PhotoKhan

Lives in Portugal Cascais, Portugal
Works as a Airline pilot
Joined on Mar 22, 2003
About me:

A good photograph shows what you saw.
A superior ones conveys what you felt.

Comments

Total: 1211, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

Piotr M: So tourists are automatically banned by this measure ?

Tourists are already banned from many things in the UK. This will probably be just one more.

Visiting the Lake District, some time ago, there were so many regulations and bans regarding photography in place that I was assaulted by a feeling that took me a while to understand and that I had never felt before, anywhere else in the world:

That, rather then freely enjoying the place,I was just "allowed" to be there.

Link | Posted on Jul 25, 2017 at 13:45 UTC

I am in extreme awe and completely humbled by this.

Link | Posted on Jul 22, 2017 at 18:58 UTC as 18th comment

IMAX is a completely inappropriate format for a war epic.

Christopher Nolan's (CN) fascination with the format is an incomprehensible one, especial because it is just a "pour épater la bourgeoisie" gimmick that renders images in an unnatural format for the human vision, forcing viewers to strain the neck while scanning the gigantic squarish screens.

At my sons insistence, I saw "The Dark Night Rises" in a IMAX cinema and found a brilliant film, probably the only "dense enough" action hero movie I ever saw, completely ruined by the chosen format, especially because of the baffling and annoying transitions between wide format scenes and IMAX ones throughout the movie.

If CN is having problems with the way the film is being presented, this is something he brought upon himself on account of the chosen format.

Surely he must notice the common display formats (...including most cinemas...) all around him, right?

Link | Posted on Jul 22, 2017 at 15:51 UTC as 18th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

PhotoKhan: Ok...from the samples, this might be serious business.

That attempted pun is so wrong, on so many levels...

Link | Posted on Jul 21, 2017 at 09:06 UTC

Must...be...strong...must...not...laugh...

Link | Posted on Jul 21, 2017 at 09:05 UTC as 28th comment
In reply to:

Marty4650: Tough break for Leica. Some fool actually tried to use their camera, rather than simply displaying it for it's prestige value.

To their credit, they quickly warned all the other TL2 owners to not use their $575 optional viewfinder with their $1,950 entry level MILC camera.

Marty, you really made me laugh.
Thank you.

Link | Posted on Jul 21, 2017 at 09:02 UTC
In reply to:

GoremanX: The alterations in these photos are random and meaningless. They don't serve to enhance the photos in any way. Seriously, who purposely bends a sail post on a boat? Or adds random trash bins to the background? Also, some of those photos are downright painful to look at. This is a terrible test, it's really no different than your typical "Where are the differences?" images in children's magazines, except there's only one photo to look at.

I got 8/10. That's 15 minutes of my life I'll never get back.

They magnanimously granted the possibility of us dropping off mid-through the survey,

I made good use of that provision.

Link | Posted on Jul 21, 2017 at 06:36 UTC
In reply to:

PhotoKhan: The reason humans find drones noise especially annoying is because there are frequencies coming out of it that mimic insect buzzing sounds.

In fact, the frequencies must be so close that, the other day, they made a swarm of bees flock around my Mavic, following it around any single rapid movement it would make, including going from hovering to 45mph almost instantly, in Sports mode.

They must have thought it was a gigantic queen-bee and it was a bit surreal, almost like CGI -in-real-life, watching that black blob changing speed and direction so swiftly, even if it cost them dearly, as I found out when the drone landed and the propellers had to be extensively cleaned.

(cont.)

(cont.)

What this study does not say is that, given the pitch and general low original intensity of the noise, it attenuates quite rapidly with distance (...at least my Mavic does...).

There have been several instances where I was flying the drone respecting the minimum safety distance to people and buildings as I always do but not very far from a significant amount of people and they were completely unaware a drone was nearby until I brought it in for landing.

In fact, this is one of the features I most like in the Mavic: Due to its size, colour and relatively low sound print it is quite stealthy, most of the time.

Link | Posted on Jul 20, 2017 at 08:33 UTC

The reason humans find drones noise especially annoying is because there are frequencies coming out of it that mimic insect buzzing sounds.

In fact, the frequencies must be so close that, the other day, they made a swarm of bees flock around my Mavic, following it around any single rapid movement it would make, including going from hovering to 45mph almost instantly, in Sports mode.

They must have thought it was a gigantic queen-bee and it was a bit surreal, almost like CGI -in-real-life, watching that black blob changing speed and direction so swiftly, even if it cost them dearly, as I found out when the drone landed and the propellers had to be extensively cleaned.

(cont.)

Link | Posted on Jul 20, 2017 at 08:31 UTC as 2nd comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

PhotoKhan: Ok...from the samples, this might be serious business.

You don't see. I do.
I might be wrong.
It's all OK. Have fun and glass of good wine.

Link | Posted on Jul 19, 2017 at 17:58 UTC
In reply to:

PhotoKhan: Ok...from the samples, this might be serious business.

Well, sommeliers hardly drink any wine.

Still, they know what they are looking for.

Link | Posted on Jul 19, 2017 at 16:34 UTC
In reply to:

PhotoKhan: Ok...from the samples, this might be serious business.

Contrary to what many here believe, lenses have more to tell than just MTFs.
Lenses have "souls"and I like the one I see in the first photo.

...but, hey!, that's just me. If the production runs perform like the prototype and still everyone finds it unremarkable, maybe I can get one in 2 or 3 year at heavily discounted prices :)

Link | Posted on Jul 19, 2017 at 16:26 UTC

Ok...from the samples, this might be serious business.

Link | Posted on Jul 19, 2017 at 16:02 UTC as 38th comment | 8 replies
On article Should I buy a Canon EOS 6D Mark II? (441 comments in total)
In reply to:

p5freak: If you like Camera Technology from the Stone Age of Photography, buy it.

I notice that you're so overwhelmed by the "photographic technology from the future" made available to you, that it seems you're unaware that the site that would show all the wonders you're benefiting from no longer works.

Link | Posted on Jul 19, 2017 at 14:11 UTC
In reply to:

lightandaprayer: Some people criticize Apple for its control of the Mac and iOS ecosystem. But its that very control that makes Apple products the safest to use in a world with an increasing variety of cyberthreats.

Common misconception.

What makes then "safer" is the fact that they offer a lesser "reward" for the threat authors, since there is a much, much, much larger number of Windows platforms around.

Hackers get their kicks out of causing major disruptions. Why would they go after such a relatively small computer population?

Link | Posted on Jul 18, 2017 at 05:56 UTC

Hmmm...I think I know what Aurelius is doing...

There's another of their companies (Calumet) that was announced to be "in liquidation" some time ago and, curiously enough, keeps persistently showing up in my computer.

When Aurelius touts in their web site that it is " focussed" (...literal...) "on identifying investment opportunities to expand the Group’s activities", this is the kind of jargon I am now well familiarized with.

I am afraid that the keen collaborator that "has been working long days to pull the company through hard times" is about to discover who will pocket that extra effort... without him but rather with a cheaper replacement to sell exactly the same products, under exactly the same brand.

Link | Posted on Jul 17, 2017 at 15:43 UTC as 37th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

golfhov: Copyright battle comes up here all the time.
In all fairness the "monkey selfie" was not Slater's work and the user he went after that started this whole entanglement was wikipedia. Not some greedy megacorporation.
Then peta hi jacked the case to promote their agenda. Same as now the photographic community has now hijacked the story to promote their agenda.
TitLe of this story should be struggling photographer cannot cut it in competitive industry.
This article is better than some others bit the original Brisbane article shold be read and the title ignored to truly understand a simple tale of an interesting story involving a cast of shady and incapable characters involved in monkey business

Again, this "creator" thing with the monkey...

...now that I think of it, I believe I saw him, back in 2010, in my regular photography shop, browsing the products, asking for a Sony for the extra "Woo-woo-haa-haa" but the clerk locked him on the 5D.

He then asked the clerk how to insert cards and batteries and dial-in the required settings... I even remember him choosing the wide-angle for that particular effect and inquiring, "woo-ha-ha" again, if f8 would be OK for a selfie.

The store owner was p*ssed for all the bananas peels when he left but soon calmed down when he was told by the clerk that the monkey had charged over 12500$ to his credit card.

Yes, it was "creation"...with intent, for sure...

Link | Posted on Jul 14, 2017 at 21:35 UTC

The system might able to do the "bullet time effect" but that is not demonstrated in the video.

The only thing demonstrated is the ability to remote trigger release 7 cameras in sequence.

It takes a lot more to produce the required effect (more cameras, specific timings).

The original video, on YouTube, is 8 months old and features just 4 comments, all of them unanswered by the "company".

I am noticing a recent trend on DPR to publicize every single project that is thrown your way, without checking their credibility, with special incidence on crowdfunded proposals.

Link | Posted on Jul 14, 2017 at 21:18 UTC as 7th comment | 4 replies
In reply to:

Hans Stuhrmann: Very poor behaviour from PETA.

It is not "poor" behavior.

In fact, if I am seeing things correctly, it is quite "rich".

You see, if with this and other precedents they manage to establish the legal stronghold that animals, in general, have rights over their images that they simply are not capable of enforcing, they will be opening the pathway to the possibility of being declared the managers of those very same rights something that, in turn, would make them one of the richest organizations on earth.

Of course, when hard-pressed midway through the ploy to comment on the insanity of the claim, they will candidly say "Why not? Why not obtain revenue from those rights and channel them to the animal welfare?", without mentioning how much they will already be spending on the organization structure, itself, by that time.

If they are allowed to build legal momentum over this "clever" idea, they might very well be unstoppable later on.

Link | Posted on Jul 14, 2017 at 20:50 UTC
In reply to:

Ribbit74: "Zoom with your feet"

lol

Link | Posted on Jul 14, 2017 at 18:36 UTC
Total: 1211, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »