Matt1645f4

Matt1645f4

Lives in United Kingdom Guildford, United Kingdom
Joined on Mar 28, 2011

Comments

Total: 132, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On Sigma announces dp1 Quattro article (199 comments in total)
In reply to:

RStyga: As much as I like Sigma, they need to drop this Quattro-design fiasco A-S-A-P before they surpass the SD1 original release-price fiasco. WHAT ON EARTH did the designers think when creating the Quattro??? IT IS ugly, IT IS grossly not ergonomic, IT IS not compact in any conceivable way!!! There is nothing positive to this design at all. Sigma wake up...

It's worst than the Pentax K0-1 design disaster by Marc Newson. My wife is Left Handed and she cannot get on with this camera atleast with a more traditional design it is more user friendly.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 14, 2014 at 12:40 UTC
In reply to:

Matt1645f4: If its the Monkeys image, what's to stop others using images taken by the Mars rover for example the hardware is NASA's but the image is captured by the Rover (yes the rover can be made to take a photo remotely but it sends back many of its own). The same can be said for each operator that directs the rover to photo various objects. is it theirs?

It's a theoretical point

Direct link | Posted on Aug 9, 2014 at 09:42 UTC
In reply to:

Michael J Davis: I agree entirely with chillgreg!
I think of the number of creative photos I've taken 'by accident' - does that mean that I'm to be deprived of the copyright of those?

And what about that silly 'camera toss' craze a few years back - they were intended to be taken, but not under the control of the equipment owner.

This is a very dangerous precedent.

I'm not dis agreeing with you at all. It just an observation of the comments others are making that who ever took the photo owns it. It's clearly the Photographers image the process and set up he put in place to achieve this is his and not the monkeys.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 7, 2014 at 21:40 UTC
In reply to:

Matt1645f4: If he went out there with the intention of allowing the Monkey to use his equipment and see what the results would be would he still be the copyright owner?

I would of thought yes. As it would of been his creative intention that lead to the images capture. And i can't see much difference in this argument that would deny him his copyright.

This does question the right of copyright. If i was to go and make a Photograph of another photo would this entitle me to the copyright, as i would of created a new and unique image?

I don't disagree, my point is about the creative process and does the point of creation determines ownership or the creative set up and development not contribute at all.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 7, 2014 at 21:33 UTC
In reply to:

KrisAK: Headline from The Telegraph (UK news):

"Wikimedia votes to decide who owns monkey selfie."

Cast your vote today. Humans only.

Having read the article it seems to me that the the person who uploaded it a second time is using the differences of international copyright Law to validate his upload. However having already removed the photo once, hasn't Wikimedia set a precedent?

Direct link | Posted on Aug 7, 2014 at 14:53 UTC

If its the Monkeys image, what's to stop others using images taken by the Mars rover for example the hardware is NASA's but the image is captured by the Rover (yes the rover can be made to take a photo remotely but it sends back many of its own). The same can be said for each operator that directs the rover to photo various objects. is it theirs?

Direct link | Posted on Aug 7, 2014 at 14:36 UTC as 317th comment | 3 replies
In reply to:

Matt1645f4: If he went out there with the intention of allowing the Monkey to use his equipment and see what the results would be would he still be the copyright owner?

I would of thought yes. As it would of been his creative intention that lead to the images capture. And i can't see much difference in this argument that would deny him his copyright.

This does question the right of copyright. If i was to go and make a Photograph of another photo would this entitle me to the copyright, as i would of created a new and unique image?

Yes Copying another Photo is wrong, however its unclear where the copyright is on this subject.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 7, 2014 at 14:33 UTC
In reply to:

Michael J Davis: I agree entirely with chillgreg!
I think of the number of creative photos I've taken 'by accident' - does that mean that I'm to be deprived of the copyright of those?

And what about that silly 'camera toss' craze a few years back - they were intended to be taken, but not under the control of the equipment owner.

This is a very dangerous precedent.

What about the Photos Usain Bolt took during his lap of honour at the 2012 Olympics? does he own those images?

Direct link | Posted on Aug 7, 2014 at 10:27 UTC

If he went out there with the intention of allowing the Monkey to use his equipment and see what the results would be would he still be the copyright owner?

I would of thought yes. As it would of been his creative intention that lead to the images capture. And i can't see much difference in this argument that would deny him his copyright.

This does question the right of copyright. If i was to go and make a Photograph of another photo would this entitle me to the copyright, as i would of created a new and unique image?

Direct link | Posted on Aug 7, 2014 at 10:18 UTC as 364th comment | 4 replies
On Olympus OM-D E-M10 Review preview (324 comments in total)
In reply to:

Matt1645f4: Can you please stop with the lower marks for bloody poor video!!! this site is called Digital Photography review, it you insist on scoring cameras down because of video make it a totally different section or start a Digital Video Review Site, i'm bored about the lengthy failings a camera has in its lack of video......

I do appreciate the need for video but i feel that a camera should have two different scores one still and one video to make comparison easier for the consumer. But i will try and ignore the video scores :)

Direct link | Posted on Aug 2, 2014 at 17:52 UTC
On Canon India teases 'something big' coming soon article (150 comments in total)

The fact the BIG is in red suggests a long telephoto L series lens

Direct link | Posted on Jul 31, 2014 at 20:14 UTC as 55th comment
In reply to:

Mike FL: Now I know why the auction is set in Hong Kong because for the best price as see a sample below.

"Small Ming dynasty-era bowl dubbed the “chicken cup” sold for 281.2 million Hong Kong dollars (US$36.3 million) at a Sotheby’s sale in Hong Kong on Tuesday, setting a record for the most expensive Chinese porcelain ever sold at auction."

http://blogs.wsj.com/scene/2014/04/08/the-36-million-ming-dynasty-era-bowl/

@srados, the British Royal Family are a long way from being the richest people in the UK.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 29, 2014 at 10:00 UTC
In reply to:

Seeky: Mmm, staged; didn't expect that to be honest...

The raising of the flag over Iow Jima was "re-staged" from what i remember. The Marines had already raised the flag before any Photographers got there.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 17, 2014 at 13:04 UTC
On Fujifilm X-E2 Review preview (303 comments in total)
In reply to:

Matt1645f4: Can we please stop with the lower marks for bloody poor video!!! this site is called Digital Photography review, it you insist on scoring cameras down because of video make it a totally different section or start a Digital Video Review Site, i'm bored about the lengthy failings a camera his in its lack of video......

I admit people want to use cameras for video i just fed up it makes a dent in a cameras score because it lacks a feature or ability Cameras should have separate scores to make it fairer and easier for each buyer to see how it performs in their chosen category.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 30, 2014 at 15:25 UTC
In reply to:

peevee1: What DPR stands for again?

with out processes like this photography would never of become the success it is now and DPR is just paying homage to the past and those who still like to be different.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 1, 2014 at 21:45 UTC
On Olympus Stylus SH-1 real-world samples gallery article (61 comments in total)

These are some of the worst digital images ive seen in a while i really liked thie look of this camera and its specs and thought it would be a great travel companion. but after these i'll need to look else where.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 20, 2014 at 19:02 UTC as 9th comment
In reply to:

Peiasdf: JVC is owned by Panasonic so this is just a badge engineered Panasonic camera. Next thing you know, Sanyo would join m4/3 because it is also owned by Panasonic.

Typical American not knowing anything accurate about history, probably thinks America recovered the enigma machine from the Nazi's.....

Direct link | Posted on Apr 9, 2014 at 11:49 UTC

I wouldn't touch a Sony phone i've had sony for years when they had ericsson at the end but now they are crap ive sent my Sony xperia t back 3 times with various faults i never had a prob with a Nokia or an iPhone the camera may be grea but if you cant make calls whats the point.......

Direct link | Posted on Apr 8, 2014 at 16:14 UTC as 26th comment | 4 replies
On Mockups emerge of new Olympus OM-D 'OM-G' article (334 comments in total)

that lens looks bent on the body, poor Photoshop LOL

Direct link | Posted on Apr 1, 2014 at 20:29 UTC as 115th comment | 1 reply
On Olympus OM-D E-M10 Review preview (324 comments in total)

Can you please stop with the lower marks for bloody poor video!!! this site is called Digital Photography review, it you insist on scoring cameras down because of video make it a totally different section or start a Digital Video Review Site, i'm bored about the lengthy failings a camera has in its lack of video......

Direct link | Posted on Mar 20, 2014 at 10:40 UTC as 35th comment | 4 replies
Total: 132, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »