WT21

Lives in United States United States
Joined on Apr 22, 2008

Comments

Total: 410, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On article Learn about Photoshop blending modes in just 8 minutes (11 comments in total)
In reply to:

keepreal: Very well explained by a guy who has an excellent way with words. I am sufficiently impressed to look at his other videos, including a 41:05 one telling more about blending. It is a tool I would like to understand better how and when to use, also gradients.

Agreed. I may check out his other videos if they are as clear as this one.

Link | Posted on Jan 19, 2018 at 21:43 UTC

Visited the site, and have to say I don't like most of the work there (personal preference, I know). Way too dark, way overly contrasty, a number of "candids" (at least, what you would expect to be candids, such as at the wedding party) seem posed. Cutting edge, artsy? Yes, I suppose. Pleasant to look at and a lovely reminder of a wedding -- not really (again, IMO). As someone noted below -- loved by judges, but probably not the wedding participants.

Link | Posted on Jan 18, 2018 at 14:24 UTC as 9th comment

Here’s what I don’t get though

I have two iP6’s. Mine was updated on iOS releases and slowed down. New battery last week and all is well

My wife’s never got an iOS update past iOS 9 and it still runs just fine and dandy. The phone shows no evidence of being damaged. I’m not fully buying apples explanation here, except maybe as precautionary that it could, not that it will.

Link | Posted on Dec 27, 2017 at 01:28 UTC as 51st comment | 1 reply
On article Season's Greetings from DPReview.com (86 comments in total)

Merry Christmas Simon and all the best in your new endeavor. Work on something new and interesting while you are down there and let us know all about it when you can.

Link | Posted on Dec 25, 2017 at 12:39 UTC as 59th comment
In reply to:

PhotoKhan: Their "moral obligation", if dully observed, has far more depth than they are willing to admit and they can get away with it because our regulatory legal systems are playing catch (...intentionally or unintentionally, it doesn't matter...) with this "brave new world".

A crowdfunding model like Kickstart should be under a legal regulatory blanket that would determine that no failed venture could be bought by a third party.

Either it succeeded or failed. Full stop. No further options.

As it stands, the purchaser of a failed venture is benefiting from the devolvement of a product until the moment it failed, without actually having to pay for it, as that investment was supported by the original backers.

(cont.)

@PhotoKhan, good points, and I change my mind. I agree with more with your position.

Link | Posted on Dec 25, 2017 at 03:30 UTC

This is hilarious. Crowdfunding technology. The thief that keeps on taking.

Link | Posted on Dec 23, 2017 at 20:06 UTC as 6th comment
In reply to:

PhotoKhan: Their "moral obligation", if dully observed, has far more depth than they are willing to admit and they can get away with it because our regulatory legal systems are playing catch (...intentionally or unintentionally, it doesn't matter...) with this "brave new world".

A crowdfunding model like Kickstart should be under a legal regulatory blanket that would determine that no failed venture could be bought by a third party.

Either it succeeded or failed. Full stop. No further options.

As it stands, the purchaser of a failed venture is benefiting from the devolvement of a product until the moment it failed, without actually having to pay for it, as that investment was supported by the original backers.

(cont.)

"A crowdfunding model like Kickstart should be under a legal regulatory blanket that would determine that no failed venture could be bought by a third party. "

We can't say a failed venture can't be bought. If they owe creditors, they have to sell the IP to pay them. What the feds could do (and do for other types of investments) is require proper/controlled documentation and communication around the viability of the proposed venture, and the inherent risks in investing. If there were prospectus language with the risks clearly laid out, then at least the smart money (i.e. those willing to read the notes) could walk away. Of course, there is always dumb money, and that's what Kickstarter, et al rely on.

Link | Posted on Dec 23, 2017 at 20:05 UTC
On article Annie Leibovitz teaches photography in new MasterClass (175 comments in total)

"What camera are you using" -- "if that's what you are thinking about, then you are not taking pictures"

I think that video segment just burned a hole in the DPR space-time continuum (or something)

Link | Posted on Dec 19, 2017 at 21:42 UTC as 36th comment | 10 replies
In reply to:

Zoran K: Viral video of emaciated polar bear may not be what it seems, Nunavut bear monitor says

http://www.cbc.ca/radio/asithappens/as-it-happens-monday-edition-1.4442887/viral-video-of-emaciated-polar-bear-may-not-be-what-it-seems-nunavut-bear-monitor-says-1.4442892

http://www.cbc.ca/player/play/1114184771526/

Wow-- image was taken in the summer but posted in the winter, people from the north saying this is likely (not 100%, but likely) due to other concerns. Not that there isn't a global warming issue, but this is not likely a poster child for this.

Why has so much of society today come to the belief that it's OK to use false case studies to prove larger points? All it does is polarize both sides.

There is a discussion to be had here, but don't try to force it with likely false stories. It creates resistance to real stories and issues. That goes for the right and the left.

From what I've seen the research bares out that posting false stories, and taking extreme viewpoints only serves to STRENGTHEN others across the aisle. How about working with facts, and looking for compromise. Imagine if we could all trend back towards the middle? Things would actually get done.

Link | Posted on Dec 12, 2017 at 21:27 UTC
In reply to:

usernamealreadyinuse: Gee, four guys up in Portland must be in tears, right about now.

Dang. I posted the same comment (pretty much) 5 hours later, only to find out I am derivative, lol.

Link | Posted on Dec 6, 2017 at 11:31 UTC

Three people are really mad right now

Link | Posted on Dec 6, 2017 at 01:14 UTC as 21st comment
In reply to:

Hugo808: Camera companies have had it easy for too long. Everyone used to upgrade their camera every year when a new one with an extra pixel was released, but we've wised up to that now. well, most of us. The metric enlargements still make some think that 50mp will be useful for what they do but we all know there's a limit and they won't have anything to tempt us with.

I just hope my Fuji is built to last so I don't have to replace it for a decade...

It's not that we wised up in some way, its that the rate of tech change has slowed. DR improvements have slowed, smaller sizes have found the bottom (and then got a bit bigger), EVFs and AF is pretty solid. There's just less reason to upgrade than there was 3-4 years ago.

Link | Posted on Dec 4, 2017 at 22:22 UTC
On article 2017 Buying Guide: Best cameras under $1000 (117 comments in total)
In reply to:

MrALLCAPS: Where is the GX85? It has just as good of a ibis system, does 4K and is at a really good price with a lens?

DPR does not recommend the gx85 for any category.no idea why, and the jpg engine is not that bad from what I've seen

I don't understand why they have deep sixes most of pangs m43 offerings

Link | Posted on Dec 3, 2017 at 22:28 UTC

I was a DCresource addict in the early 2000s. Mostly a Canon Elph shooter at the time. Kept at it until I left compacts around 2008 for DSLRs first and then mirror less.

Thanks for all your work back then!

Link | Posted on Nov 23, 2017 at 14:46 UTC as 91st comment
In reply to:

trungtran: So which image is the polaroid and which is the instax.

Can you give me a link to a RAW file, and I can figure it out from there. Look at the DR -- can you lift the shadows. That's the tell.

Link | Posted on Nov 17, 2017 at 21:53 UTC

How the internet works

News:
"Polaroid is suing Fuji for TRADEMARK infringement by precisely replicating their iconic form of the exact BORDER widths around a square instant image"

The internet
"That's what's wrong with capitalism. You shouldn't be able to patent the square"
<puts on Guy Fawkes mask for next rally>

Link | Posted on Nov 17, 2017 at 19:10 UTC as 36th comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

stevo23: First, lame that that could even be copyrighted. Second, Polaroid is truly pitiful here. I like Fuji's comments and tend to agree with them. Polaroid has lost nothing to Fuji here because who would have gone there anyhow?

You should read the article again. It's not the square format. The article is very clear. People are reading here "someone patented the square format". This is a TRADEMARK on the form of the precise BORDERS around the square, and that the trademark has come to mean Polaroid. When you see that shape -- square with the borders -- a great many people think "that's a Polaroid" and that's what a trademark is. Whether the TM was abandoned is the real question.

Link | Posted on Nov 17, 2017 at 18:49 UTC
In reply to:

jwasturias: This borders on the insane.

only if you don't understand the issue

Link | Posted on Nov 17, 2017 at 18:46 UTC
In reply to:

ZilverHaylide: Polaroid's action is just predatory capitalism at work, which is what capitalism has too often become these days. No need to innovate or compete, instead either monopolize or litigate, sometimes both. There should be an international regulatory body that would always nip this crap in the bud, but sadly, such s#!t is too often the norm, first enabled by politicians in the pocket of business, then given the stamp of approval by patent-trademark offices, and finally legitimized by the lackey courts and trade regulatory bodies.

By the way, no one here (except me) should write in traditional complete sentences -- I'm trademarking the use of a capital letter at the start, and the period at the end of sentences.

No, but anyone making a car that looks exactly like a Mercedes, including the hood logo, could be sued. It comes down to what is TM-able vs what is common. You can't TM a window, but you can if dress it up like Microsoft has done in their various Windows logos.

Link | Posted on Nov 17, 2017 at 17:49 UTC
In reply to:

Doug Pardee: The most obvious point on Fujifilm's side is that Polaroid stopped making that film in 2008, and indicated no intent of producing more, so the trademarks became abandoned three years later (US law). Courts have the option to recognize that an abandoned trademark retains some residual goodwill, but they almost never extend that more than five years past abandonment.

There's also the question of whether PLR's current owner Slava Smolokowski comes with "clean hands", having produced similar instant film with the Impossible Project prior to his acquisition of PLR.

Finally, some sense here. I am not sure on TM law, and no time to research it, but I figure the issue would be -- are there damages? That is, does Polaroid use the TM. Surprising it's only 3 years before it expires, given the (ever lengthening) copyright lifespan.

Link | Posted on Nov 17, 2017 at 17:48 UTC
Total: 410, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »