Ermac

Ermac

Lives in United States MN, United States
Joined on Sep 7, 2001

Comments

Total: 18, showing: 1 – 18
On Nikon Df preview (2817 comments in total)

$3,000.00!? Well I guessed $5,000.00, but still too much for me. Especially when it's more a peice of jewelry than anything else.

Enjoy richies!

Direct link | Posted on Nov 5, 2013 at 21:20 UTC as 479th comment
In reply to:

cgarrard: If I didn't shoot it, I'm not using it, period. No way I'd use someone elses work to call my own art- no matter how you spin it. These are new images, there's an infringement on the craft that being a curator has been in the past- it seems to be a modern curse to trample on anything good of the past.

No thanks.

http://www.arnierosner.com/

New business venture (probably already available),you can rent time on a telescope for astrophotography via the interwebs, why not the reverse?

Direct link | Posted on Aug 28, 2013 at 16:04 UTC
In reply to:

cgarrard: If I didn't shoot it, I'm not using it, period. No way I'd use someone elses work to call my own art- no matter how you spin it. These are new images, there's an infringement on the craft that being a curator has been in the past- it seems to be a modern curse to trample on anything good of the past.

No thanks.

Is a satellite considered 'someone' these days?

Direct link | Posted on Aug 28, 2013 at 14:59 UTC
In reply to:

CameraLabTester: "Image by..."

Those images were lifted from satellite photos!

"Manipulated, Altered, Masticated and Spit Images by..." is a better by line.

.

It's called appropriation, a trend in art for... oh... say... ever

Direct link | Posted on Aug 28, 2013 at 14:57 UTC
On Hand-painted Olympus E-P5 comes with bonus... Vespa? article (51 comments in total)

Meanwhile children world wide are starving to death....

Direct link | Posted on Aug 13, 2013 at 14:41 UTC as 2nd comment
On Resurrecting a WWII optic with scraps and a 3D printer article (59 comments in total)

Hmmmmmm.... No artists here.....

Direct link | Posted on May 7, 2013 at 13:26 UTC as 19th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

Ermac: But the pictures are bad. I don't even give them 'novellty' credit. LAME!

I checked out your website, I like your landscapes the best. But that's just a lame poster's opinion so they must suck to cool people.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 2, 2013 at 13:13 UTC

But the pictures are bad. I don't even give them 'novellty' credit. LAME!

Direct link | Posted on Mar 28, 2013 at 14:56 UTC as 13th comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

Elaka Farmor: Oh no, it´s unlegal.
Oh no, it´s disrespectful
Oh no, they breaking one of the lovely laws in Egypt
Oh now,the pyramid suddenly is in danger to be destroyed of climbers, lol!
Oh no, many Egos want to complain
Oh Yes, they took photos that nobody else will do and spread them to the humanity.

Actually think the pictures suck. Just because they're something no else will do doesn't make them good. They are just snapshots of some people sitting on the art of an ancient culture. The photos are not art in themselves. At least not to me.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 28, 2013 at 14:53 UTC
In reply to:

Ermac: 1. Kind of a jerk move
2. probably been done
3. Wonder is there's a mummy's curse that covers this?
4. Can't these guys still get in trouble?

yep what tipped you off? the mummy's curse sarcasm or the question of still getting in trouble?

Direct link | Posted on Mar 28, 2013 at 14:48 UTC

1. Kind of a jerk move
2. probably been done
3. Wonder is there's a mummy's curse that covers this?
4. Can't these guys still get in trouble?

Direct link | Posted on Mar 28, 2013 at 13:09 UTC as 16th comment | 2 replies

800 bucks??? c'mon bottom of the line DSLRs with APS-C sensors should be $199.99-299.99 by now... dang money grubbin' greedy camera makers!

Especially since Canon's own CEO said Full Frame was the future and basially these small sensor jobbies are a waste of money...

Direct link | Posted on Mar 21, 2013 at 14:19 UTC as 52nd comment
On Time magazine showcases Top 10 photos of 2012 article (147 comments in total)
In reply to:

Cy Cheze: OK, so what would the anti-Time critics pick a the 10 best news photos of the year? Very likely, the images would be other views of disaster, mayhem, rescues, or mourning. When your neighbor is berieved, do you pick a shot of a touchdown pass as "the most memoriable image of 2012"? Or should that image be a sonogram of an expected Royal heir? Images of flags, steeples, and mother? A dwarves' cottage and Bambi by a silver stream?

Good things happened in 2012, surely, but do they allow for imaginative photographic depiction? Will any rank as "important events" after 10 years?

Heavens, think of the temerity if Time ventured to pick a "Camera of the Year"? Oh, the carnage that would ensue!

Umm the name of the magazine is Time as in these current times. But I agree somewhat, all this shows us is that nothing has changed since humans figured out fire - we like to kill each other and make even more suffer. I do prefer to see them in a row rather than one image of a dead person next to an ad picturing little white kids enjoying their peanut butter.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 14, 2012 at 18:03 UTC
On Time magazine showcases Top 10 photos of 2012 article (147 comments in total)
In reply to:

coudet: Typical - 80% of the pictures show human suffering.

Priaptor (who must have removed his original comment), gsum and ozturert. Would you be happy if Time only covered images of rich American's excess? You all seem to be pretty sheltered in your gated communitie's cul-du-sac.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 14, 2012 at 17:24 UTC
On Time magazine showcases Top 10 photos of 2012 article (147 comments in total)
In reply to:

deleted_081301: not many there i consider that interesting ....... top ten "Photojournalist " photos maybee but TOP TEN photos not really ........

Oh yes, let's see more photographs of empty boats on a placid lake in the morning and B&W images of old poor people or half nude women....

Direct link | Posted on Dec 14, 2012 at 15:13 UTC

The only thing I don't like is the price.... I know the size is a factor but when $500 buys a decent DSLR and lens with a larger sensor in a fairly compact body, who's going to go for this?

Call me when this costs $200.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 24, 2012 at 15:48 UTC as 115th comment | 1 reply

How about "More useless junk that does nothing for the world but contribute to the growing E-Waste problem"?

Direct link | Posted on Oct 2, 2012 at 21:35 UTC as 18th comment | 1 reply

well it's official... digital killed photography.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 2, 2012 at 14:04 UTC as 24th comment
Total: 18, showing: 1 – 18