GlobalGuyUSA

GlobalGuyUSA

Lives in United States Los Angeles, United States
Works as a International Trade
Joined on Jun 24, 2007
About me:

My business is marketing international trade, not photography. My hobbies are primarily graphic art and then photography. Take comments with a grain of salt. I'll learn as much from you as I hope to share with others.

Comments

Total: 71, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous1234Next ›Last »
In reply to:

bluevellet: The number of comments about those empty tubes exceed that for the review of the GH4.

When those tubes become lenses, DPReview will explode if they dare to review them.

They won't dare; website would crash.

If we can comment this much about nothing, just imagine if there was something to go on about.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 12, 2014 at 05:32 UTC
In reply to:

win39: It is embarrassingly shiny. This looks like the cheap lenses of my youth, like Exactas, while the Leicas and Contarexes were lovely satin chrome, all over.

I think they look quite nice. Well, industrial anyway. Not exactly works of art. But nice.

Although, I'm a Nikon user, and Nikon has atrociously ugly lenses quite often (like the old 18-55 VR, or the new 28/1.8), if you look at the profile of these lenses, they are lumpy and bumpy with totally useless indentations in random places and tacky gold everywhere. Looks aside, the feel is often pretty nice (easy to hold/grip).

I like the look of many of the new Sigmas and also some Sonys. But sometimes these sleeker looking lenses aren't the most grippy or the easiest to hold. The Sigma 50/1.4Art looks quite nice (looks very functional yet sleek), but is a bit slippery to hold, especially the metal part and the plastic mid-section (despite its grooves, which the fingers sort of glide along).

Mind you, all of this is separate from function.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 12, 2014 at 05:31 UTC
On Manfrotto announces carbon fiber BeFree tripod article (110 comments in total)
In reply to:

Just another Canon shooter: The leg tube's diameters are too small with 12mm for the lower one. There are better travel tripods out there, not more expensive.

It doesn't really matter, people. Sheesh. In principle, JACS is correct. Technically, HARAW leaves a point of question. You can't settle it by going back and forth.

Wait for a technical review to appear online. But we can say, in general, you can make your purchase under the advice of JACS and you'll be OK.

Manfrotto isn't exactly well-known for the best tripods anyway.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 14, 2014 at 23:23 UTC
On Manfrotto announces carbon fiber BeFree tripod article (110 comments in total)
In reply to:

Just another Canon shooter: The leg tube's diameters are too small with 12mm for the lower one. There are better travel tripods out there, not more expensive.

Can you recommend a couple?

Direct link | Posted on Aug 14, 2014 at 18:54 UTC
In reply to:

GlobalGuyUSA: If you train an animal to push a shutter button -- is it any different from pushing a remote shutter button yourself? He created the "studio" in nature, worked hard for the opportunity, he chose the camera settings, he chose the photo, he edited it significantly, he processed it professionally, he presented, and it was his gear. He did AT LEAST 50% of the art work. More, IMO.

If a dog walks on a wet painting -- does the painter not get credit?

The monkey is a monkey -- its essentially the same thing as having your camera fall off the couch & take a picture on its own. A monkey is like a piece of furniture.

The key point is that the ARTIST selected the photo, processed it, marketed it, and it was with their gear, which they bought, and in an opportunity that the artist created. An electrical static discharge could set off a chinese wireless shutter or change a setting -- it doesn't mean that static discharge gets 100% of the credit and that there was no Human Artist involved in the making of the work.

Even if the Artist only has 5% credit, the only one who can CLAIM legal credit is the artist. Thus 100% of the rights should be with the only human involved artistically.

Its common sense people.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 11, 2014 at 20:06 UTC
In reply to:

GlobalGuyUSA: If a child takes his own photograph using settings provided by a parent -- and a parent selects that photograph, crops it, processes it, markets it, does the child or the parent own the copyright?

How many photographers with children have used their children's works illegally if that's the case? The fact is that the parent did more than 50% of the image creation. It was a team effort.

Same with this monkey case; it was a joint effort.

But in this case, the monkey has no legal status and is happy to get bananas. The photographer should get his fees.

That's actually my point which I'm making in a round about way. The monkey doesn't have agency. So if an artist did any work to set it up the production he should have ownership. A monkey is obviously LESS THAN a child. So his legal status shouldn't be greater in this bizarro thinking. Make no mistake, this man developed and edited the photograph. A parent could claim that photo by manipulating or even outright stealing a childs photo... But an artist manipulating something with great effort which nature only touched cannot? It makes no sense. If laws are written by people and arbitrary as such, and a parent can hold the work made by their child, then obviously a case could be made that a human who gives a camera to an animal, but he himself selects the final image to be developed from his own gear property, processed, and marketed, should have a right to that image. For those saying no, what about pets vs. child?

(The parent-child thing is just to get people thinking).

Direct link | Posted on Aug 11, 2014 at 06:32 UTC
In reply to:

GlobalGuyUSA: If you train an animal to push a shutter button -- is it any different from pushing a remote shutter button yourself? He created the "studio" in nature, worked hard for the opportunity, he chose the camera settings, he chose the photo, he edited it significantly, he processed it professionally, he presented, and it was his gear. He did AT LEAST 50% of the art work. More, IMO.

If a dog walks on a wet painting -- does the painter not get credit?

Well, that's what we're debating, aren't we. Maybe the law doesn't consider everything. And maybe theres wiggle room. And maybe theres an exception. I dont claim to be a lawyer. But I do know whats right and wrong. This artist made art out of this photo, which was from his property and his settings and his work. If a monkey pushes a button without any sense of timing whatsoever -- and the timing was entirely due to the opportunity generated by the artist in his work to get there -- its ethically and should be legally wrong to deny him his credit and dues.

Frankly, I dont think people need to be stubborn on this -- they need to look closely at the law and change it if need be. And I'll tell you why -- because more and more of life is getting automated (robots, etc). There is bound to come up with situations where it is an APP or a robot or something that triggers the shutter, but 100% of everything else set up by an actual human.

Please think about it, not just reacte.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 10, 2014 at 00:22 UTC
In reply to:

GlobalGuyUSA: If you train an animal to push a shutter button -- is it any different from pushing a remote shutter button yourself? He created the "studio" in nature, worked hard for the opportunity, he chose the camera settings, he chose the photo, he edited it significantly, he processed it professionally, he presented, and it was his gear. He did AT LEAST 50% of the art work. More, IMO.

If a dog walks on a wet painting -- does the painter not get credit?

The monkey doesn't have agency. The human applied his agency to the situation the monkey was in. Its very clear.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 9, 2014 at 23:40 UTC
In reply to:

E_Nielsen: In retrospect, Slater may have handled it wrong. He could have said that he took the photos, not the monkey. After all, where's the definitive evidence that the monkey pressed the shutter release? You can't tell from the photo.

Had he done that, the public may have been equally impressed albeit for a different reason: what other photographer can get that close to a wild animal and make it smile into the camera? Shoot, I can't even do that with humans!

Speaking of humans, that's who copyright laws were written for. It's a foolish notion to argue that animals should be granted copyright protection. Shame on Wikimedia Commons for grabbing Slater's photos and using that feeble excuse.

A bit low, Nielson. But these are our relatives. And its our bread and butter -- you don't want it to get "trendy" for LARGE multi-million dollar corporations to trounce photographers. Every photographer should take it personally, because the legal precedents define our economic future, which is already souring enough on its own.

Besides: We're all apes and monkeys and cavemen and a little bananas -- especially at DPReview. Go check out the Forum comments and see for yourself. :-D

Direct link | Posted on Aug 8, 2014 at 23:32 UTC

If a child takes his own photograph using settings provided by a parent -- and a parent selects that photograph, crops it, processes it, markets it, does the child or the parent own the copyright?

How many photographers with children have used their children's works illegally if that's the case? The fact is that the parent did more than 50% of the image creation. It was a team effort.

Same with this monkey case; it was a joint effort.

But in this case, the monkey has no legal status and is happy to get bananas. The photographer should get his fees.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 8, 2014 at 23:25 UTC as 186th comment | 3 replies
In reply to:

vFunct: I'm mostly amazed at how little people understand that photography involves a LOT more than merely pointing a camera and pressing a shutter release button.

Editing - which frames to cut or not - is a major skill in photography. You are defined by what you DON'T publish, instead of what you do publish.

Just deciding the location is a major creative aspect of photography.

The subtle skill of casting is also what determines a good fashion photographer from a bad one.

Those are all aspects of the photo that determine its authorship.

Exactly. He did MORE than 50% of the art work.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 8, 2014 at 23:20 UTC

If you train an animal to push a shutter button -- is it any different from pushing a remote shutter button yourself? He created the "studio" in nature, worked hard for the opportunity, he chose the camera settings, he chose the photo, he edited it significantly, he processed it professionally, he presented, and it was his gear. He did AT LEAST 50% of the art work. More, IMO.

If a dog walks on a wet painting -- does the painter not get credit?

Direct link | Posted on Aug 8, 2014 at 23:19 UTC as 187th comment | 6 replies
In reply to:

E_Nielsen: In retrospect, Slater may have handled it wrong. He could have said that he took the photos, not the monkey. After all, where's the definitive evidence that the monkey pressed the shutter release? You can't tell from the photo.

Had he done that, the public may have been equally impressed albeit for a different reason: what other photographer can get that close to a wild animal and make it smile into the camera? Shoot, I can't even do that with humans!

Speaking of humans, that's who copyright laws were written for. It's a foolish notion to argue that animals should be granted copyright protection. Shame on Wikimedia Commons for grabbing Slater's photos and using that feeble excuse.

Frankly, Wikipedia and others are acting disgracefully. He set the camera settings, he provided the camera, he set up everything with tremendous effort, he chose the photograph, he processed it. He could still claim that the monkey "taking its own pic" was just a clever marketing ploy & that he actually used a wireless remote (as his "legal position" : go ahead, prove otherwise, Wikipedia -- ask the monkey if you want). After he wins his case, he later can say that he had to say that just to fend against mis-use.

I strongly think that if a painter works WITH an animal (lets say a dog, or an elephant -- whatever) that the painter made the work. If its an accidental work, in the sense that an artist had nothing to do with it, okay, fine, belongs to nature.... But this photographer clearly chose the SETTINGS pre-photo, PROCESSED THE WORK, and set up the "studio" for nature. Its not like he doesn't own at least 50% of the work.

Wikipedia is in the wrong, and its pretty disgraceful.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 8, 2014 at 23:16 UTC
On Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100 III Review preview (804 comments in total)
In reply to:

GlobalGuyUSA: I would like to see FUJI make a rival to this one.

Sony often forgets how users "feel," but Fuji is doing pretty good there.

When you say the Sony is heavy-handed in its processing -- is it able to be reduced through the software (to a degree whereby its not really heavy handed)?

That's too bad -- I think that's an area where FUJI also would be more responsive (I'm not trying to pit Sony against Fuji, I just would really like to see a Fuji competitor to this camera & see how much progress can be made). Sony is doing a good job with this one, and I think one or two worthy competitors always improves the product.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 5, 2014 at 20:25 UTC
On Tamron SP 150-600mm F/5-6.3 Di VC USD Lab Test Review preview (233 comments in total)
In reply to:

tabloid: f5-f6.3
LOL
Make sure you only use it on a sunny day.

You would think that in this day and age of technology they could do a 150-600 @ f2.8

Wheres my Brownie 127

Douglas69, you need to include them in the FORUM.

Try the FX forum.

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/1021

Direct link | Posted on Jul 29, 2014 at 23:31 UTC
On Tamron SP 150-600mm F/5-6.3 Di VC USD Lab Test Review preview (233 comments in total)
In reply to:

Daniel Clune: I keep seeing the sigma 150-500 compared to the Tamron. The Sigma 50-500-OS is the better lens. Sigmas 150-500 has ALWAYS been a stinker. I tested 3 of them they were ALL sub par even compared against my first gen 50-500 non OS let alone the newest 50-500 OS. BUT it does cost more so maybe thats why but still.

I feel doubtful, because I personally started that rumor 3 years ago or so on NikonRumors. But I guess anything is possible in that time. I really want them to make it.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 18, 2014 at 05:35 UTC
On In photos: Swimming with jellyfish article (20 comments in total)

These things always remind me of Metroid.

And Mother Brain, haha.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 14, 2014 at 23:33 UTC as 1st comment
In reply to:

BJN: I like and use Peak Design's Camera Clips. I also got several of their leashes and cuffs. I've found that their anchor and clip system isn't reliable - at least not consistently so. Some clips I got refused to securely lock the anchor buttons. Since the same clips and anchors are part of this new product campaign, I'm avoiding this one. And since these new straps are targeted at bigger and heavier camera equipment, I advise being careful if you do decide to use them. Check to make sure the buttons engage fully in the clips.

This could be a manufacturing problem, but the metal spring clip's design seems vulnerable to slight variations in the bend of the latch.

I felt like quite a few of the comments being posted on this page are from competitor products. But I wouldn't question someone with hundreds of posts.

Ive seen guys with 4 posts comment repeatedly about an item, and that left a question. But others have made hundreds of comments here, and we can accept at least their experience, even if its not the norm.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 14, 2014 at 21:24 UTC
In reply to:

Jonathan F/2: Another strap? Why the heck would I want to be walking around with a giant camera hanging off my neck? It just screams rob me when walking in shady neighborhoods.

Jon, you should buy a camera more suitable to your neighborhood if that's what you're worried about. Even the street kids have cellphones these days, so a m3/4 is probably what you're looking for.

Anyway, a bag won't help either. Its not like a dude walking around with a big bag wont arise suspicion. (I guess he isn't allowed to take it out of the bag either). Its the risk one takes in any neighborhood. Sometimes you get robbed.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 14, 2014 at 21:19 UTC
In reply to:

nxtiak: The Glide Strap + C-Loop by Custom SLR is so much better.
http://www.customslr.com/products/glide-strap
They did a Kickstarter for both several years ago.

Have you tried this new one yet..?

Direct link | Posted on Jul 14, 2014 at 21:17 UTC
Total: 71, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous1234Next ›Last »