Erik Magnuson

Erik Magnuson

Lives in United States Cape Canaveral, FL, United States
Has a website at http://www.pbase.com/maderik
Joined on Dec 29, 2000
About me:

This is what I'd like to appear on my public 'posters (sic)
profile.'

Comments

Total: 241, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On Zeiss launches Loxia full frame lenses for Sony E-mount article (268 comments in total)
In reply to:

BarnET2: Why on earth does Zeiss want $949,- on a simple 1920 based design
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-Gauss_lens#mediaviewer/File:DoubleGauss1text.svg

The OPIC from taylor and obson from 1920 looks very similar.
So no R&D in lens design nor in mechanics since it has no AF nor IS.

I just can't fathom where the money has gone too here.

Ford actually made 50 Model T's in 2003 to celebrate Ford's 100th anniversary. They reportedly cost about $250k each. The original 1908 Model T cost about $22k in modern dollars but volume matters..

Direct link | Posted on Sep 3, 2014 at 14:17 UTC
In reply to:

Bob Meyer: You comment that:

the a7S's low-light advantage is less clear-cut when shooting VIDEO. The low-light advantage will only be available when working with shallower depth-of-field than the GH4 can offer (which may be desirable, depending on what you want to achieve). However, if your composition requires a certain depth-of-field, the sensor size advantage is lost as soon as you match the two.

AND

Both cameras have sensors close enough to the state-of-the-art that there's no way the GH4 can make up for the difference in sensor size, which should give the Sony a 2EV advantage, in low light.

The first applies to still photography as much as video, and the second ignores DOF . If you need more DOF, you need to stop the lens on the FF camera down two stops, exactly matching the light falling on the smaller 4/s sensor. Sometimes a FF camera's ability to generate shallow DOF is an advantage, sometimes not.

@carlton foxx: Funny you should say that because that's exactly the opposite of what I see. Sometimes DOF is shallow for isolation and sometimes deep to include multiple elements even for scenes next to each other if the POV is different. Sometimes focus will shift from one subject to another to redirect your attention (which only works with relatively shallow DOF). DOF obviously doesn't change within a single take or camera angle unless the light also changes (i.e. rare inside/outside transitions.) It's highly variable depending on the DP's style. Did you ever see Star Trek TOS where ever ytime they changed to show a female closeup the lens was suddenly coated with Vaseline?

Direct link | Posted on Aug 27, 2014 at 03:19 UTC
In reply to:

Jahled: Is this the same 'US Copyright Office' who granted Amazon that white background patent? It's all a bit far out and mental isn't it

No, that's the Patent and Trademark office.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 22, 2014 at 11:21 UTC
On Sony a7S used to shoot Chevrolet commercial article (278 comments in total)
In reply to:

electrophoto: What I fail to understand is that at the budget both chevrolet and the marketing / video company has... and obviously the whole rig is more expensive then about a dozen of the A7s... why go for that option instead of other available options that are more specifically geared towards cinematographic work?

don't get me wrong, I quite like the A7s and it is actually something I might buy... but I'd do so especially because at its price point it's hard to find rivals...
but if I'd have the kind of funds to assemble the rig as shown, I don't think I'd really go for the a7S...

Or?

Not really - the ARW2 format only encodes 13 bits. And if you use sequential shooting mode, the camera internally drops to 12 bits.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 22, 2014 at 09:50 UTC
On Sony a7S used to shoot Chevrolet commercial article (278 comments in total)
In reply to:

jhendrix: Seems renting a camera instead of all that gadgetry would have been less costly. Makes for a good article I guess. Looks a little bit like my leaf blower.

The point is now you can buy or rent *this* setup. It sounds like they used mostly off-the-self parts anyway.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 21, 2014 at 14:29 UTC
On Sony a7S used to shoot Chevrolet commercial article (278 comments in total)
In reply to:

electrophoto: What I fail to understand is that at the budget both chevrolet and the marketing / video company has... and obviously the whole rig is more expensive then about a dozen of the A7s... why go for that option instead of other available options that are more specifically geared towards cinematographic work?

don't get me wrong, I quite like the A7s and it is actually something I might buy... but I'd do so especially because at its price point it's hard to find rivals...
but if I'd have the kind of funds to assemble the rig as shown, I don't think I'd really go for the a7S...

Or?

You don't get both 14-bit RAW and 4K at the same time. In fact you don't get 14-bit raw in any video mode. If you are recording the HDMI output, you are getting only 8 bits per Sony.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 21, 2014 at 14:26 UTC
In reply to:

vFunct: Too many amateur photographers here have no idea what it takes to make a pro-quality photo. Why haven't they figured out that taking a photo isn't the only creative act when authoring a photograph?

Do they not consider the production, planning, setup, styling, lighting, editing, post-processing, and publications creative acts in photography?

Because that's part of photography at the professional level, protected by copyright. Pros spend far more time planning than shooting.

Just because you can operate a camera, doesn't mean you own the copyright. When you give a person your camera to take a tourist photo of you, they don't get the copyright.

That is why professional photographers have assistants take photos for them, and they don't even need a contract stating that they're assistants doing work-for-hire, since it's the default situation - you never see these 'work-for-hire' contracts in the real-world.

Copyright law doesn't protect assistants, only the photographer.

The monkey was not "working" by any law or custom you can cite.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 7, 2014 at 21:53 UTC
In reply to:

vFunct: Again, just because you can operate a camera, doesn't mean you are the copyright holder.

Copyright law doesn't actually define what a photographer is when it assigns copyrights ownership. It only works on authorship.

That is why assistants, like this monkey, are never given copyrights, because they do not author the photograph.

At a photoshoot, I could go to my unpaid intern, without a contract, give him the camera, and tell him to take a creative shot, and I would have copyright.

Most people here have no idea that a real working professional photographer would have very little to do with operating a camera, which is why assistants taking photos are common.

And most working photographers spend most of their time planning a shoot. Mario Testino recently stated he spends about 2/3 of his time planning.

I think because most photographers here are amateurs, they think of photography as that limited view of operating a camera, like what a pro's assistant would do.

You asked what the legal difference was between an assistant and a monkey. As you say below, you have no authorship if the assistant is on his own time. The monkey is always on his own time.

If you were shooting in public and a random stranger takes a photo of your set, do you have copyright *on that photo.* No, you cannot use that photo w/o his permission because you have no agreement with him. He may have limited rights due to other IP issues, but you cannot claim copyright.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 7, 2014 at 21:50 UTC
In reply to:

vFunct: Too many amateur photographers here have no idea what it takes to make a pro-quality photo. Why haven't they figured out that taking a photo isn't the only creative act when authoring a photograph?

Do they not consider the production, planning, setup, styling, lighting, editing, post-processing, and publications creative acts in photography?

Because that's part of photography at the professional level, protected by copyright. Pros spend far more time planning than shooting.

Just because you can operate a camera, doesn't mean you own the copyright. When you give a person your camera to take a tourist photo of you, they don't get the copyright.

That is why professional photographers have assistants take photos for them, and they don't even need a contract stating that they're assistants doing work-for-hire, since it's the default situation - you never see these 'work-for-hire' contracts in the real-world.

Copyright law doesn't protect assistants, only the photographer.

Exactly, now you see the point: who's time was the monkey on then? His own ;-)

Direct link | Posted on Aug 7, 2014 at 21:45 UTC
In reply to:

vFunct: Again, just because you can operate a camera, doesn't mean you are the copyright holder.

Copyright law doesn't actually define what a photographer is when it assigns copyrights ownership. It only works on authorship.

That is why assistants, like this monkey, are never given copyrights, because they do not author the photograph.

At a photoshoot, I could go to my unpaid intern, without a contract, give him the camera, and tell him to take a creative shot, and I would have copyright.

Most people here have no idea that a real working professional photographer would have very little to do with operating a camera, which is why assistants taking photos are common.

And most working photographers spend most of their time planning a shoot. Mario Testino recently stated he spends about 2/3 of his time planning.

I think because most photographers here are amateurs, they think of photography as that limited view of operating a camera, like what a pro's assistant would do.

A human can agree to an oral contract; a monkey cannot.

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

vFunct: Too many amateur photographers here have no idea what it takes to make a pro-quality photo. Why haven't they figured out that taking a photo isn't the only creative act when authoring a photograph?

Do they not consider the production, planning, setup, styling, lighting, editing, post-processing, and publications creative acts in photography?

Because that's part of photography at the professional level, protected by copyright. Pros spend far more time planning than shooting.

Just because you can operate a camera, doesn't mean you own the copyright. When you give a person your camera to take a tourist photo of you, they don't get the copyright.

That is why professional photographers have assistants take photos for them, and they don't even need a contract stating that they're assistants doing work-for-hire, since it's the default situation - you never see these 'work-for-hire' contracts in the real-world.

Copyright law doesn't protect assistants, only the photographer.

@vfunc Assistants are employees performing their duties. You don't own what they do on their own time even if you give them the idea.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 7, 2014 at 21:31 UTC
In reply to:

vFunct: Again, just because you can operate a camera, doesn't mean you are the copyright holder.

Copyright law doesn't actually define what a photographer is when it assigns copyrights ownership. It only works on authorship.

That is why assistants, like this monkey, are never given copyrights, because they do not author the photograph.

At a photoshoot, I could go to my unpaid intern, without a contract, give him the camera, and tell him to take a creative shot, and I would have copyright.

Most people here have no idea that a real working professional photographer would have very little to do with operating a camera, which is why assistants taking photos are common.

And most working photographers spend most of their time planning a shoot. Mario Testino recently stated he spends about 2/3 of his time planning.

I think because most photographers here are amateurs, they think of photography as that limited view of operating a camera, like what a pro's assistant would do.

@Vfunct

Only because the intern can be considered your employee and taking photos part of his duties can you claim authorship. But the monkey was not an employee. If you tell me to 'make a creative photo' and I do, you have zero rights.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 7, 2014 at 21:22 UTC
In reply to:

vFunct: Too many amateur photographers here have no idea what it takes to make a pro-quality photo. Why haven't they figured out that taking a photo isn't the only creative act when authoring a photograph?

Do they not consider the production, planning, setup, styling, lighting, editing, post-processing, and publications creative acts in photography?

Because that's part of photography at the professional level, protected by copyright. Pros spend far more time planning than shooting.

Just because you can operate a camera, doesn't mean you own the copyright. When you give a person your camera to take a tourist photo of you, they don't get the copyright.

That is why professional photographers have assistants take photos for them, and they don't even need a contract stating that they're assistants doing work-for-hire, since it's the default situation - you never see these 'work-for-hire' contracts in the real-world.

Copyright law doesn't protect assistants, only the photographer.

@vFunct If you asked the stranger to sketch you or write a limerick about you, would you have the copyright? Of course not. Why is composing and shooting with a camera any different? Authorship is about control: if you set the scene on a tripod and the stranger merely pushes the button under your direction, then you would be considered the author - just as you are the author of a dictated book. But if the only direction is "take my photo", then you are no more the author then if you pay for a portrait.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 7, 2014 at 21:13 UTC
In reply to:

Jogger: "a work owing its form to the forces of nature and lacking human authorship is not registrable." .. a lot of remote photography would apply to these.. e.g. those camera traps that are triggered by animals braking an infrared beam.

Since copyright is created the moment the image is "fixed", the photographer had to have the intent to capture this photo with this composition.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 7, 2014 at 19:46 UTC
In reply to:

vFunct: Too many amateur photographers here have no idea what it takes to make a pro-quality photo. Why haven't they figured out that taking a photo isn't the only creative act when authoring a photograph?

Do they not consider the production, planning, setup, styling, lighting, editing, post-processing, and publications creative acts in photography?

Because that's part of photography at the professional level, protected by copyright. Pros spend far more time planning than shooting.

Just because you can operate a camera, doesn't mean you own the copyright. When you give a person your camera to take a tourist photo of you, they don't get the copyright.

That is why professional photographers have assistants take photos for them, and they don't even need a contract stating that they're assistants doing work-for-hire, since it's the default situation - you never see these 'work-for-hire' contracts in the real-world.

Copyright law doesn't protect assistants, only the photographer.

Copyright covers the image and not the work behind it. You get just as much protection for randomly pointing the camera.

Technically, the stranger on vacation *could* claim copyright. In practice, no one does and a judge might say there was an implied relationship that assigns rights back to the tourist. The judge would also be annoyed you wasted his time on this as there is no value or damages.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 7, 2014 at 19:36 UTC
In reply to:

Ilya the Great: Great. I will train a dog to press a device that will press the camera button on command. When I will take pictures of all celebrities and pay no royalty to them since a dog took the picture.

Since no one would pay you for the images, why do this? BTW, rights to a likeness and copyright are different. Is Mr. Slater paying royalties to any of the monkeys?

Direct link | Posted on Aug 7, 2014 at 17:32 UTC
In reply to:

Scottelly: I think that monkey is cute. I don't care about the legal stuff. The photographer should know that this photo is more famous now, and Wikimedia's use of it is good for him. He can now sell prints, because he has the originals in high resolution. He's MUCH better off, now that Wikimedia refused to take the photo down.

You could be charged (or held civilly liable) if it could be proven that you were reckless in loaning the car (i.e. your friend was drunk or not qualified to drive it.) The better analogy is if could you be charged if a monkey broke into your car, put it in drive, and then ran over someone?

Direct link | Posted on Aug 7, 2014 at 17:28 UTC
In reply to:

Nigel Wilkins: Regardless of copyright ownership, Wikimedia really shouldn't be encouraging the use of images without permission, which they apparently didn't even try to obtain. As if copyright theft wasn't already a big enough problem.

I'd love to post my best images full size without a watermark, but this is the kind of thing that prevents me from doing it. I suspect there are & will be many other fantastic photos never shown to the world for fear of losing all control over their use. Who actually benefits from this? I can see no beneficiary but many losers from this kind of attitude, both photographers & those who just like to look at nice photos.

I'll bet they don't have model releases for *any* of the animals portrayed on their site. Animal rights violation!

Direct link | Posted on Aug 7, 2014 at 17:16 UTC
In reply to:

Paul B Jones: Some folks seem to be confusing right and wrong (as determined by their feelings as hard done by photographers) and copyright law.

Copyright does not reside in photographs taken by animals of themselves.

End of story.

Who has copyright to any nature? By definition, if there is no copyright, it's public domain.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 7, 2014 at 17:13 UTC
In reply to:

drummercam: Mr. Slater owns the work. Once he saw what was happening and allowed the macaque to continue what it was doing, the macaque became a mere assistant. This is a shameless power grab by a huge organization with money to pay a slick lawyer to present a wholly specious argument if it comes down to a court case. Wikimedia should take the photo down, and Mr. Slater should pay the macaque a banana.

You can't "steal" copyright from an animal - by definition it never existed. Similarly you don't have to get a model release from an animal to use it's image commercially - it has no likeness rights.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 7, 2014 at 17:11 UTC
Total: 241, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »