dark goob

dark goob

Lives in United States Portland, OR, OR, United States
Joined on Jul 12, 2005

Comments

Total: 296, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

Fearless Spiff: It really is a joke. I am more than pi**ed.

I'm mad too. All Aperture users should be angry and protest at Apple HQ. It is ridiculous for them to abandon users and ditch a major app of theirs like this. They have no excuse.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 10, 2015 at 02:16 UTC
In reply to:

agnost: I think Photos is well-implemented (much better than iPhoto) but it's a barebones application compared to Aperture, and certainly isn't an adequate replacement. I'm really glad I didn't import my Aperture library, which would have disabled it.

Eventually it may have all the features of Aperture. After Tim Cook dies and someone with a brain takes over.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 10, 2015 at 02:14 UTC
In reply to:

AD in KC: Really disappointed. Not going to use it.

I agree with others who have complained of losing control over files. That's a deal breaker. I'm not going to dump my precious images into oblivion.

I wish they had made it more like iTunes where all your songs are organized in folders you can see in Finder. And like iTunes, I wish you could sync a smaller copy of your photos to other devices, so your big full-res files remain untouched and stored where you want them.

I appreciate that it's a free program, but I'm not happy that this is Apple's one and only solution to being able to access my photos on both desktop and phone. Yeah I can buy an organizing app (Adobe Bridge) that gives me full access to my images, but it won't make my dumb iPhone snapshots sync with my macPro.

And it smells a lot like "world domination" was more important than usability. Can't use Photoshop or Capture One or Blurb..

You should try Mylio. It lets you sync files between all devices and use regular folders for organization. But it does not require you to store anything in the cloud. It was started by ex-Microsoft execs. Mylio is sold through local camera stores like PRO dealers. Really good.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 10, 2015 at 02:10 UTC
In reply to:

DaveClark: We don't need more laws, thank you very much. How about enforcing the ones we already have?

It's not your right. There is no right to be able to take pictures of whatever you want. Sorry. Freedom of the press is a freedom to publish, not a freedom to record. They are two different things.

Don't like the fact that it's not a right? Then pass a law like Colorado did, and make it a right. Or better yet add it to the Constitution: freedom of photography or whatever you want to call it.

I do not think Freedom of the Press should extend to every schmoe with a digital camera. That's ridiculous. Many people have no interest in ever publishing what they're taking pictures of, and are not taking the pictures for the purpose of them being published.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 7, 2015 at 08:54 UTC
In reply to:

DStudio: The right to record such incidents is absolutely a constitutional right, and must be maintained to preserve our freedom. I'd be VERY concerned to see this taken away.

However, we still have another problem, in that much of the media is more interested in a story then the truth. And much of the general public - as well as juries themselves - fail to view such video clips with common sense. The whole incident, situation and context must be taken into account. This problem goes back at least as far as the Rodney King incident, where people ignored the fact that King refused to pull over for 20-40 miles, driving at high speed under the influence, and was a big man who then charged officers just as a person under the influence of PCP would. The police had to use batons because their use of firearms (and even tazers now) is restricted. King's skin color and last name made it sound worse.

But the Texas law is an AWFUL response to the public's lack of discernment. There's no place for it!

DStudio, ignore my example then… I admit it was an extreme one. I know this information from direct involvement, not because I could link to "proof" on the internet. In fact the story was kept quiet due to being settled out of court.

What matters is that you do not have the right to film cops. What makes you think that you do? Please quote me the line in the Constitution where it says "You have the right to take pictures of cops." Go ahead.

Please cite the Supreme Court decision or legal precedent that proves you have the right to film cops. Go on. I'm waiting.

BTW nobody is infringing your right to publish stuff online or in print, when they block you from taking pictures of a cop. Because taking a picture of a cop is not the same thing as printing or posting online… duh! Those are two different things! OBVIOUSLY!

You still have the full unrestricted freedom to publish whatever you want. Obtaining content to publish was never a guaranteed right! Otherwise college would be free :P

Direct link | Posted on Apr 7, 2015 at 08:49 UTC
In reply to:

DStudio: The right to record such incidents is absolutely a constitutional right, and must be maintained to preserve our freedom. I'd be VERY concerned to see this taken away.

However, we still have another problem, in that much of the media is more interested in a story then the truth. And much of the general public - as well as juries themselves - fail to view such video clips with common sense. The whole incident, situation and context must be taken into account. This problem goes back at least as far as the Rodney King incident, where people ignored the fact that King refused to pull over for 20-40 miles, driving at high speed under the influence, and was a big man who then charged officers just as a person under the influence of PCP would. The police had to use batons because their use of firearms (and even tazers now) is restricted. King's skin color and last name made it sound worse.

But the Texas law is an AWFUL response to the public's lack of discernment. There's no place for it!

Actually there is no constitutional right to shoot pictures of cops. There weren't cameras yet when the constitution was written, which helps to explain this.

Therefore because there is no explicit "right to record" or "right to measure" etc., people have tried to say that taking pictures falls under freedom of speech or the press, even though it's not speech, and it's not the press.

Neither what you can say with your mouth, nor what you can say in printed words, are limited by not being allowed to photograph something.

What I have seen happen here in Portland is, there is this one jerk and his friend who game the system. Person A pretends to be suicidal and claims to have a gun (but does not show it). Inevitably the cops get called. Then the Person B shows up with a video camera and tries to get all up in the cops' faces and film the suicidal guy. The cops, being afraid that getting filmed will trigger the person to blow their head off, tell the guy with the camera to leave, but can't force him to, because they must attend to the suicidal guy. Inevitably then an employee of the place (transit authority member like a bus driver, or a library staff, etc.) will tell him he must stop filming. Then he claims his rights are infringed and sues them, and secretly splits the settlement with his "suicidal" friend (and they probably go buy more heroin or whatever).

This is the kind of BS that these people do. They are just random idiots with a camera and they think that therefore God gave them the right to interfere in a crime scene or a police interaction. They are NOT members of the press nor do they even have any intention of publishing their photos in the press, half the time. No, they are just vigilante self-appointed "watchdogs" who have not been shown to be the least bit effective in curbing police corruption.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 7, 2015 at 02:31 UTC
On Nikon 1 J5: What you need to know article (499 comments in total)
In reply to:

JanRob3174: The rate at which consumers post either positive or negative comments, initial reactions and early reviews for each Nikon product bring released is enough to make Nikon execs realize they should just go on developing for the sake of photography and less about 'competition'.

999 = rate of intelligence of people who don't buy this paperweight that will be worth $0 USD in 8–12 months.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 3, 2015 at 09:49 UTC
On Nikon 1 J5: What you need to know article (499 comments in total)
In reply to:

Sangster: Nikon will sell more units to upgraders if they offered body only at around $300-350.

"some countries" = not USA = not where dealers aren't stupid

Direct link | Posted on Apr 3, 2015 at 09:47 UTC
On Nikon 1 J5: What you need to know article (499 comments in total)
In reply to:

MFiftysomething: Nikon continue their pursuit of speed over image quality I suspect. 20megapix and lots of PDAF all on a 1" ?

If Sony can do what? Sell a P&S camera for $750 that is obsolete in year?

Nikon WISHES

Direct link | Posted on Apr 3, 2015 at 09:46 UTC
On Nikon 1 J5: What you need to know article (499 comments in total)
In reply to:

Photoman: Great, another Nikon 1 failure. It will be half price in 3-6 months time at Amazon/B&H.

No 1/3rd price ;p

Direct link | Posted on Apr 3, 2015 at 09:44 UTC
On Nikon 1 J5: What you need to know article (499 comments in total)
In reply to:

captura: And the DPR review is when?

2019z

Direct link | Posted on Apr 3, 2015 at 09:43 UTC
On Nikon 1 J5: What you need to know article (499 comments in total)
In reply to:

Papi61: 4K @15 fps?

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Come on Nikon, who are you kidding? Might as well be 5 fps, useless anyway.

Yep. Nikon and Barnum and Bailey.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 3, 2015 at 09:43 UTC
On Nikon 1 J5: What you need to know article (499 comments in total)
In reply to:

JackM: Only a fool would buy this camera

This is the only accurate post on this thread. Bravo, sir, bravo.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 3, 2015 at 09:42 UTC
On Nikon 1 J5: What you need to know article (499 comments in total)
In reply to:

brownie314: No selfie mode - me not buy. Oh wait - it has it - check.

Because people are REALLY gonna pack a crappy Nikon J camera around to take selphies instead of an iPhone. Really.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 3, 2015 at 09:41 UTC
On Nikon 1 J5: What you need to know article (499 comments in total)
In reply to:

zodiacfml: Why bash the camera, it has a reasonable price at launch. It has a price of a Sony RX100 with good specs and looks. This might be larger than the compact but this is insanely fast.

I criticized the previous 1 series cameras because they were priced in a vacuum, as though, they don't have competition with the same format and larger formats.

Pixel peeping this would be fun too as it might approach m4/3. We will see.

Hell no. It will not "approach M43" any more than Micro FourThirds will approach a 36x24mm frame size, anymore than 36x24mm will approach Medium Format Digital (which is the real full-frame and pwns it like a boss).

Nikon 1 is, and always will be, a joke, perpetrated by drunken greedy bastards, against an unsuspecting public, who, in their ignorance, get swindled by salespeople bribed by Nikon spiffs to sell this garbage to them. Sorry. But it's true.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 3, 2015 at 09:40 UTC
On Nikon 1 J5: What you need to know article (499 comments in total)
In reply to:

rallyfan: I think the pricing is actually bad news for J fans and Nikon 1 fans.

In the past, the 1s were priced a bit high IMO and they didn't seem to sell very well. Maybe I'm mistaken but that's the impression I got. Then, 1s would show up at deep discounts and there were bargains to be had.

As a result I learned that this is a nice system. It's very small and has great burst/AF performance compared to other small MILCs, and with the deep discounts previously available it was very compelling.

The new J seems nice. Granted, the 4K/15fps thing seems silly at first (upon closer examination, it's borderline idiotic, but oh, well -- the other features are great). However the new cam is priced well from the start, and may sell better, meaning there may not be deep discounts.

I hope it flops and is sold off in fire sales, because I think this is a great camera! I can get by with a single battery and sell the lens anyway.

Your mistake is to assume there are "Nikon 1 fans." There aren't. There are "Nikon 1 sufferers" and "Nikon 1 victims."

Sorry, but it's true.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 3, 2015 at 09:36 UTC
On Nikon 1 J5: What you need to know article (499 comments in total)
In reply to:

pew pew: seems a good camera, and priced nicely

No. Do not be fooled. It's a terrible camera, way over-priced.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 3, 2015 at 09:35 UTC
On Nikon 1 J5: What you need to know article (499 comments in total)
In reply to:

HSway: With this camera the J series makes sense for the first time to me. But the ambition of J 5 design in N1 concept, although likeable, is very bold, so bold that it borders on naive. But this naivety or boldness makes sense from Nikon. And what makes sense can succeed somewhat. But mainly it makes some sense and it even seems to have got a little seed of mission in it. When something makes sense it keeps its dignity.

Well you didn't say "Nikon 1"... nevermind you are off the hook.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 3, 2015 at 09:34 UTC
On Nikon 1 J5: What you need to know article (499 comments in total)
In reply to:

HSway: With this camera the J series makes sense for the first time to me. But the ambition of J 5 design in N1 concept, although likeable, is very bold, so bold that it borders on naive. But this naivety or boldness makes sense from Nikon. And what makes sense can succeed somewhat. But mainly it makes some sense and it even seems to have got a little seed of mission in it. When something makes sense it keeps its dignity.

You actually said "dignity" in the same paragraph as "Nikon 1". No. Just... no.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 3, 2015 at 09:33 UTC
On Nikon 1 J5: What you need to know article (499 comments in total)

Don't fool yourself. Nikon 1 cameras are, and will always be, JUNK.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 3, 2015 at 09:31 UTC as 27th comment | 5 replies
Total: 296, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »