

Direct link | Posted on May 7, 2014 at 20:57 UTC
On article Is it true? New service detects processed photos (89 comments in total)
In reply to:

Marky boy: who cares.... really....we like what we like, regardless of how, what and where. We can tie ourselves up in knots about post processing, however, it is no different to darkroom skills of old......

Yes and no. Film and the camera it was shot in could be examined by an expert and one could conclusively determine if it was faked. But the negative would provide a level of repudiation against a modified print.

The digital negative has no non-repudiation mechanism. So its inherently NOT the same. Security logs on truely secure systems will have a non-repudiation mechanism, usually a cryptographic checksum.

In the context of a camera, the camera would use a private key to sign / encrypt the cryptographic checksum of the image data. ( The signatory agent could also be a wifi attached service, so some other mechanism. ) Then should someone need to validate the digital negative they need only decrypt the checksum value with the cameras public key. The checksum can be verified against the image data, and you have verified that this particular camera took that particular negative.

Direct link | Posted on May 7, 2014 at 20:47 UTC
On article Is it true? New service detects processed photos (89 comments in total)

I'd love to have access to the original test images. Its super easy to tell if an image has been edited - even expertly - as each layer of edits has its own signature.

Perhaps DPR should have a "Is It Fake?" challenge with 10 pictures, and see if we, as human beings, are better than the soul-less cloudy-cloud. We fill out a true / false form for each and whoever gets it right is put in a pool to win something.

EXIF data does not contain a non-repudiation mechanism and can be forged easily. Its a bad litmus test for both real and fake photos.

-- Bob

Direct link | Posted on May 7, 2014 at 19:36 UTC as 14th comment
Total: 59, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous123Next ›Last »