Photo Pete

Photo Pete

Lives in United Kingdom Sheffield, United Kingdom
Joined on Nov 6, 2006
About me:

Film History:-
Zenith, Praktica, Nikon F601, Nikon F90x, Nikon F100, Nikon F5

Digital History:-
Olympus E20p, Nikon D70, Nikon D200, Nikon D300, Nikon D2x, Nikon D3s, D800, Nikon 1 V1, Nikon 1 V2, Olympus OM-D E-M10

Nikon Lens History:-
20mm f2.8 AFD, 35-70mm f2.8 AFD, 80-200mm f2.8 AFD, 20-35mm f2.8 AFD, 24-120vr, 70-300 ED, 70-300vr, 80-400vr, 28-70 f2.8 AFS, 70-200 f2.8 AFS, 18-200vrII, 12-24 f4, 14-24 f2.8, 24-70 f2.8, 80-400 AFS, Nikon1 10-30, Nikon 1 30-110, FT-1,

Other Lens History:-
Sigma 28-70, Sigma 170-500, Tamron 28-200, Tamron 20-40, Tokina 20-35, Sigma 150-500, Sigma 50-500, Sigma 150 macro

Current:-
Olympus OM-D E-M10
Olympus OM-D E-M1
Olympus 9-18, 12-40 f2.8, 14-150, 75-300, 60 macro, 40-150 f2.8
Olympus FL600R Flash
Gitzo explorer, Gitzo 3 series, Arca Swiss Z1

Comments

Total: 63, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous1234Next ›Last »
On Cokin announces Nuances range of ND filters article (12 comments in total)
In reply to:

artnaz: That's 50% more expensive than a (on paper) similar Lee Big Stopper. If they would have no colour cast as they claim, that could be interesting. But they should release comparable gradient filters and a sturdier holder to really compete with Lee (and others, but in Europe, Lee is the real competition).

In my experience the Cokin P holders, whilst not feeling as well built, are much more sturdy then the Lee Seven5 holders which can be knocked off the lens very easily.

With regard to the Cokins I am intrigued how the P system 10 stop filter will work without a foam gasket. I had hoped that when Cokin finally introduced a 10 stop ND filter that they would have done so in the same format as their polariser which is naturally light sealed against the holder.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 15, 2015 at 17:52 UTC
In reply to:

mikegml: Who were the 40 who voted for it ?

That is the question that immediately sprung to my mind too. Those 40 MEPs should not be representing us.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 9, 2015 at 20:20 UTC
In reply to:

Thematic: Wait....

Some - many - of the buildings mentioned in the article were funded by taxpayers.

So tax payers pay for them, but can no longer take pictures of what they funded if they want to use them for business use?

Eleson
Your silly comments are targetted at the wrong group of professionals.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 5, 2015 at 16:01 UTC
In reply to:

Matt1645f4: Another reason to vote yes to leaving the EU in 2017........

Let's hope this stupidity prompts more people to vote YES for the EU and engage with making it a better organisation with public accountability.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 5, 2015 at 08:49 UTC
In reply to:

deanfuller: Rules like this are the whole reason we celebrate U.S. Independence on today's date.

Independence without social conscience. Guns and inequality... a land where the poor cannot be guaranteed equal access to education or healthcare.

Let's rejoice the 4th July for the land of the free*1

*1 Freedom promotion only applies to the wealthy. Freedom may be terminated at any time by use of a gun (available as part of linked promotional offer)

Direct link | Posted on Jul 5, 2015 at 08:36 UTC
In reply to:

Matt1645f4: Another reason to vote yes to leaving the EU in 2017........

And leave our own Conservative party to make their own laws to persecute the working classes?
Opting out of the Bill of Human Rights is something the Tories have already tabled, but haven't quite found the right time to force it through.

There is an obnoxious arrogance by many in the UK that they are better than Europe when many of our current equalities and freedoms only remain because the EU have tempered the more radical moves of our own political parties.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 5, 2015 at 08:24 UTC
In reply to:

CameraLabTester: Politicians should be put on trial by the general public via thumbs up or down like the gladiators.

These pseudo Solons should be kicked out of office by crazy laws they conjure.

Just like the stupid politician who wanted to repeal the "Law of Supply and Demand" because he said, that particular law was playing havoc on the economy, and irrelevant for the times...

.

Thumbs up / thumbs down.... that's a really good idea. We wouldn't be able to get all of Europe into a gladiator Arena, but perhaps we could think of using lots of smaller buildings and then using slips of paper for people to register their thumb direction on. Of couse we would need to make sure their thumb direction choice couldn't be altered by someone else and so would need some form of sealed box to pit the slips of paper in.... and someone official to count them.

I don't know why anyone hasn't thought of this before rather than just moaning that their politicians don't do what they want.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 5, 2015 at 08:13 UTC
In reply to:

Majauskasson: This proposed law is a good example of Brussels EU bureaucracy gone completely mad. Remember the EU 'uniform cucumber law' that threatened UK grocers for selling cucumbers that were non compliant in size and shape. Ignore this insane proposed law and let the EU try to enforce it, if and when it ever comes. They can then go after Google Earth and Maps and maybe even the NASA's International Space Station astronauts snapping huge swatches of earth. The EU is already a mess financially and politically and they have nut cases in Brussels dreaming up more insane rules to waste money in court that will make it a laughing stock around the world.

Steelhead3
Is that the same facebook whose terms and conditions allow them to use any photos that are uploaded for their own commercial gain?

"you grant us a non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, worldwide license to use any IP content that you post on or in connection with Facebook (IP License). This IP License ends when you delete your IP content or your account unless your content has been shared with others, and they have not deleted it."

My heart bleeds for such an honourable company to be persecuted by the wicked EU.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 4, 2015 at 23:12 UTC
In reply to:

Photo Pete: Google streetview will be interesting if this bill goes through!

As an Architect I am appalled at the possibility of Copyright of my buildings being imposed in this manner. Photos are free publicity. My buildings are to enhance the public realm and not restrict it. I know of no other Architects who think differently.

That does not mean Copyright of buildings should not exist. The ideas and compositions are my intellectual property and Copyright should limit other Architects from slavishly replicating them. Photographing or filming them is a completely different thing and the copyright should not prohibit this.

This amendment should not progress, but if it does I think there will be a lot of pressure placed by architects (within the UK at least) on the RIBA to prevent Architects or developers from claiming for copyright infringement in this manner. It is not what Architects want.

Because buildings should reflect the unique character of their location and function and be designed to enhance their setting. The last thing I want is for a building which has been carefully designed to reflect its setting to be copied inappropriately and be devalued by association. It is like a photographer copying another photographers composition but in a less effective location and less technically or artistically proficient manner.

Style is another thing altogether and can be replicated extremely well and in a contextually sensitive manner. Style should not be subject to copyright if its implementation is individual.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 4, 2015 at 21:39 UTC
In reply to:

Aaron Shepard: This article shows a lack of understanding of the distinction between editorial and commercial use. A picture in a newspaper article is editorial use, even if that newspaper is largely supported by advertising. Unless the photo is used in one of the ads, there is no violation. The same would be true of social media sites.

The proposed amendment to the bill already includes exceptions for journalistic use and educational use. But there should be no need for an exception to cover certain types of usage... Photography of structures in a public space should be permitted... without exception.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 4, 2015 at 18:32 UTC
In reply to:

luisflorit: I completely agree, anyone using commercially should pay to the copyright holder.

But only if, at the same time, the copyright holder removes it immediately when someone does not like it. Since we are not free to avoid seeing a huge ugly construction right in front of our noses, the copyright holder should remove it from our views.

Perhaps the copyright could only be granted for photos taken with 'proper' cameras. That would help protect the camera makers against the rise of the smartphone :-)

Direct link | Posted on Jul 4, 2015 at 18:22 UTC
In reply to:

matthiasbasler: First, if a law is not enforced in practice, then this law is useless and thus obsolete (or should not be ratified in the first place).

Second, it is my personal opinion that if an artist or architect designs a sculpture or building to be placed in public space and gets paid for this then this payment should include the right (licence) for the public to take photos of the subject for *any* possible usage, including commercial.

If this is not possible then I think that the city councils should enforce a policy of only buying art for public spaces which includes the licence for public photography of any type.

Matthias

Unfortunately Councils would not be allowed to impose such a clause when commissioning public works as doing so would put them in breach of this EU directive. This is why it is so important to campaign against this particular amendment.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 4, 2015 at 18:18 UTC
In reply to:

SeeRoy: The EU primarily exists for the benefit of Big Capital. There may be some real benefits for some countries (like being able to **** off to a previously civilised country, in order to reap the benefits of centuries of social development) but primarily it's about ready access to markets and suppression of wages (for the working classes only, obviously) in order to maximise corporate profits.
For most of us, especially in Britain, it's the absolute worst thing that has happened since WW2. At least in WW2 we managed to escape being invaded.
This sort of legislation is just one more example amongst many.
Let's hope the Greeks initiate stage 1 of the EU's disintegration. Stage 2 should be Britain's exit.
For decades I supported the EU idea - but I've seen the consequences.

So you are commenting about something you haven't even read?
No more responses from me.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 4, 2015 at 18:05 UTC
In reply to:

RunningTurtle: This whole pan 'EU' nanny thing has turned into quite a monster. I'm surprised how Europeans can put up with so many bizarre and silly laws interferring with their lives.

Seeroy

Do you know what the EU does?

Direct link | Posted on Jul 4, 2015 at 18:01 UTC
In reply to:

SeeRoy: The EU primarily exists for the benefit of Big Capital. There may be some real benefits for some countries (like being able to **** off to a previously civilised country, in order to reap the benefits of centuries of social development) but primarily it's about ready access to markets and suppression of wages (for the working classes only, obviously) in order to maximise corporate profits.
For most of us, especially in Britain, it's the absolute worst thing that has happened since WW2. At least in WW2 we managed to escape being invaded.
This sort of legislation is just one more example amongst many.
Let's hope the Greeks initiate stage 1 of the EU's disintegration. Stage 2 should be Britain's exit.
For decades I supported the EU idea - but I've seen the consequences.

Have you read the bill in question? There is much in it which seeks to protect the rights of photographers. The comments in the report which recognise the need to protect photographers against internet 'intermediaries' (such as facebook) from harvesting copyright are very promising.

Let's hope this particular 'right of panorama' clause gains sufficient opposition to be changed and to better represent the spirit of the bill's real intent.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 4, 2015 at 17:51 UTC
In reply to:

SeeRoy: The EU primarily exists for the benefit of Big Capital. There may be some real benefits for some countries (like being able to **** off to a previously civilised country, in order to reap the benefits of centuries of social development) but primarily it's about ready access to markets and suppression of wages (for the working classes only, obviously) in order to maximise corporate profits.
For most of us, especially in Britain, it's the absolute worst thing that has happened since WW2. At least in WW2 we managed to escape being invaded.
This sort of legislation is just one more example amongst many.
Let's hope the Greeks initiate stage 1 of the EU's disintegration. Stage 2 should be Britain's exit.
For decades I supported the EU idea - but I've seen the consequences.

The EU does a lot of good work in helping to protect the rights of many... But the occasional madness like this betrays the fact that it is a very clumsy and over-bureaucratic structure.
What it needs is for countries to press for its structural reform, not to opt out of it.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 4, 2015 at 17:28 UTC

Google streetview will be interesting if this bill goes through!

As an Architect I am appalled at the possibility of Copyright of my buildings being imposed in this manner. Photos are free publicity. My buildings are to enhance the public realm and not restrict it. I know of no other Architects who think differently.

That does not mean Copyright of buildings should not exist. The ideas and compositions are my intellectual property and Copyright should limit other Architects from slavishly replicating them. Photographing or filming them is a completely different thing and the copyright should not prohibit this.

This amendment should not progress, but if it does I think there will be a lot of pressure placed by architects (within the UK at least) on the RIBA to prevent Architects or developers from claiming for copyright infringement in this manner. It is not what Architects want.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 4, 2015 at 16:13 UTC as 164th comment | 3 replies
In reply to:

Marty4650: The concept that public buildings can have copyrights is bizarre. If governments don't want them photographed perhaps they should erect tall fences to block then from view?

But no one is actually saying these public buildings cannot be photographed.

They just want you to obtain "permission" which probably means you will pay a royalty fee or a tax in order to photograph something that public money paid for.

Socialized governments can never have enough money to spend. I bet the Democrats in the USA are watching this closely.

@noirdesir
Architects are not pushing for this in anyway.
Photographs of buildings which are published in the media are one of our main means of attracting new clients. This would be a disaster for much of the architectural profession.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 4, 2015 at 13:40 UTC
On Going solo: DxO introduces 20MP 'ONE' connected camera article (124 comments in total)

Now I have two ergonomically poor ways to take photos whilst wearing down my phone batteries.

Genius.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 18, 2015 at 19:08 UTC as 27th comment | 1 reply
On Readers' Showcase: Martin Kozak article (69 comments in total)

Rubbish and cliche ridden images.

Only joking... Fantastic set which brings a very individual and creative outlook to sports photography. I really enjoyed these.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 14, 2015 at 19:20 UTC as 31st comment
Total: 63, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous1234Next ›Last »