Total: 64, showing: 1 – 20

A digital photo? Every copy is the same!

Direct link | Posted on Dec 13, 2014 at 13:30 UTC as 55th comment
On Inside RA001: World's first Boeing 747 'Jumbo Jet' article (127 comments in total)

Direct link | Posted on Oct 18, 2014 at 10:43 UTC as 4th comment

hc44: "'a work owing its form to the forces of nature and lacking human authorship is not registrable.' "

A hypothetical contraption: A random number generator uses the current wind speed as a seed (random 'shuffle') and produces random numbers once per time interval (say 1 minute). The number is between 1 and 100; every time a 1 is generated a photo is taken.

Does the creator and initiator of this contraption have copyright ownership of the photos taken?

So, speaking theoretically among ourselves (judges do their own thing), is intent significant?

While this photographer did a lot of things which led to this photo being taken, it was never his intent for a photo to be taken in the manner that it was.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 9, 2014 at 13:17 UTC

hc44: "'a work owing its form to the forces of nature and lacking human authorship is not registrable.' "

A hypothetical contraption: A random number generator uses the current wind speed as a seed (random 'shuffle') and produces random numbers once per time interval (say 1 minute). The number is between 1 and 100; every time a 1 is generated a photo is taken.

Does the creator and initiator of this contraption have copyright ownership of the photos taken?

I read below the term 'solely' appears in the law. Nature hasn't set up the contraption. I reckon he does hold copyright.

"Materials produced solely by nature, by plants, or by animals are not copyrightable."

Direct link | Posted on Aug 9, 2014 at 11:03 UTC

"'a work owing its form to the forces of nature and lacking human authorship is not registrable.' "

A hypothetical contraption: A random number generator uses the current wind speed as a seed (random 'shuffle') and produces random numbers once per time interval (say 1 minute). The number is between 1 and 100; every time a 1 is generated a photo is taken.

Does the creator and initiator of this contraption have copyright ownership of the photos taken?

Direct link | Posted on Aug 9, 2014 at 10:22 UTC as 177th comment | 8 replies

He didn't create the scene, he just recorded it.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 26, 2014 at 13:52 UTC as 62nd comment | 2 replies
On Samsung announces NX3000 mirrorless camera article (193 comments in total)

Ulfric M Douglas: It comes in Brown!
Win!

Still no plaid :-(

Direct link | Posted on May 10, 2014 at 13:01 UTC
On Sony Australia releases a3500 with new kit lens article (143 comments in total)

More sun? No. The combination of drunkenness (relaxant drug) and low IQ (lower stress levels) results in steadier hands. Sony just know their markets.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 29, 2014 at 09:42 UTC as 5th comment
On Samsung NX mini First Impressions Review preview (566 comments in total)

hc44: Must be a lot of good lens glass is rendered junk because the body it's attached to is soon outdated. Makes abstracted lens a good idea.

It's a general observation. People tend to buy new cameras and let their old ones gather dust. Good lenses though tend to be useful even on newer cameras, especially if compatible with the mount.

Is that wrong?

Direct link | Posted on Mar 23, 2014 at 00:45 UTC
On Samsung NX mini First Impressions Review preview (566 comments in total)

hc44: Must be a lot of good lens glass is rendered junk because the body it's attached to is soon outdated. Makes abstracted lens a good idea.

See the dictionary; I'm using the word in its usual meaning and nothing you've written invalidates my point.

Picky picky picky... what's with camera forums attracting the world's biggest toasters?

Direct link | Posted on Mar 21, 2014 at 09:49 UTC
On Samsung NX mini First Impressions Review preview (566 comments in total)

N13L5: what good does the slim camera do in my pocket if it has a soda can style lens that won't retract?

There are some high quality cameras with built-in, bright, retracting zooms.

For having a DSLR sized sensor in a Sony Nex camera I can understand the design compromise. For a 1" sensor, what's the point?

Camera body is pocketable by itself, detachable long zoom is pocketable by itself. Two pockets... (OK it's not perfect)

Direct link | Posted on Mar 20, 2014 at 08:44 UTC
On Samsung NX mini First Impressions Review preview (566 comments in total)

Must be a lot of good lens glass is rendered junk because the body it's attached to is soon outdated. Makes abstracted lens a good idea.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 20, 2014 at 08:38 UTC as 39th comment | 5 replies
On Sony Alpha 7 Review preview (1614 comments in total)

Not sure if already posted. There are areas where detail is mashed up into something quite different to the original.

See Queen of Spades top right, the hair fringe (compare with Sony Alpha7 R). Also the Jack of Hearts, the bird shape at the rear of the head. In both cases contiguous lines become a mess of squiggles.

EOS 6D is doing something similar, though not as bad.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 26, 2014 at 02:20 UTC as 115th comment | 1 reply
On Can computer corrections make simple lenses look good? article (162 comments in total)

domina: I'm a software engineer and into computer science and I never trust software, computers or programmers. Windows, Chrome and all your software crashes quite often, think about it. The last thing I want is bugs in my lens correction.

From a self described software engineer this is quite a naive comment. If you can't trust software in a camera I suppose you never indulge in air travel?

Direct link | Posted on Oct 1, 2013 at 03:14 UTC
On Nikon 1 AW1 preview (588 comments in total)

wus: Nice try, but need better ... 15 m depth rating isn't even enough for snorkelling. I wouldn't mind an interchangeable lens system based around the CX sensor as long as I can take it down to 60 m and have at least 1 true wideangle lens, like the old Nikonos V with the 15 mm UW Nikkor. Although a bigger sensor camera with a (true!) phase detect AF and a couple lenses including a true macro would of course be better. And of course a strobe (or, better, 2) are mandatory for serious underwater photography.

Just make sure you don't use the 15 m snorkel with this camera and you should be alright.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 20, 2013 at 08:07 UTC

Was a bit worried about the less than rugged look - underwater equipment tends to get knocked around - then saw the protective rubber skin. I suppose not so bad.

But still, would you feel confident having the front glass exposed under water?

Direct link | Posted on Sep 20, 2013 at 07:51 UTC as 10th comment
On Ten one-of-a-kind cameras from the 21st century article (248 comments in total)

twadger: Like many photographers I come here for reviews, not nostalgia.

Digital Photograph Review, the clue's in the name.

You should ask for a refund.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 3, 2013 at 17:12 UTC

Bugger Hong Kong - get a picture of yourself on Mars.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 1, 2013 at 13:09 UTC as 43rd comment

audijam: so desperate

It's like, they want people to buy their camera products. Bwahaha, Phony!

Direct link | Posted on Aug 27, 2013 at 13:21 UTC
On Samsung Galaxy Note II camera review post (82 comments in total)