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: 271, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »

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 12th 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 32nd 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

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.

Link | Posted on Jul 14, 2017 at 23:19 UTC as 158th comment | 10 replies
In reply to:

dlb41: That is one ugly camera.

you don't understand, the casing is 3D-printed. that makes up for everything.

Link | Posted on Jul 14, 2017 at 22:57 UTC

How many real estate Gregs do you see today manage to use a lowly Google photosphere -
that's free and been there for years? But this real estate Greg somehow captured this 3-story home with like 40 rooms, and put together all those materials, tagged house features and shot videos for those tags. Reminds me of this AOL commercial https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1npzZu83AfU - how long somebody actually doing all those things takes today, 20 years after the commercial aired?

Link | Posted on Jun 3, 2017 at 14:50 UTC as 1st comment
On article FilmLab is a film negative scanning app for smartphones (112 comments in total)

I was about to post a really snarky comment about the Library of Congress being finally able to free up all those shelves of crusty old negs, but I watched the vid and something changed. The developer seems sincere and while, seeing his Leica and his fancy pencil all perfectly arranged leads me to believe he has a proper scanner, some folks who have nothing, may benefit from the app. It does try to maximize the quality it extracts, even though the constraints are severe (realistically, no proper light source, the film is not flat, the phone lens is dusty and gummed up, the phone is not held steady and is at an angle, and the minimal focusing distance means low res). Yet, it will help, I believe, many folks to extract web-quality or slightly better pix from negs, and some of those negs may get irrecoverably lost thereafter.

Link | Posted on May 15, 2017 at 03:04 UTC as 4th comment
On article Serious speed: Sony a9 real world samples gallery (557 comments in total)

nice camera! them real world sample photos tho...

Link | Posted on May 1, 2017 at 01:52 UTC as 27th comment
On article Samyang announces VDSLR 16MM T2.6 cine lens (18 comments in total)
In reply to:

Mark9473: I have difficulty understanding a manual focus cine/video lens with such short focus throw. How is this actually used?

Mark9473, by means of follow focus. It engages those Mod 0.8 teeth and has a gear ratio that gives precise control over distance. In a proper production, blocking is done where distances are pre-measured and the talent stands or moves among specific pre-marked spots. Those spots are marked and numbered with a dry erase pen or pencil on the white follow focus rings and as the shoot progresses the ADP / focus puller moves the focus accordingly as the talent executes the scene.

See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oP5YxHauyFk for example

Link | Posted on Apr 23, 2017 at 06:01 UTC
In reply to:

Alec: I still shoot two A900s. Never failed on me. I don't think failure is supported in firmware ;)

I got a D800 for video - I'll consolidate to E-mount for vid and stills, but only when I see 4K at 60fps and 10 or 12 bit video recording (either internal or HDMI). For now, even the A9's 4K is 30fps and 8 bits.

Indeed. Panasonic DC-GH5 (and GH4 prior) have 10 bits - the whole "4K is so huge our hands are tied on color depth side" argument no longer holds water when we see cellphones, action cameras do 4K off their puny power budgets. Certainly the 1080x60P should be native 14 bit (compressed raw as you suggest). It's 2017.

Link | Posted on Apr 22, 2017 at 21:52 UTC
Total: 271, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »