Stu 5

Stu 5

Lives in United Kingdom United Kingdom
Works as a Photographer
Joined on Apr 11, 2005

Comments

Total: 730, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

Charlie Jin: Can we control ISO ? With Samsung Note 2, in the tennis court at night (with the court lights on), I was able to get descent shots (forehand, backhand, volley, etc...) by setting up ISO to the highest (which is 800) and lower the exposure compensation ( to minus one stop). This forces the camera to bump up the shutter speed, which is good for sports photography. I am planning to come back to iPhone ( Plus, that is...) I hope that it can control ISO.

Ah right, I thought you must be referring to the present time as you did not meantion ios8

Direct link | Posted on Sep 10, 2014 at 22:07 UTC
In reply to:

Charlie Jin: Can we control ISO ? With Samsung Note 2, in the tennis court at night (with the court lights on), I was able to get descent shots (forehand, backhand, volley, etc...) by setting up ISO to the highest (which is 800) and lower the exposure compensation ( to minus one stop). This forces the camera to bump up the shutter speed, which is good for sports photography. I am planning to come back to iPhone ( Plus, that is...) I hope that it can control ISO.

No third party app allows iso control at present. They will tell you the iso being used and that is it. iOS 8 will allow iso to be selected next week when it is launched. Only third party apps will have the feature. iOS 8 will also allow shutter speed control and exposure compensation via third party apps.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 10, 2014 at 09:07 UTC
In reply to:

Marty4650: Now that the matter is settled, shouldn't we be paying bananas to that monkey for royalties?

Especially as the close up photo was downloaded from a British domain (co.uk) and not a (com). The matter is far from settled.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 22, 2014 at 10:18 UTC
On Sony a5100 First Impressions Review preview (574 comments in total)
In reply to:

Robert Eckerlin: Yes, I too will not buy a camera without View Finder.

And as long, as the quality (among other the brightness and colors) of the image shown in the EVF does not get comparable to the quality of the images shown in reasonable Optical viewfinders: I will also not buy a camera without OVF. The pleasure of looking via VF at the photo that i will soot is an extremely important part of my overall pleasure of taking photographies.

Can I please ask experts: why is the quality of the image shown in EVF not comparable to the quality of the image shown in "reasonble" optical viewfinders (e,g. the OVF of the NIKON D5000)? Is it really impossible to build at a reasonable price cameras having EVFs with pleasant image quality?

And why does Dpreview not rate or comment the quality of the Images shown in EVFs? I would appreciate very much to read such comments, in order to motivate me from time to time to take a look at new camera having (according dpreview) EVFs with an excellent image quality.

He is unlikely to do that with the A7 viewfinder due to its poor performance in low light. Fuji XT1 and Olympus EM1 have much better viewfinders in low light. As soon as you move/pan the A7 there is visible drag in the viewfinder.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 18, 2014 at 12:34 UTC
In reply to:

Stu 5: Although copyright on the close up photo is in dispute. The wider shot is not. It is interesting to see that DPR do not appear to have copyright credited the photo as belonging to David Slater/ Carter News Agency underneath it. Also the photo appears to be on the DPR server. Have DPR paid image rights to use the photo to the Carter News Agency as have news organisations like the The Telegraph and Daily Mail?

http://www.catersnews.com/viewstory.php?id=776

Yes it does. I think any one could tell that is a tripod mounted photo.

The two photos have been posted up 3 years apart. They have been obtained from different sites. The wider shot is from the Daily Mails website, which is not a .com domain. It is a .co.uk domain so comes under UK law for websites. That origination is run by Nominet. That puts Wikipedia in a much weaker situation regarding that image.

The dispute though with Wikipedia is regarding the close up shot. I think the wide shot has been overlooked. Wikipedia have had several takedown notices before which they have complied with of the images being put up. It is only now with this image being posted in 2014 that they are refusing to take it down.

Being in the USA there is a huge amount regarding these photographs that is coming out in the press in the UK that you will not be seeing. I have only posted one example. The DPR article does not go into much depth.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 11, 2014 at 14:39 UTC
In reply to:

sh10453: I do not believe for a split second that these pictures are "selfies" taken by a wild monkey.

