hc44

Lives in Australia Australia
Joined on Feb 9, 2009

Comments

Total: 68, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous1234Next ›Last »
On article Framing fashion with Dixie Dixon (46 comments in total)

OT but imagine the reaction if a successful male said they went to college and "majored in girls".

Link | Posted on Feb 7, 2016 at 02:41 UTC as 12th comment
On article Vantage Point: The aviation photography of Jon Pece (189 comments in total)

Hard to beat this for aeronautical subject matter

http://ralphmirebs.livejournal.com/219949.html

Link | Posted on Jul 5, 2015 at 02:33 UTC as 2nd comment

Looks too much like a Where's Wally snapshot. They wouldn't all be caught in such active poses in a real snapshot of an orchestra.

Link | Posted on Jun 7, 2015 at 03:24 UTC as 25th comment | 3 replies

If you turn the camera the other way you'll know who the father is.

Link | Posted on Mar 8, 2015 at 00:28 UTC as 55th comment

Robert Beck's personal site

http://www.robertbeckphotography.com/

Link | Posted on Jan 24, 2015 at 10:35 UTC as 45th comment

A digital photo? Every copy is the same!

Link | Posted on Dec 13, 2014 at 13:30 UTC as 66th comment
On article Inside RA001: World's first Boeing 747 'Jumbo Jet' (127 comments in total)

Joey, do you like movies about gladiators?

Link | Posted on Oct 18, 2014 at 10:43 UTC as 4th comment
In reply to:

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.

Link | Posted on Aug 9, 2014 at 13:17 UTC
In reply to:

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."

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?

Link | Posted on Aug 9, 2014 at 10:22 UTC as 181st comment | 8 replies

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

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

Ulfric M Douglas: It comes in Brown!
Win!

Still no plaid :-(

Link | Posted on May 10, 2014 at 13:01 UTC
On article Sony Australia releases a3500 with new kit lens (144 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.

Link | Posted on Mar 29, 2014 at 09:42 UTC as 6th comment
On article Sony Alpha 7 Review (1597 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.

Link | Posted on Jan 26, 2014 at 02:20 UTC as 130th comment | 1 reply
On article Can computer corrections make simple lenses look good? (163 comments in total)
In reply to:

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?

Link | Posted on Oct 1, 2013 at 03:14 UTC
On article Nikon AW1 First Impressions Review (591 comments in total)
In reply to:

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.

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?

Link | Posted on Sep 20, 2013 at 07:51 UTC as 11th comment
On article Ten one-of-a-kind cameras from the 21st century (249 comments in total)
In reply to:

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.

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

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

Link | Posted on Sep 1, 2013 at 13:09 UTC as 43rd comment
In reply to:

audijam: so desperate

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

Link | Posted on Aug 27, 2013 at 13:21 UTC
Total: 68, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous1234Next ›Last »