PIX 2015
GaryJP

GaryJP

Lives in Hong Kong Hong Kong
Works as a TV Production, Directing, Shooting, Editing
Joined on Mar 11, 2006

Comments

Total: 1011, showing: 381 – 400
« First‹ Previous1819202122Next ›Last »
In reply to:

(unknown member): A few items. Firstly, Capa and others were shooting a lot of material, boxing it and posting it with minimal notes. People didn't have access to 4G networks in the 1930s. For him, an scribbled 'falling soldier, Spain' may have been enough. Copy editors looking to sell editions may have been guilty of 'broken telephone' and sexing up the caption.

I wonder what would have happened if the editors contacted him before printing: 'Monsieur, we need more about this falling dead soldier.'

'Dead? He was staggering back to barracks after a night of drinking and he fell. If he'd been shot don't you think I'd have mentioned it in the note?'

'Merde!'

At the time, it was within the ethical norms to improve photos. Apparently WeeGee occasionally kicked a gun closer to the corpse. Today we'd call that tampering with a crime scene. And, of course, the raising of the US flag over Iwo Jima was an after-the-fact reconstruction but being right about that wins one no points in a discussion.

Except, as he said, he did not even look at the pictures himself.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 2, 2013 at 16:16 UTC
On Olympus OM-D E-M1 Review preview (2081 comments in total)
In reply to:

Alejandro del Pielago: I like it so much, but $ 2500 is a lot for me (EM 1 body + 12-40mm f/2.8).

Because the idea of kick the heavy 5D M. III is not so obvious... I would like to keep the Canon at least some time and only if the Oly conquers my heart and my printer, well "hasta la vista, Canon". But, right now, the Oly cracks my wallet and my heart.

Personally, at least if I were already in m43 I would buy the lens before I bought the body. It is a terrific lens, and for me the big limitation of the system until this point has been the lack of a good wide zoom lens.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 31, 2013 at 00:00 UTC
On Olympus OM-D E-M1 Review preview (2081 comments in total)
In reply to:

Andy Spawn: According to the noise comparison sample by dpreview. E-M1 high ISO noise performance is poorer than E-M5 and GX7. Why doesn't dpreview point it out in the article?

EM-1 has better ergonomics, better control, and better continuous AF. However, it looks like an entry level D-SLR camera, very ugly, and its noise level is higher than other competitors. Why do I pay more for a camera with more ugly appearance and poorer noise level?

Are you 12?

Direct link | Posted on Oct 30, 2013 at 07:18 UTC
On Olympus OM-D E-M1 Review preview (2081 comments in total)
In reply to:

GaryJP: I really sometimes don't know whether it is more amusing or depressing to see the bile some people on DP Review expend on cameras they, personally, do not want.

Canon or Nikon?

Direct link | Posted on Oct 30, 2013 at 01:10 UTC
On Olympus OM-D E-M1 Review preview (2081 comments in total)

I really sometimes don't know whether it is more amusing or depressing to see the bile some people on DP Review expend on cameras they, personally, do not want.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 30, 2013 at 00:16 UTC as 126th comment | 5 replies
On Marco Bohr investigates 'hipster photography' article (105 comments in total)

The determination to be cool and replace emotion with feigned indifference has been part of teen culture at least since the Beats. As you get older it gets more and more amusing how each generation thinks it has rediscovered its parents' teen behaviour.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 20, 2013 at 13:02 UTC as 41st comment
On Ten things we learned this week article (91 comments in total)

"Some of you are allergic to Apples" Not what I have noticed, even as an Apple user. Many more people seem to be allergic to "Apple" being used when the applicable term is Smartphone or when other formats already do some of the things touted as breakthroughs by Apple. (And even do them better). Frankly, I am more interested in upgrading to the Samsung Note 3 than the next generation of my iPhone, and I even prefer the camera in it.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 12, 2013 at 06:11 UTC as 35th comment | 1 reply
On Ten things we learned this week article (91 comments in total)
In reply to:

xtoph: I have to add my objection to the new "click and load 12 pages to view content worth maybe 2" design i have seen a few times here recently.

Not only is it tedious and timewasting, but it is incovenient if you want to compare anything or review anything you just read as you go along.

Please dont go this way--just makes your site look like "10 wardrobe malfunctions" clickbait nonsense.

I agree completely. I hate these clickbait "list" articles. Apart from which, this is about the 4th webpage I visit regularly that does this. BBC even uses the same title. I don't mind the idea, but it's not exactly fresh.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 12, 2013 at 06:06 UTC
In reply to:

AbrasiveReducer: I'm curious about something. Is the price discrepancy on Adobe products due to taxes (VAT) or does Adobe charge more in Europe/UK/Australia because they think they can get more--and then taxes go on top of that?

As with "necrophilia" it can also mean something other than love, and that is clearly what he is getting at.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 8, 2013 at 05:04 UTC
In reply to:

davinci953: It's no surprise that Adobe wants to push the subscription software model. I worked for a software company that went down this path a number of years ago, and at the time offered a lot of the same reasons that Adobe is giving now to entice customers to bite the fruit. Subscription models are one of the best revenue generators for software companies. As one of the senior VPs described it, "It's the gift that keeps on giving."

Sure. It may be that consumers resist the business model you are imposing on them.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 8, 2013 at 02:07 UTC
In reply to:

ABM Barry: Here in Australia users who have long complained that they are price gouged by major companies such as Apple, Adobe, and Microsoft. In fact, pricing is such a source of contention within Australia that executives from Adobe, Microsoft, and Apple have been summoned to appear before Australian Parliament to answer questions specifically about pricing.

All three of these companies had previously refused to appear before Parliament.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=juM46ny1WhM

Check out this link, then tell us your thoughts? (after being sick!)

I agree with you, but right now, with these repeated posts, it is a toss up whether the Adobe CEO is more annoying or you are.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 8, 2013 at 02:02 UTC
In reply to:

GaryJP: Adobe unilaterally changed the terms on which I may use their software. Once trust is gone, it is gone.

I have several boxed versions, which will work - in the case of photography - until my cameras update too far. So I have now bought a few competitive packages. As for video editing, also part of my Adobe usage, the problem is more complex. They may fornicate with themselves as far as I am concerned. No more. Apple screwed up with Final Cut Pro and many pro editors went to Premiere in droves. I had been with Premiere for years, and - now that Apple have listened to customers while Adobe has reamed us - am going to Final Cut Pro.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 8, 2013 at 01:53 UTC
In reply to:

acidic: "This new package will set you back $120 per year, which seems like a good deal, considering how often Adobe updates their products."

Adobe will have far less incentive to update their products frequently once everyone is on subscription.

Additionally, many like myself, did not upgrade to each and every new version. For the most part, I was perfectly happy skipping versions of Photoshop and upgrading to every other version.

The REASON for the subscription model is that the software is mature and new updates can only be small increments. I think you are missing the point of the strategy.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 7, 2013 at 01:13 UTC
In reply to:

davinci953: It's no surprise that Adobe wants to push the subscription software model. I worked for a software company that went down this path a number of years ago, and at the time offered a lot of the same reasons that Adobe is giving now to entice customers to bite the fruit. Subscription models are one of the best revenue generators for software companies. As one of the senior VPs described it, "It's the gift that keeps on giving."

Actually it's the GIVER that keeps on giving, and I have no intention of being that giver.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 7, 2013 at 01:09 UTC
In reply to:

gavin: I mainly use lightroom and upgrade yearly so thats $80 I think. I do have CS3 and CS5 but I just don't use PS that much so for $40 I get updated version vs buying upgrade every 2-3 years for $120. Its about the same for me then on average. I did not consider CC before since I don't need all that stuff and its way too much. I can handle $10/month.

This is of course a great deal for Adobe as they get annuities.

Ultimately, if it worked in your favour instead of theirs why on Earth do you think Adobe would be offering it?

Direct link | Posted on Sep 7, 2013 at 01:07 UTC

Adobe unilaterally changed the terms on which I may use their software. Once trust is gone, it is gone.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 7, 2013 at 01:06 UTC as 61st comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

Raincheck: Adobe Creative Cloud has been the greatest thing since sliced bread for me. I love having that 4 inch long string of apps. in the Finder on my Mac. No way could I justify the thousands of dollars to buy them outright, but HAVING them has opened the door for me to make 14 times the cost of the subscriptions (during the time I've had them) in graphics work, As A Sideline.

The part I've always thought about first is the hordes of young talented artists and photographers who now have within their reach a way to load up the needed thousands of dollars worth of software they need to start out.

"Adobe Creative Cloud has been the greatest thing since sliced bread for me." That is a good argument for making it an OPTION. It is no argument for making it compulsory.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 6, 2013 at 00:28 UTC

You can't trust Adobe. Ever. We know that now.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 6, 2013 at 00:26 UTC as 90th comment

Sorry. Adobe will never get me to rent my software. I am sticking with what I have until I decide to change software companies. I know how much I can trust you now, which is not at all.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 5, 2013 at 09:28 UTC as 155th comment

One worry is that in most fish tanks the glass is inside the metal frame, because they are designed to resist more internal pressure. Here, you are subjecting the tank to EXTERNAL pressure, which makes it easier for thew glass to cave in.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 3, 2013 at 07:57 UTC as 21st comment
Total: 1011, showing: 381 – 400
« First‹ Previous1819202122Next ›Last »