Alec

Alec

Lives in United States New York City, NY, United States
Works as a Photographer
Has a website at http://karasevstudio.com/
Joined on Oct 24, 2000
About me:

I'm a photographer serving New York City’s theatre and fashion industries as well as industrial and advertising photography needs of the city’s businesses. My O2 (Optically Opinionated) blog contains ideas, tips, and industry commentary.

Comments

Total: 278, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

gbdz: Just for my curiosity, I Googled their sites and galleries and as far as I am concerned, photography is doing as well if they are also doing it or not.
The American trend of people losing their jobs after accusations but before trials or convictions is scary. It is mob justice, KKK stuff even though done in the name of social justice.
People used to be innocent until proven otherwise...that used to be in the law.
Now they are guilty as tweeted.

While egregious actions have had swift consequences even in the past, there used to be a pretty broad "gray area" of tolerance where both sides would be in agreement to wait and see what the court says.

Nowadays we have that area shrunken to a thin line, and what's worse, depending on the situation or the field that line veers wildly to the left or right. In adademia, show business and so on, it leans left; if you're facing a politician in one of the red states, or a police man, it leans right. Both sides call for consideration but neither seems to be willing to give it, and anyone in its own ranks who dares to raise a voice of dissent, is ostracized with such vengeance that Fahrenheit 451 seems chill by comparison.

Link | Posted on Aug 16, 2017 at 05:22 UTC
In reply to:

2eyesee: I'm surprised that such soft, low resolution images are presented as evidence that ICL's are becoming obsolete.

At full size they are only 960x720, so wouldn't hold up to even small prints or viewing on anything other than a small smartphone screen. At even at this <1MP size, they are very soft viewed at 100%:

https://scontent.fakl1-2.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/20374439_10154573133645706_418548207944359257_n.jpg?oh=5d3338b4313e4e2a85480e4ad3fffa1e&oe=59ED8D2A.

Forget about ILC's for a moment - a 5 year old RX100 would produce far superior results with its f/1.8 on a 1" sensor (that's 4-7x larger than smartphone cameras).

Yeah - it's not exactly exemplary scientific method to snap a photo of your own kids and say "Look - aren't they precious, my babies? This camera is amazing, I love it."

Link | Posted on Aug 16, 2017 at 05:09 UTC

Smartphones don't compete on IQ alone - they also have full-time internet connectivity that is already paid for, plus powerful general purpose CPUs which run specialized photo processing and sharing apps from very rich and open ecosystems. To many people, these are devastating advantages, for whose sake they would tolerate a slower response, lower IQ, and fewer optical options. Like I said here (more context) http://karasevstudio.com/o2/2013/32

Link | Posted on Aug 16, 2017 at 05:05 UTC as 37th comment
In reply to:

DtEW: "Free" content whose format is easier for businesses to advance their agenda from (gear reviews!) drowns-out/starves higher-minded "free" content whose format is harder for businesses to advance their agenda from.

Sadly, not a surprise.

because this is the appropriate place to advance that agenda / communicate this message

Link | Posted on Aug 15, 2017 at 16:07 UTC
In reply to:

Lee Jay: After 30+ years of being an active model airplane builder and flyer and 40 years of being an active photographer, I just can't get excited about helicopters, single or multi-rotor. I last had a camera on a model airplane in 2002.

Every time I go look for a "drone" (horrible term) that I could use for photography, it's either not available with the features I want or it's outrageously expensive (i.e. 5 figures). And every time I fly my small helicopters and quads, I get board after a few minutes. They just aren't fun to fly for me.

Terminology wise, there are even oxymoronic references to drones with pilots riding them (because, drone is a buzz|keyword that gets clicks). And then you point out a fixed wing with the same remote|auto-pilot features and the folks are like "that's not a drone", because their gerbil brain has no room for anything other than drone = quadcopter; the rest is taken up by TV shows on Netflix.

Link | Posted on Aug 9, 2017 at 14:02 UTC
On article Panasonic Leica DG 15mm F1.7 shooting experience (405 comments in total)
In reply to:

Alec: So is it Panasonic or is it Leica? I need to know in order to take a stand that this is
(a) images richly imbued with plasticity, luminosity, character, air, mystique that is proof undeniable of Leica's untouchable superiority, or
(b) meh pix from an inconsequential lens that'll be forgotten about in 2-3 years.

Oh, I see. It is starting to make sense.
Everybody knows that the very expensive Wetzlar air trapped between the lens elements has been a major contributor to Leica lens cost. I wonder if these technicians are being fed beans grown in Wetzlar in order to duly imbue these Panasonics in order to make them into bona fide Leicas.

Link | Posted on Jul 23, 2017 at 23:59 UTC
On article Panasonic Leica DG 15mm F1.7 shooting experience (405 comments in total)

So is it Panasonic or is it Leica? I need to know in order to take a stand that this is
(a) images richly imbued with plasticity, luminosity, character, air, mystique that is proof undeniable of Leica's untouchable superiority, or
(b) meh pix from an inconsequential lens that'll be forgotten about in 2-3 years.

Link | Posted on Jul 23, 2017 at 05:21 UTC as 21st comment | 5 replies

It would suck if brands start making bodies with distinct non-spherical curved sensor surfaces, which they patent, and proceed making lenses targeting their specific curvature patterns ... thus taking away the legacy and cross-brand lens support that SONY's E-mount full frame has given us, that was unseen since M42

Link | Posted on Jul 21, 2017 at 19:43 UTC as 52nd comment
In reply to:

Nikoncanonfan: Even a broken Leica has more style, purpose, desirability and magic to it than a working Sony.. ..

It's off-message to say "purpose". Say mystique.

Link | Posted on Jul 20, 2017 at 19:32 UTC
In reply to:

BadScience: A reminder what happens when consumed by greed and not knowing when to let go of the rope.

Couldn't have put it better myself (and I tried). If only Slater took the high road, he'd be giving TED talks about animals left and right, and signing limited edition print that HE made of the monkey's photo, to hang in the Smithsonian, and for the Library of Congress, and for private collectors for BIG bucks.

Being inflexible and pressing your disadvantage can be a very unfortunate, toxic trap. There's a lesson for all of us.

Link | Posted on Jul 20, 2017 at 02:57 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?

I agree @cosinaphile - it should not be "humans take all" "just because we're humans" or because we can understand a contract. Perhaps many years ago someone like Hawking would be considered dumb due to his inability to communicate in a way and at a rate humans would expect of a competent individual, without the benefit of technology, human helpers, and society's consideration given to Mr. Hawking today.

Link | Posted on Jul 17, 2017 at 16:48 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?

So we agree, both a mentally impaired person and a regular monkey can have trouble with contracts and so on. The reason why such a person can of course have rights to the work they create, and the monkey not, is "because they are a person". Not too long ago a similar argument had been made "because they are white" (and not black, as in, slaves could not own property, period) - which had been rightly overturned.

I believe the proof is in the art. If an elephant makes a painting, and the majority of that painting's notoriety and value are due to the fact that an elephant had made them, that elephant's owner or handler or whatever, has little claim to the work in my mind. You could say without the owner's work to train the elephant and buy canvas for it and such, the painting would not have happened, and be right, but it's kind of like Steven Hawking's university and his nurse laying claim to his work. The proof is in the art and who made it - not who helped create the conditions.

Link | Posted on Jul 17, 2017 at 12:45 UTC
In reply to:

samfan: Well, people who think this case is really simple, riddle me this:

If I rented a camera from a store, then handed the camera to a person, and they handed it to another person, and they handed it to a monkey who would take a photo, who would own the copyright to the photo?

The store, because it's the owner of the equipment, me, because I legally rented it, or the last person who had the camera in their hands?

dialstatic that's a good argument; however more than one person might claim intent for the same work, and it'd be difficult to discern whose intent was the one that actually resulted in the work (which may not necessarily coincide with the most logical or technically accurate or eloquently articulated one).

Further, arguably an arts supply store owner could hand a poor autistic kid some paint and canvas with the intent of the kid creating a masterpiece, and if that comes to pass I'd hate to see the store owner claim the rights to the work on those grounds.

Link | Posted on Jul 16, 2017 at 02:04 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?

"Humans can testify as to their state of mind when creating, can make legal agreements, can buy & sell properties & licenses, can understand what copyright is"

That's not necessary to be able to claim rights to the work, because it is perfectly possible for a person suffering from a mental impairment that prevents them to do such things, to be, nonetheless, a brilliant artist.

Link | Posted on Jul 15, 2017 at 23:54 UTC
In reply to:

Alec: Imagine cleaning those lenses!

No, really. Smartphones take good photos in good light unless the lens is grimy. Not to worry, you take a sec to check it out, breathe on it, and gently wipe it down with an edge of your shirt or some such. Now do that 16 times in a row.

Actually I stand corrected. On their site it looks like the entire front of the camera has a flat sheet of glass that all lenses share - comparable, cleaning wise, to a large lens filter. Not so bad.

Link | Posted on Jul 15, 2017 at 19:10 UTC

Imagine cleaning those lenses!

No, really. Smartphones take good photos in good light unless the lens is grimy. Not to worry, you take a sec to check it out, breathe on it, and gently wipe it down with an edge of your shirt or some such. Now do that 16 times in a row.

Link | Posted on Jul 15, 2017 at 18:15 UTC as 36th comment | 1 reply
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.

I said, DO modify the image to create copyrightable derivative work. I said, DO trade on the notoriety. As you acknowledged quite rightfully in the Prince example, it's worth way more than the underlying image (and the latter being contested helps not hurts).

Link | Posted on Jul 15, 2017 at 16:27 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?

There was a time in America when, unfortunately, a similar argument was being applied towards slaves supposedly having no use for intellectual fruits of their labor.

Responding to the changes we bring to the environment, animals are evolving, and quite rapidly so (nowadays broadly documented thanks to smartphones and social media). Cats and dogs already have a bunch of iPad apps built for them to use with their paws - while older folks have problems using similar complexity apps.

Artificial intelligence is evolving.

And just because, say, a child might have no faculties to monetize something she made, doesn't mean she should't be entitled to it (protected and guided by the broader society on its behalf).

The rights for creative works should be at equilibrium with their value and not judged based on species in a "human takes all" fashion as inevitably that's slavery - be it of a monkey's independent mind, or a machine's (in the case of future self-aware and self-evolved AI).

Link | Posted on Jul 15, 2017 at 16:11 UTC
In reply to:

maxnimo: - breakthrough
- radically different
- crazy camera
- something the world has never seen before
- revolutionizing
- something spectacular
- highest-quality images possible

I'm sold! Don't even bother with a review ... With amazing specs like these I want one whatever the price!

this list is well short of sufficient. i demand the tray in the box that separates the camera from the usb cable/battery/etc, to have that baby bottom texture, and the usb cord itself must have those disposable plastic caps, and be held together with a clear shiny plastic thingy (I want to say a strip of mylar but that's nerdy so I won't). then it's a quality camera but not pro level. for it to be pro level, victoria's secret angels must be seen pretending to use it from a catwalk - then it's pro

Link | Posted on Jul 15, 2017 at 15:11 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.

Zlatko: nope. Tons of commercial software nowadays use open source libraries, classes, code snippets etc. That does not make the commercial software free to copy. The same with visual works - I can put a girl in a wheelchair drinking a beer on a lunar or martian surface courtesy of NASA (or simply stylize those photos like Andy Warhol's Marilyn), and that work will be perfectly copyrightable. Not to mention, in the art world people pay for the original - a replica of a Dali painting is barely worth the cost of its canvas, and the same for collectible modern artists. Richard Prince is a great case in point of monetizing the notoriety and controversy to the max, as he deftly carves down the copyright line.

Link | Posted on Jul 15, 2017 at 14:54 UTC
Total: 278, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »