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: 1219, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »

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? (443 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
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

One last thing.

You wrote, as an argument regarding my "water hole remote shooting" scenario:

"They TECHNICALLY shot it because they set the criteria for the shutter to be fired. None of those standards apply to the monkey selfies."

Did, then, the monkey turn on the camera and dialled in the appropriate settings?

Link | Posted on Jul 14, 2017 at 17:55 UTC
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

"IN THIS CASE the courts have all decided the monkey created it. "

There, precisely, lies the crux and, hence, the consequential cascade of wrong doings:

There was nothing "created" because a monkey can not "create" anything, in the intellectual sense of the word.

Once that is settled and understood (...as it seems it was...) all that remains is a bunch of "O"s and "1"s that came out of his camera the very same way a physical print would have come out of a Polaroid one, should it be the type the monkey had pressed the button on.

It is not for anyone to freely grab the digital image out of David's site to do with it whatever they might fancy the very same way it wouldn't be admissible for anyone to quick grab the print out of David's hand while he was showing it in public.

No creative IP ---> no ownership to attribute.

...but...

Existing, physically tangible or electronic object ---> ownership to be attributed.

Whom to...? The owner of the camera that produced it.

Link | Posted on Jul 14, 2017 at 17:35 UTC
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

Last attempt.

If a proprietary right unintentionally and ancillary derives from another consolidated and recognized one it shouldn't be up for grabs, it should be derivatively back-referred the parent proprietary right.

If it is discovered that the matzo balls you make with of your grand-mother's recipe cure a specific type of cancer, it is not for Pfizer to show up and say they own the recipe because they discovered the new use.

Link | Posted on Jul 14, 2017 at 17:12 UTC
In reply to:

PhotoKhan: Next from Screw Bar: An app featuring a rotary dial that disables all other phone functions and requires you to actually do the semi-circular movements to dial a phone number.

Yes :)

The brilliant Louis CK has a bit about it where he goes: "Didn't you use to hate those guys with many "0"s and "9"s in their numbers?"...lol...

Link | Posted on Jul 14, 2017 at 16:53 UTC
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

(cont.)

Let's get this away from the animal kingdom for a while to see if I can better bring my point across:

Say my camera throws an electronic fit and suddenly self-exposes a couple spurious shots without me touching anything.

Suppose this was witnessed by several people when it occurs, so I can't claim I intentionally did it.

Suppose it so happens that one of the exposures exhibits some bizarre hypnotic pattern that people find amazing and can't live without and, because of that odd trait, suddenly starts selling like hotcakes, making millions.

Do you feel that anyone else apart from me, the camera owner, could claim the photo was theirs?

Link | Posted on Jul 14, 2017 at 16:48 UTC
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

(cont)

It works like that because, once the IP case is settled, I can still make you actionable regarding the theft because, precisely, you have that legal existence.

A monkey does not have legal existence in what pertains to IP, so there are no other channels to even things out.

He is transparently non-existent, legally speaking and that it is why the courts decided the the IP was up for grabs.

In my view this is incorrect since, the photo was the result on an intentional set up and, lacking any rights from the monkey, it should be the camera's owner to retain the right's to the photo, since the photo did not appear out of thin air.

(cont.)

Link | Posted on Jul 14, 2017 at 16:44 UTC
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

golfhov,

You're repeatedly missing the point, as far as I am concerned.

An animal can not the be the owner of the photo because it has no legal existence that might grant it IP rights (...and, to this extent, those who think that PETA is just cuckoo, think again...What they're clearly trying to do is establish a precedent that confers extended juridical existence to any animal so that themselves, PETA, are the ones entrusted with representation powers...Can you guess why?...Think hard...).

...but the fact that the animal cannot own the photo does not make the photo free for grabs because, next in the proprietary chain comes the owner of the equipment it was made with.

If you steal my camera and make the photo of the century with it you - the creator - still have a viable case regarding the IP ownerships because you - a legal entity - were still the one that created said photography success.

(cont)

Link | Posted on Jul 14, 2017 at 16:43 UTC
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

golfhov,

So...let me see if I understood...

If you pay thousands of dollars for a trip to Africa, including travel, stay and operational expenses, set up a "photo trap" in a drink hole, somewhere in the middle of the jungle after an extremely taxing journey, said trap featuring multiple expensive cameras and optics, strobes and remote movement detection triggers to capture some nocturnal wild animal habits and end up with the photo of the decade it is OK for me to use it as I may find fit because, after all, it was the animal that, in the end, actually made the photo by moving enough for the remote trigger to activate?

Ok...I will remember that.

Now, off you go...

Link | Posted on Jul 14, 2017 at 15:16 UTC
In reply to:

PhotoKhan: PETA are the DB's we already know they are but the "douche" move by Wikipedia is as formidable as it inexcusable (...the camera was his and the photo wouldn't exist if David Slater hadn't traveled there...).

Just yesterday, I responded positively to the annual pledge made by Wikipedia's Jimmy Wales, as I have been regularly doing.

Because of this, I won't be contributing anymore.

I invite David Slater to open a pledge fund to which I will gladly contribute instead so he can, at least, recover financially or, preferably, drown PETA in their own poison.

Making use of the opportunity given by having an actionable working email, already replied to the "Thank You" pro forma email I received yesterday from Jimmy Wales, following my pledge.

I declared my intention of no longer contributing, should further investigation confirm that their behavior was a crass as it is depicted here (...there might have been other, non-referenced, mitigating circumstances...).

Link | Posted on Jul 14, 2017 at 15:04 UTC

PETA are the DB's we already know they are but the "douche" move by Wikipedia is as formidable as it inexcusable (...the camera was his and the photo wouldn't exist if David Slater hadn't traveled there...).

Just yesterday, I responded positively to the annual pledge made by Wikipedia's Jimmy Wales, as I have been regularly doing.

Because of this, I won't be contributing anymore.

I invite David Slater to open a pledge fund to which I will gladly contribute instead so he can, at least, recover financially or, preferably, drown PETA in their own poison.

Link | Posted on Jul 14, 2017 at 14:24 UTC as 268th comment | 6 replies

Next from Screw Bar: An app featuring a rotary dial that disables all other phone functions and requires you to actually do the semi-circular movements to dial a phone number.

Link | Posted on Jul 14, 2017 at 14:12 UTC as 34th comment | 4 replies

DJI rules.
All resistance is futile.
(...especially in this puzzling crowdfunding-for-something-that-already-exists format...)

Link | Posted on Jul 13, 2017 at 19:27 UTC as 26th comment
Total: 1219, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »