DUMB4SS

DUMB4SS

Lives in Korea (North) Korea (North)
Works as a winding you up
Has a website at uradumbass
Joined on Aug 31, 2011

Comments

Total: 34, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »
On there in the Isolation challenge (15 comments in total)

Wonderful shot.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 2, 2012 at 02:17 UTC as 13th comment
On Red eyed tree frog in the Wild amphibian/s challenge (2 comments in total)

Absolutely stunning.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 1, 2012 at 01:10 UTC as 2nd comment
On Warm and cold in the Winter 7 challenge (8 comments in total)

Stunning photo

Direct link | Posted on Feb 16, 2012 at 14:08 UTC as 4th comment
On World Press Photo announces 2012 contest winners article (173 comments in total)
In reply to:

Gary CG: Brilliant. Look at the woman's skin tones there. Not an easy capture!

Totally staged. Garbage actually. These idiots who hand out these gongs need their heads banging together.

Just wondering - Why does the 4 square inches of her skin that are visible make a good capture?

The mood and the moment yes
The composition and the dramatic light yes, but not her skin.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 11, 2012 at 11:57 UTC
In reply to:

skrulm8: As a businessman I feel that if the wedding season lasts only a few months, the gentleman is not supposed to make a living from it. It's a part time job and he should be doing something else for the remaining 67% of the year. I'm not saying $500 per wedding is the answer, but $1000 is more than enough if you ask me.

I mean, for $3,000 I can buy two 550Ds, a Canon 70-200 f/4.0 L, a Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 and rent the two flashes out. I'm sure there's relatives of mine with hands that have fingers on them, who would gladly take the pictures for free. For the few potos that need post processing, I'll do it myself.

And, yes, I've done wedding photography myself.

skrulm8 - Renting high end dslrs for guests to shoot at a wedding in low light when they are getting drunk.

That's your increasingly huge deposit gone every time for damage to the rented cameras, snapped off flashes, sticky drink damaged lenses, dropped bodies etc.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 29, 2012 at 14:54 UTC
In reply to:

Nikonworks: I am reminded about the home owner complaining about her plumber's invoice for $100 for replacing one bolt on her home's plumbing.

The plumber responded the invoice breakdown was as follows: $1 for the new bolt, $99 for his knowledge of which bolt needed replacing.

This bride to be equates the photographer life with hers in an ignorant way.

She passes judgement on the integrity of photographers.

The one good thing is photographers reading her listing are warned to stay away by her comments.

The kind of bride to be will never be satisfied with her wedding pictures.

Agreed, but many brides do not value talent, skill, integrity and dedication. All they want is some cheap snapshots, so book a cheap photographer and don't complain that the high end ones are too expensive.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 29, 2012 at 14:48 UTC
In reply to:

Anepo: She DOES have a point in someway's just hear me out.

Some people are poor and 3000$ is a no way in hell for them.

Here is what Photographers SHOULD consider:

Some photographers I Know of manage to do 3 weddings in the same day.

Photographers REALLY need to consider:

Are they low, middle or high income family?
Is it going to be 1000 people or 100?
Do I have to travel 10 miles or 1000 miles?

And calculate based on that not do a "standard" price that can't be changed at all.

As someone who has NEVER made 2000$ in a month in his lifetime and in fact was making 1500$(before 37% taxes) before he lost his job I must say I understand her pain.

Example in my country photographers rent a large area, bring they're own equipment and computers & offer free x-mas photography for the less fortunate.

& we are talking about professional photographers.
So honestly I think photographers who do weddings could show a little flexibility every now & then.

*gets ready for hate msg's*

I know photographers who do 3 weddings in a day as well.
They usually cover the very cheap end of the market and have a very quick 30 shots at the registry office then images on a disk.

That is far different from the 8-10-12 hour coverage shooting in wildly varying conditions and having the skill to control the light, location and the people well.

There is certainly room for both, but increasingly the bride who can only afford the cheapest coverage is complaining because they can't afford the high end photographer and worse still, place no value on it.

There is also the issue that the low budget weddings frequently seem to have a greater chance of meeting Bridezilla who will be difficult throughout.

Life is just too short to deal with those types of people.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 29, 2012 at 14:38 UTC
In reply to:

mee: She has a valid point. What is $3000 worth of pictures that will last a lifetime compared to $30000 worth of wedding ring, wedding gown, catering, garden venue & decorations etc. that will be gone in a day (except for the ring). Wedding budget should be calculated as a whole and at least 10% should be allocated for your photo or video to cherished the moment. OR you can skip and save the 10% and keep your wedding day in your rightful mind. Maybe your friends, relatives, children and grandchildren etc are just not interested to to know about your wedding or how they came about into this world.

It's not overcharging. It's pricing to survive. You may be lucky and get a great shooter for $500, but at that price there will be no backup, no insurance, maybe no experience and no comebacks when they turn out badly, or the car broke down etc.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 29, 2012 at 14:25 UTC
In reply to:

capteneo: This conversation confirms what I've long believed about the DPReview community: that it consists mostly of tech-heads who care little for the craft of photography. Many of the comments below are predicated on the belief that with expensive equipment comes good photos (a convenient fiction for all of these hobbyists with pricey kits!); few take the perspective that photography is, in fact, art. When you hire a photographer for your wedding, you're commissioning an artist to bring his vision to bear on your event. If said artist is conscientious, the process will surely require much time, effort, and gear. But that's not the point. You're paying for the art, not the bodies and lenses and flashes. Wedding photography is not some mercenary business, like plugging holes in leaky pipes. It's an artistic endeavor. If you're happy with the results that $2000 of raw gear can buy, more power to you. For those who take photography more seriously, the eye of an artist is worth paying for.

No, but there are just so many who claim to be.
Just like those losers who claim to be ex SAS.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 27, 2012 at 16:33 UTC
In reply to:

boffin44: Possibly among the costs she should have included events like this....

http://video.repubblica.it/tecno-e-scienze/il-fotografo-degli-sposi-cade-nell-acqua-santa/50283/49723

Unfortunate, but awesome.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 27, 2012 at 16:30 UTC
In reply to:

Nikonworks: I am reminded about the home owner complaining about her plumber's invoice for $100 for replacing one bolt on her home's plumbing.

The plumber responded the invoice breakdown was as follows: $1 for the new bolt, $99 for his knowledge of which bolt needed replacing.

This bride to be equates the photographer life with hers in an ignorant way.

She passes judgement on the integrity of photographers.

The one good thing is photographers reading her listing are warned to stay away by her comments.

The kind of bride to be will never be satisfied with her wedding pictures.

But the bride who quite likely thinks that uncle bob with his compact camera can produce the same quality work as the pro with the great lenses is frequently proven horribly and irretrievably wrong

Direct link | Posted on Jan 27, 2012 at 14:00 UTC
In reply to:

Father Anderson: What a grand assemblage of pure louts and ruffians you are....constantly arguing over the numbers of everything...as if you were really qualified to discuss more that the number of feet a pig possesses!

Even the most unwashed, unlettered and unrepentant among you must be well enough educated to realise the writer was simply trying to explain the costs involved in developing a lifetime profession.

Grow up...or go back to arguing about the number of angels that can dance on the head of pin and leave photograpghy to the practitioners

Well said.
Far too many armchair experts without a clue about what it takes to shoot weddings.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 27, 2012 at 13:00 UTC
In reply to:

Ivan Lietaert: Am I the only one agreeing with the judge on this?
After skimming through the full judgement, it becomes clear that this issue is about commercial use of these pictures: Justin Fielder's image is sold as a poster/ postcard, while the second picture is used on the packaging of English tea, sold to tourists. I can understand that a professional photographer wants to see his creative products protected. The second image is obviously a (bad) case of plagiarism: rather than using the original picture, and paying the original artist royalties, someone at the tea company decided to use a cheap copy and hoped to get away with it.

So any one of the numerous photographers who had previously done the same shot in the same way should now be able to sue the claimant for plagiarism and win

Direct link | Posted on Jan 25, 2012 at 19:17 UTC
In reply to:

Shelly Glaser: If one of these two photographs is a copyright infrequent of the other, all pictures taken at the same tourist spots are illegal - obviously, someone must have photograph the place before. In this case, neither photographer has built the parliament house or the Big Ben, nor was the red double deck bus constructed or even brought to the place by the photographer - this is a standard London bus at its standard hourly route.

American courts seem to have come to a complete absurd with this decision. Making it illegal to use a photograph of a public tourist spot in the name of protecting intellectual "property" is a clear infringement of the first amendment.

UK not US courts.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 25, 2012 at 19:08 UTC
In reply to:

IPCopycat: If I may, I would like to clarify certain issues. (I apologise if I am repeating what has already been said)

The fact that the earlier photo was of famous landmarks does not mean it cannot be protected by copyright. Copyright subsists in the totality of the work. In this case, it is the red bus travelling in a particular direction in a monochrome Westminster. The composition of the photo can have influence but is not crucial when considering infringement (there are past case law supporting this). In the "Originality" section of the decision, the Judge succinctly points out when a photo of a famous landmark is protected and when it is not.

So, for this case, it is the fact that the later photo has a similar background, also edited into black and white, and has a red bus, travelling in the same direction that makes it a copy. Following this, the ikea photo referred to below is clearly not a copy of Fielder's photo.

Once again just google Parliament Black and white Red bus.
There will be at least 8 different ones.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 25, 2012 at 17:17 UTC
In reply to:

D1N0: Intellectual Property is a contradiction in terms. Nothing intellectual about it. Idea Hogging. That's what it should be called.

Look on Google and see if you can ID who the claimant copied the initial idea from.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 25, 2012 at 12:15 UTC

The court even admitted that the defendant had gone out of his way to avoid infringing the copyright of the claimant.

Fairly ridiculous as with a quick google image search, I found at least another 8 different images showing a red London bus in front of a BW Houses of Parliament.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 25, 2012 at 11:26 UTC as 235th comment | 3 replies
In reply to:

ozgoldman: Its very clear that many submitting comment to this particular forum have no understanding of copyright law.
Copyright is a complex and diverse subject with a myraid of outcomes that may be somewhat confusing to a lay person.

I do point out however, that the law of defamation appears to have been breached here regarding derogatory comment directed towards the judge in several of the contributions, and could in the UK be subject to legal process.

And you do have an understanding?
Strictly speaking it's Libel, but the judge would have to be a complete idiot (again?) to proceed with "legal process" over the opinions shared here.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 25, 2012 at 11:03 UTC
In reply to:

RudivanS: As a pro, all I care for is an improved raw processing engine.
Raw Photo Processor (mac only), is still superior at rendering raw files.

Nikon Capture was the absolute best choice for processing Nikon NEF files.
LR2 was very poor with them, removing any fine detail and muddying the colours.
LR3 was closer, but still not there until the release of the V4 profiles by Eric Chan.
The initial preview of my NEF files is now exactly the same as it is in VNX2 - CNX2 and the workflow is far easier.
With the release of LR4 that processing again has a slight improvement, making LR my definite first choice of Raw processors.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 24, 2012 at 14:16 UTC
In reply to:

frank200: I just Hope Adobe will not force people to upgrade to LR4 So they can upgrade to LR5 later. I'm NOT upgrading to LR4 there is very little new and really not that exciting that justifies this upgrade

But there is an image quality difference with the new process if that matters to you.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 24, 2012 at 14:09 UTC
Total: 34, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »