GaryJP

GaryJP

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

Comments

Total: 807, showing: 381 – 400
« First‹ Previous1819202122Next ›Last »
In reply to:

Jun2: I thought about switch from Aperture 3 to Lightroom 5.0 (trying the beta right now). I guess I just have to stay with Aperture 3.

So far, Lightroom isn't up for subscription. If Adobe decides it is, I'll focus on Aperture too.

Direct link | Posted on May 7, 2013 at 03:16 UTC
In reply to:

Clint Dunn: The funniest thing about the litany of complaints here is that the majority of you don't pay for the SW...you use pirated copies. Go ahead...tell me I'm wrong:) For every Pro out there with a legit copy of PS is a 'Pro' doing $500 weddings on weekends with $2000 of SW they got off a torrent site.

You are wrong. Some of us who run businesses get tax breaks on software we buy. We don't get tax breaks on pirated software, which is why even many individual pro photographers will be using legit programs. I swear some of the posters here work for Adobe.

Direct link | Posted on May 7, 2013 at 03:08 UTC
In reply to:

snegron2: I knew Adobe would do this to us some day. I guess it's time to look elsewhere for a photo processing program.

I was actually going to spend the $600 for CS6, but I have changed my mind. No doubt Adobe will render it useless as it has my old CS2 I purchased at full retail price a few years ago.

Any suggestions on a good (non Adobe) program to use for image editing?

I've always kept updating Capture One as well as Photoshop. Don't use spot features. Looks as if I'll just drop the Photoshop option.

Direct link | Posted on May 7, 2013 at 03:05 UTC

Looks like it's time for another software program.

Direct link | Posted on May 7, 2013 at 03:00 UTC as 461st comment
In reply to:

the reason: Autofocus at f8, in 2013...

"It's no longer an appliance that just works, like a vacuum cleaner, but software like a PC requiring maintenance, updates and bugfixes."

Like pretty much every decent digital camera on the market. With that glass-half-empty outlook I bet you wear that raincoat even in the sun.

Direct link | Posted on May 1, 2013 at 04:12 UTC
In reply to:

snegron2: I wonder if she used a flash or not? I can imagine that a flash would have distracted the couple from their argument and could possibly have caused the anger to be re-directed toward the photographer.

I simply tell you, with examples, how documentary film-makers have worked for more than three decades with much larger equipment. You are free to retain your scepticism.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 20, 2013 at 11:02 UTC
In reply to:

Amadou Diallo: Some interesting comments around the choice between intervention and documentation. Arguments for both sides, obviously. But the comments about the scene being staged have somehow evolved from "Was it staged?" to "It was staged", with no basis in fact. This is a documentary project from a freelance photojournalist.

He did not give permission for the woman to publish the photographs. He did not get asked. Only the wife was.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 6, 2013 at 00:49 UTC
In reply to:

snegron2: I wonder if she used a flash or not? I can imagine that a flash would have distracted the couple from their argument and could possibly have caused the anger to be re-directed toward the photographer.

In the tradition of fly-on=the=wall documentary, documentary film makers have managed to capture much more intimate and even violent moments than these, witness the Middletown series and the works of Fred Wiseman, or the series called "Family" going way back to the eighties I think. There are tricks to this. You establish familiarity in peaceful times. In some cases the crew or camera person wears nondescript colours, enters into no interaction with the subject during shooting, and even shoots for days or weeks without turning the camera on, until the subjects accept them as part of the scenery. It's an established tradition, and has had long practice. I don't doubt people can do it because people HAVE done it.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 6, 2013 at 00:48 UTC
In reply to:

snegron2: I wonder if she used a flash or not? I can imagine that a flash would have distracted the couple from their argument and could possibly have caused the anger to be re-directed toward the photographer.

I would. There is a low angle light in the room and that's clearly seen in many photographs.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 5, 2013 at 12:11 UTC
In reply to:

snegron2: I wonder if she used a flash or not? I can imagine that a flash would have distracted the couple from their argument and could possibly have caused the anger to be re-directed toward the photographer.

Why? Haven't questioned it because it's kind of obvious no flash is used in those photos.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 4, 2013 at 22:33 UTC
In reply to:

vlad259: I think reading the comments on this story has cured me of ever reading below the 'Comments' line again. It is really sad. "It's staged", "she made bad choices", "just run on the TV to see this", "poor technical quality" - I feel shocked.

(Kudos to the many posters countering the points above, you are much more eloquent than I.)

It's a photo site, and people are discussing the photos and the ethics of taking them. Why does that surprise you? If it were a social workers' site the comments would likely be different.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 4, 2013 at 22:32 UTC
In reply to:

RC: So many comments here, some controversial, one or two even disturbing.
One thing needs to be clear though: As a man, you do not hit a woman. Just don't. I had arguments with my wife too in the past, kids were small, money was tight but I never laid a finger on her, neither did she throw stuff at me or whatever some nutjobs do. Real men do not hit women. Hitting a woman is a weakness, not a strength. Just don't hit a woman, even if she hits you (unless of course you need to defend yourself). Lewkowicz's images make me sad, I feel sorry for the kids but also for that woman but I just don't get this guy at all. So many mean looking tatoos, such a "tough" guy and he...hits a woman, also in front of their kids? Oh boy.

Now THIS is part of the attitude I don't understand. Surely as a WOMAN you do not hit anybody either. This is the way things escalate. NO ONE should ever think they have the right to turn verbal conflict into physical conflict. Not ever. Not with kids, old people, or women. I know men who have been the victims of DV, and then people say to them "Why did you not hit back?"

Too many people think if a woman hits a guy he deserves it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LlFAd4YdQks

Direct link | Posted on Mar 4, 2013 at 22:31 UTC
In reply to:

jj74e: People comment from such an egocentric view these days, sure opinions and all. Some say the woman knows how to manipulate the man, others say the man was clearly a prior convict with anger issues.

How many people even looked at the full portfolio before commenting such certain speculations? Personally, it looked like they were one of those couples who had their happy moments, but ultimately couldn't stick it out because of instability.

But that's just my opinion- who's to know where the instability comes from, if it's one sided or a mutual instability. And regarding this instance specifically from the article, who knows went down at the bar, who said what and etc.?

To judge either of these people without recognizing that your thoughts are speculations and nothing more is to welcome such judgments on yourself, which I'm sure no one wants. The Internet has attracted so many bystander critics on everything.

I've so far seen two court cases built around "Yeah, but when I said I wanted to do "fifty shades of grey" I didn't want it to actually HURT".

Direct link | Posted on Mar 4, 2013 at 09:37 UTC
In reply to:

what_i_saw: "In addition, she has been told by law enforcement officers that physically intervening, 'would have likely only made the situation worse, endangering me, and further endangering [the victim]'.

She might have taken the little girl away from the scene. Or would that have endangered someone in some way? Honestly I have very little respect for such photographers. Hope she enjoys her little "Sunshine" of attention.

I shudder to think what negative effect this will have on the little one. Why people have kids when they can't provide a proper home environment for them?

"And of course, if men can keep their fists from flying."

What misandrist excrement. Can you think of any similar collective negative comment one could make about women and not be called a misogynistic pig?

Direct link | Posted on Mar 4, 2013 at 09:34 UTC
In reply to:

jj74e: People comment from such an egocentric view these days, sure opinions and all. Some say the woman knows how to manipulate the man, others say the man was clearly a prior convict with anger issues.

How many people even looked at the full portfolio before commenting such certain speculations? Personally, it looked like they were one of those couples who had their happy moments, but ultimately couldn't stick it out because of instability.

But that's just my opinion- who's to know where the instability comes from, if it's one sided or a mutual instability. And regarding this instance specifically from the article, who knows went down at the bar, who said what and etc.?

To judge either of these people without recognizing that your thoughts are speculations and nothing more is to welcome such judgments on yourself, which I'm sure no one wants. The Internet has attracted so many bystander critics on everything.

Erin Pizzey, who opened the world's first refuge in London for battered women wrote that she gradually came to realise that in many cases it wasn't about violent MEN but violent symbiotic relationships. She realised this after seeing them fight in her shelter and after one of the women bit another's finger off. For some COUPLES violence is the language of the marriage.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 4, 2013 at 07:23 UTC

While I can perhaps understand not intervening between the parents, who are adults and responsible for themselves, I am not so sure I can understand photographing the naked and scared child rather than removing her from the scene.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 3, 2013 at 23:47 UTC as 39th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

Doug Frost: I don't care what your job is, whether you're a photojournalist, a truck driver or a housewife. If someone is being harmed by another and you're in a position to do something about it, you do something about it. I'm not saying that she should have physically intervened, but she could at least have called the police. She could have acted as a moral human being instead of some artiste jerk with a camera whose only interest was fetishizing an act of criminal violence. She crossed a line and betrayed her basic humanity.

However, I remain interested in why she felt she needed the woman's permission to publish the photographs, and not the man's. It's arguable there are two victims here. As far as following up on the woman AFTER the abusive relationship was over, yes, there's that Ferrato deja vu again. Sure, there's more than one photographer able to shoot a subject, but the lack of acknowledgement sucks.

And, Ferrato's work has also been published in Time Lightbox. Just last year.

http://lightbox.time.com/2012/06/27/i-am-unbeatable-donna-ferratos-commitment-to-abused-women/#1

Direct link | Posted on Mar 3, 2013 at 23:44 UTC
In reply to:

Amadou Diallo: Some interesting comments around the choice between intervention and documentation. Arguments for both sides, obviously. But the comments about the scene being staged have somehow evolved from "Was it staged?" to "It was staged", with no basis in fact. This is a documentary project from a freelance photojournalist.

This guy did NOT go back to prison for "faking" it. Maybe some commenters should actually try reading the articles.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 3, 2013 at 23:39 UTC
In reply to:

luigibozi: So nobody asks about the camera, aperture, shutter speed, HDR and things when it comes to RealityDP, eh?!
just kidding...

Well, if he had been showing the car instead of the photo ...

The representation is not the object, and is judge-able on its own merits or lack of them. Particularly when the representation is precisely what we are discussing on a PHOTOGRAPHY forum.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 3, 2013 at 23:22 UTC
In reply to:

skyrunr: Something is pretty clear to me that hasn't been mentioned yet. The photographer clearly knew what they were getting into. They should have been more prepared. Perhaps with pepper spray, a taser, knowledge of self defense, or some sort of protection. Not to mention video being a much better form of documentation for legal purposes.

Putting a camera on someone who obviously wants more attention, and is not worthy of it, only fuels the fire.

"Do you mind if I photograph your lives. What's this? Just my taser in case you get violent." She doesn't carry a taser for the same reason most war photographers don't carry guns.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 3, 2013 at 23:19 UTC
Total: 807, showing: 381 – 400
« First‹ Previous1819202122Next ›Last »