Of course I don't believe that this wild animal is suddenly becoming a technical guru, capable of operating a modern-day camera, and becoming a challenger to Ansel Adams.

Mr. Slater brings his reputation 100 meters below ground level with such a ridiculous story.
It's amazing to see so many naive folks who actually believed this BS!

As for the copyrights, and since Slater had brought it onto himself, the copyrights belong to the monkey, the wild animal monkey, that is!

That is one of the ones taken on the tripod. It is posted up much earlier and has cropped out the Carters News agency copyright mark. It will be interesting to see if the agency go after Wikipedia.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 11, 2014 at 14:28 UTC
In reply to:

Stu 5: Although copyright on the close up photo is in dispute. The wider shot is not. It is interesting to see that DPR do not appear to have copyright credited the photo as belonging to David Slater/ Carter News Agency underneath it. Also the photo appears to be on the DPR server. Have DPR paid image rights to use the photo to the Carter News Agency as have news organisations like the The Telegraph and Daily Mail?

http://www.catersnews.com/viewstory.php?id=776

As I said before you have not read up on everything about this, only what is on the website perhaps. Wikipedia only put one of the photos up from those ones taken handheld. A lot of the photos were taken on a tripod.

Have a read of this:

'He anchored the camera to a tripod, and then lay on the floor holding it so they could not carry it off. For the next half an hour, he let the monkeys fool around in front of the lens for the ultimate selfie session.'

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2719534/So-DO-monkey-selfie-Inside-world-British-wildlife-photographer-macaque-snaps-sparked-bizarre-copyright-battle.html

Direct link | Posted on Aug 11, 2014 at 12:04 UTC
In reply to:

sh10453: I do not believe for a split second that these pictures are "selfies" taken by a wild monkey.

Of course I don't believe that this wild animal is suddenly becoming a technical guru, capable of operating a modern-day camera, and becoming a challenger to Ansel Adams.

Mr. Slater brings his reputation 100 meters below ground level with such a ridiculous story.
It's amazing to see so many naive folks who actually believed this BS!

As for the copyrights, and since Slater had brought it onto himself, the copyrights belong to the monkey, the wild animal monkey, that is!

It might be an idea to read up about this more first of all. There is only one photo in dispute with Wikipedia regarding copyright. The others were taken with the camera mounted to a tripod. Of the two photos shown in this article the wider shot one had the camera mounted to a tripod. Even the tighter shot taken handheld was cropped before being put on Wikipedia. The original photo taken from the Guardian newspaper website was taken on a tilt.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 11, 2014 at 09:35 UTC
In reply to:

Stu 5: Although copyright on the close up photo is in dispute. The wider shot is not. It is interesting to see that DPR do not appear to have copyright credited the photo as belonging to David Slater/ Carter News Agency underneath it. Also the photo appears to be on the DPR server. Have DPR paid image rights to use the photo to the Carter News Agency as have news organisations like the The Telegraph and Daily Mail?

http://www.catersnews.com/viewstory.php?id=776

ET2 have you not read anything. Only ONE of the photos is in dispute with Wikipedia. Only one of the photos is on the Wikipedia website. The other photos are not in dispute regarding copyright.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 11, 2014 at 09:29 UTC

Although copyright on the close up photo is in dispute. The wider shot is not. It is interesting to see that DPR do not appear to have copyright credited the photo as belonging to David Slater/ Carter News Agency underneath it. Also the photo appears to be on the DPR server. Have DPR paid image rights to use the photo to the Carter News Agency as have news organisations like the The Telegraph and Daily Mail?

http://www.catersnews.com/viewstory.php?id=776

Direct link | Posted on Aug 10, 2014 at 11:40 UTC as 165th comment | 7 replies
In reply to:

Black Box: I think Mr.Slater created a really cool hoax. There are billions of selfies on the Internet and almost none of them have this shaprness and clarity. If these were taken by a monkey, then Mr.Slater was made by one. There is NO CHANCE photos of such quality could be taken accidentally by an animal. This whole scandal, instigated by Jimbo's cronies, has one purpose only - to promote Slater.

You might find this an interesting read:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2719534/So-DO-monkey-selfie-Inside-world-British-wildlife-photographer-macaque-snaps-sparked-bizarre-copyright-battle.html

Direct link | Posted on Aug 10, 2014 at 11:05 UTC
In reply to:

Andy Galeati: My thing is guy should just be a good sport about it, who GAS about any copyright... This monkey selfie is hilarious.

So if you were a self employed professional photographer jtan163 and you thought someone had breached copyright on some of your photos and therefore reduced your income stream, you would think 'Oh that's OK, thats life' and not bother to do anything about it?

Direct link | Posted on Aug 10, 2014 at 08:41 UTC
In reply to:

Andy Galeati: My thing is guy should just be a good sport about it, who GAS about any copyright... This monkey selfie is hilarious.

He is a professional photographer wanting to earn a living. Photography is not just a hobby for him like it is for you. How would you like it if part of your income stream was stopped reducing your earnings. Would your family say 'you should just be a good sport about it'?

Direct link | Posted on Aug 9, 2014 at 08:35 UTC
In reply to:

Digital Mike0697: My thoughts on this subject would be that Zoo owns the pictures not the photographer. Why I say this is because they owns the primate, the photos where taken on private property and the list goes on.

Yes the photographer owns the camera, but my impression on the copyright laws, you have to physically taken the photos yourself not anyone else or in this case a animal (primate). True the photographer may have setup the camera to take pictures, but in this situation the Zoo owns images.

I have a question, If the photographer owns the rights pictures, should he/ she ask the Zoo to sign a modeling release and will the Zoo be compensated to allow the photographer to make money off of images?

They are not taken in a Zoo.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 8, 2014 at 08:19 UTC
In reply to:

Boss of Sony: THIS SHOULDN'T BE ABOUT MONEY. THE PHOTOGRAPHER SHOULD BE GRACIOUS, BE A GENTLEMAN, AND SAY "ALL HUMANS MAY SHARE THESE WONDERFUL PHOTOS TAKEN BY A MONKEY". By suing, he is showing that he is cheap, nasty, and selfish. Handing a camera to a monkey is not a respectable way to make money.

You need to read up about this a little more before making comments like this. He is saying the royalties should come to him with some of that money going to a conservation project to help protect the monkeys. By doing what Wikipedia has done, no money at all is going to animal conservation.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 8, 2014 at 08:18 UTC
In reply to:

Stu 5: This could open up a can of worms. The BBC and National Geographic use motion triggers all the time for their wildlife work. Does that mean because the animal triggered the camera that the photos or footage is therefore in the public domain? How many wildlife photographers will use a motion triggered set up where they do not actually take the photo but the animal does?

Well that is the point dccdl he is not the laughing stock of the internet. Only on this site. The serious photography sites are looking at this very differently.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 7, 2014 at 12:12 UTC

This could open up a can of worms. The BBC and National Geographic use motion triggers all the time for their wildlife work. Does that mean because the animal triggered the camera that the photos or footage is therefore in the public domain? How many wildlife photographers will use a motion triggered set up where they do not actually take the photo but the animal does?

Direct link | Posted on Aug 7, 2014 at 11:42 UTC as 350th comment | 3 replies
In reply to:

bed bug: Who really care who owns copyright, this is just academic rambling.

However, clearly both parties are benefitting from all the publicity. Perhaps a nice outcome would be the establishment of a trust to help save the species.

Well that is a good change.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 7, 2014 at 10:40 UTC
In reply to:

bed bug: Who really care who owns copyright, this is just academic rambling.

However, clearly both parties are benefitting from all the publicity. Perhaps a nice outcome would be the establishment of a trust to help save the species.

Roland no it is not. Mr. Slater is claiming a loss of $10.000's of earnings because of what Wikipedia has done. That is why he is saying he is going to sue them for $30,000.

It appears that Wikipedia have even forgotten that in the UK you do not need to register copyright like you have to in the USA.

It's not the first time they have got into copyright disagreements. They had a huge run in with the National Gallery in the UK a few years ago.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 7, 2014 at 09:29 UTC
In reply to:

bed bug: Who really care who owns copyright, this is just academic rambling.

However, clearly both parties are benefitting from all the publicity. Perhaps a nice outcome would be the establishment of a trust to help save the species.

No it's not an academic rambling. He has lost a lot of income from the photos.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 7, 2014 at 08:24 UTC
Total: 730, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »