zlatko

Lives in United States United States
Has a website at www.zlatkobatistich.com
Joined on Oct 5, 2001
About me:

I'm a wedding photographer and portrait photographer based in New Jersey.

Comments

Total: 301, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

zlatko: Proving that a skilled photographer can create a Nat Geo cover with what some claim to be "disappointing" dynamic range. This was shot with a D3 at ISO 1600. According to Bill Claff's charts, the new Canon 6D2 that many people trashed a few days ago has almost a half stop more DR at ISO 1600 than the old D3 (which was excellent for its time). So even the "disappointing" 6D2 would be good enough for a prestige Nat Geo cover in the hands of a skilled pro.

It depends on the circumstances, of course. My point is that this is one circumstance that a 6D2 could handle, notwithstanding complaints. And it happens to be a prestige assignment in the photography world.

It is easy to design tests to make one camera fail and another succeed. But in the real world, skilled photographers like Mr. Barteletti produce great results with cameras that are destined to "fail" in certain tests.

Link | Posted on Jul 25, 2017 at 00:45 UTC

Proving that a skilled photographer can create a Nat Geo cover with what some claim to be "disappointing" dynamic range. This was shot with a D3 at ISO 1600. According to Bill Claff's charts, the new Canon 6D2 that many people trashed a few days ago has almost a half stop more DR at ISO 1600 than the old D3 (which was excellent for its time). So even the "disappointing" 6D2 would be good enough for a prestige Nat Geo cover in the hands of a skilled pro.

Link | Posted on Jul 24, 2017 at 22:23 UTC as 31st comment | 4 replies
In reply to:

LEGACYMOMENTSPHOTOGRAPHY: LOL i still use a 2004 canon 20D for weddings and guess what it still does great.

It's not fair to say "somewhat unprofessional" based on camera choice alone, seeing no photos whatsoever. The 20D was used by many professionals, including myself. No doubt it can still deliver very professional results if used by a skilled photographer.

Link | Posted on Jul 24, 2017 at 22:03 UTC
In reply to:

Tom Lusk: Sigma continues to pump out fantastic lenses!

The lens looks amazing. If you want to use it at f/1.8, you probably don't need sharp borders. And if you need sharp borders, you stop down the lens. You can't have everything.

Link | Posted on Jul 24, 2017 at 14:45 UTC
On article Photo story of the week: Torment (74 comments in total)

Stunning, beautiful photo. Excellent technique and result.

Link | Posted on Jul 22, 2017 at 18:41 UTC as 26th comment

Amazing!!

Link | Posted on Jul 22, 2017 at 18:29 UTC as 20th comment
In reply to:

Scorehound_ca: I recall not too long ago the Sony a9 had one of its tests redone because of an error by DPR staff. Again, we have all these comments based on one person's use and not real world shooting in real situations.

I think it would be best to wait until real world reviews come out from photographers using retail shipped cameras.

In real world shooting, one learns how to expose for backlit scenes. So there's no need to brighten exposure by 3 stops or more. One or two stops is plenty. Three stops if you really messed up. The tests here show that the sensor will handle typical adjustments just fine.

So the "real world impact" claimed in this article is just one interpretation of a real world. It seems to be a world where photographers seem to make a series of unforced errors: severe underexposure and avoidance of noise reduction. That can happen in the real world, but I suspect it's not very common.

Link | Posted on Jul 21, 2017 at 23:07 UTC
In reply to:

zlatko: The 5D3 has met the needs of countless wedding photographers and photojournalists. It is very much a standard tool, and a preferred tool for many. And judging from the tests here, the 6D2 is just as good, if not a tiny bit better.

No doubt they are aware of a lot of things.

Link | Posted on Jul 21, 2017 at 18:44 UTC
In reply to:

zlatko: The 5D3 has met the needs of countless wedding photographers and photojournalists. It is very much a standard tool, and a preferred tool for many. And judging from the tests here, the 6D2 is just as good, if not a tiny bit better.

The thing is, people who are actually out working with such cameras (5D3, 6D, etc.) are poorly represented on this site. They are busy getting work done and don't bother reading about or commenting on extreme underexposure comparisons.

Link | Posted on Jul 21, 2017 at 16:32 UTC
In reply to:

sykkys: I feel like irony is lost on people who take their time to read up on a new camera and make comments claiming gear performance doesn't matter. If you really believe that, why even bother?

It's not that gear "doesn't matter". Rather, gear really does matter and Canon cameras (5D3 and similar) are quite good for actual work. That's been proven time after time, through tons of work, happy clients, photo contests won, income earned, etc., etc. That's what Canon knows, and some people here don't. People get hung up on measurements and miss the bigger picture. Holding cameras to a 3, 4, 5 or 6-stop brightening "standard" reflects the needs of a narrow slice of the photography world.

Link | Posted on Jul 21, 2017 at 16:26 UTC

The 5D3 has met the needs of countless wedding photographers and photojournalists. It is very much a standard tool, and a preferred tool for many. And judging from the tests here, the 6D2 is just as good, if not a tiny bit better.

Link | Posted on Jul 21, 2017 at 14:42 UTC as 107th comment | 5 replies
In reply to:

mxx: Canon fans, note the astronaut uses a Nikon camera!

/trolling

They use Canon in space but for video:
http://cpn.canon-europe.com/content/education/technical/outer_space_with_the_eos_c500.do
and
http://highsierraworkshops.org/canon-joins-nikon-hasselblad-as-nasas-camera-of-choice/
Canon videocams were also used in space decades ago. I believe there are some examples at the Udvar-Hazy museum in VA.

Link | Posted on Jul 19, 2017 at 02:39 UTC
In reply to:

silentstorm: I came to appreciate the difficulties in doing astro photography when I bought the 20mm F1.4 Sigma. These are very inspiring!

Me? Oh epic fail multiple times... LOL!!!

Could be difficult, depending on where you live. Sky is not clear everywhere.

Link | Posted on Jul 18, 2017 at 16:54 UTC
In reply to:

zlatko: Believe it or not, PETA's official position is "monkey owns copyright":
https://www.peta.org/blog/peta-appeal-monkey-selfie-case-grounds-monkey-owns-copyright/
Copyright protects an author's exclusive right to make copies. That's why it's called copyright. But how exactly is the monkey going to MAKE copies of the photo? How does the monkey distribute copies, exhibit copies, sell copies, license copies, derive copies, inspect copies, approve copies, sign copies, publish copies, promote copies, limit copies, etc.? When, where and HOW is any of that supposed to happen? Did anybody think this through?

@Alec, Your argument is unconvincing because Stephen Hawking can testify as to his state of mind when creating something years ago, can make agreements and understand them, can buy & sell properties & licenses. There is no question about that. But you haven't identified any monkey that can do those things.

The past arguments for slavery are not at all "similar" as you claim. Monkeys are not people, and you can't give them copyright by likening them to very disabled people. If being a person is not a meaningful to copyright, then you have to extend copyright to any creature: spiders, bees, ants, aardvarks, crabs, snails, dogs, birds, etc. If they create any art and you copy it, they can sue you personally for infringment, and they can WIN a money judgment against you, and collect against your assets. If they somehow registered their work with the Copyright Office, you'll have to pay all of their attorneys' fees too.

Link | Posted on Jul 17, 2017 at 14:00 UTC
On article Photo story of the week: Spires of the Arctic Night (21 comments in total)

Beautiful!!

Link | Posted on Jul 16, 2017 at 23:00 UTC as 5th comment

Delightful!

Link | Posted on Jul 16, 2017 at 21:10 UTC as 61st comment
In reply to:

DPPMetro: If I'm not mistaken, there is a significant part of the story no longer being discussed, particularly by DPR.

If I remember correctly, the photographer originally stated that the animal took the selfie on its own. That line is what gave it the viral push it needed. Then the crap started and then he recanted and stated he took the pic himself (because he was losing the copyright on it).

While I sympathize with him and feel he was ripped apart by ruthless parties, he made the mistake of the original claim. He could have easily said he used a remote or catch in focus, or anything. Maybe it would have had lower reach, but it's a phenomenal, timeless photo. He would have not only gotten the licensures over time, but also retained the earnings from his career.

It is very doubtful the animal took the pic itself, but the damage of the original statement was already done.

Now we lose another good photographer trying to do some good, but with poor business sense.

I'm a photographer on a photography forum, happy to support this photographer's copyright. When the response to that is rude insults about mental disabilities, that ends discussion about the actual topic. Basic civility means allowing for differing opinions without personal attacks.

Link | Posted on Jul 16, 2017 at 18:26 UTC
In reply to:

DPPMetro: If I'm not mistaken, there is a significant part of the story no longer being discussed, particularly by DPR.

If I remember correctly, the photographer originally stated that the animal took the selfie on its own. That line is what gave it the viral push it needed. Then the crap started and then he recanted and stated he took the pic himself (because he was losing the copyright on it).

While I sympathize with him and feel he was ripped apart by ruthless parties, he made the mistake of the original claim. He could have easily said he used a remote or catch in focus, or anything. Maybe it would have had lower reach, but it's a phenomenal, timeless photo. He would have not only gotten the licensures over time, but also retained the earnings from his career.

It is very doubtful the animal took the pic itself, but the damage of the original statement was already done.

Now we lose another good photographer trying to do some good, but with poor business sense.

It's great that so many people on DPR discuss interesting topics in photography without resorting to ugly insults of other people's reading skills and intelligence. Unfortunately, one person can instantly drop the discussion down to that level.

Link | Posted on Jul 16, 2017 at 15:10 UTC
In reply to:

DPPMetro: If I'm not mistaken, there is a significant part of the story no longer being discussed, particularly by DPR.

If I remember correctly, the photographer originally stated that the animal took the selfie on its own. That line is what gave it the viral push it needed. Then the crap started and then he recanted and stated he took the pic himself (because he was losing the copyright on it).

While I sympathize with him and feel he was ripped apart by ruthless parties, he made the mistake of the original claim. He could have easily said he used a remote or catch in focus, or anything. Maybe it would have had lower reach, but it's a phenomenal, timeless photo. He would have not only gotten the licensures over time, but also retained the earnings from his career.

It is very doubtful the animal took the pic itself, but the damage of the original statement was already done.

Now we lose another good photographer trying to do some good, but with poor business sense.

That's an ultra-rude reply. So ugly, mean and insulting. And you obviously mean to be very, very insulting. That's a totally inappropriate way to address people and you know it. I would have more to say about the photographer in question, what he said or should have said, what may have been true or false, etc., but I won't have any such discussion with you.

Link | Posted on Jul 16, 2017 at 14:26 UTC
In reply to:

Alec: While the monkey was somehow savvy enough to use a camera that may be intimidating to some humans, the photographer doesn't seem to display the same flexibility. He could have milked the fame arising from the photo and opportunities arising from the fame; he could have created derivative works etc. - instead he'd fought a losing battle that cast himself in a bad light and lost it all.

Not sure he'd make a good dog walker either - if a dog pulls on the leash (vs. him doing it) I think he'd lose it.

The Richard Prince example only works if you are that Richard Prince, a big name in the art world. It doesn't work for regular people. And part of his notoriety is that his method says, in effect, "I copied someone else's photo without permission, resold it for a ton of money, and got away with it!" David Slater is in very much the opposite situation, having created an original photo, and not being ultra-famous as a bad boy of the art world.

As for Slater writing an opera about his monkey photo, I suppose that's an option ... but sad if that were the way he had to capitalize on it. He'd have to be skilled at writing opera, first of all ...

Link | Posted on Jul 16, 2017 at 14:18 UTC
Total: 301, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »