zsedcft

Lives in United States United States
Joined on Mar 27, 2008

Comments

Total: 300, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

matthew saville: If only Sigma had decided to also produce a few fast+wide lenses that weighed more like the Rokinon 14mm f/2.8, instead of all these ~3lb behemoths they've been churning out. I could really use a lens about the size and weight of that classic Rokinon 14 2.8, but with just a little bit better durability. Maybe Nikon or Tamron will do it, since they seem to be the champions of using high-grade plastic to make nearly indestructible lenses that are still quite sharp and rather lightweight.

@vscd

I don't think he wants a zoom. He just wants Nikon to extend their line of fantastic f/1.8 primes down to 14mm. They'd probably have to make it a slower lens but 2.4 or 2.8 would be possible in a high-quality plastic body.

Nikon is probably the only company that would do it. The third party manufacturers seem to be all about improving their reputation by building these pro-grade tanks.

Link | Posted on Feb 23, 2018 at 20:19 UTC
In reply to:

Mach Schnell: No mention of vibration reduction. I assume that means it does not have it.

Probably too much glass to move in an already heavy lens.

Link | Posted on Feb 23, 2018 at 20:14 UTC
In reply to:

ZurichPhoto: Interesting ... but you have to be a tiny bit skeptical of a company whose first move is to visually brand its product to be confused with the Lexar brand the owners once worked for. Reminds me of ... the classic McDowell's/ McDonalds move from Coming to America.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=djI_ret3S9g

I would be surprised if the company that bought the Lexar brand didn't sue them. That color scheme is obviously used to borrow some of Lexar's brand image.

Link | Posted on Feb 23, 2018 at 20:09 UTC

You are just rehashing an article that is a month old.

Seriously, guys. Do better.

Link | Posted on Feb 21, 2018 at 20:58 UTC as 35th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

Jerry Ci: Like others have noted, this seems like an odd article for DPreview, despite the explanations given. Secondly, I was wondering how heavy it was. 1592g? What? I'm American. I'm not ignorant, but we simply don't use metric although I could do a conversion. My first reaction was to look up to the top of the article to see if this was a british website. No. DPreview is based in Seattle, but with a bunch of British writers. I thought good writers are supposed to take into consideration the intended audience. I've noticed this before with some Europeans. Please aim your articles at the readers and don't be angry that the US uses SAE or Imperial.

1592g is around 3000lb. You are going to need your all of your F150's towing power to move it.

Link | Posted on Feb 21, 2018 at 20:36 UTC

I read about this on another site a few days ago. I guess the creator is being ironic with this project but it could actually be an interesting social commentary on the effect Instagram is having on photography.

For a post to be popular on Instagram it needs to stick within a very narrow band of acceptable aesthetics and locations. The "neural network" used by this machine is basically a much smaller version of "likes" on Instagram so you are being shocked for not conforming to the accepted criteria of a popular photo. The number of Instagram follower you have is becoming increasingly viewed as synonymous with your standing as a photographer. When you combine the two you get artists who are pressured to conform. It's pretty depressing.

One thing I would say to new photographers is to find a community of photographers and ask them for feedback. Having your photos critiqued by the general public (Instagram) makes about as much sense as me judging the figure skating at the Olympics.

Link | Posted on Feb 21, 2018 at 03:44 UTC as 71st comment | 1 reply

I can't see the price in the article.

It's $400.

Link | Posted on Feb 18, 2018 at 14:56 UTC as 26th comment
In reply to:

Edmond Leung: Really useful to protect copy rights??
I don't think so.
The bad guys just simply copy the image location; then they still can steal the photos.
It is just two more clicks. Clicks for copy and paste the image location!

@tungsten nordstein
There is a whole area of copyright law that defines fair use. Downloading and using on your computer would probably fall under that. I am not a lawyer though.

Instagram, Pinterest and Facebook have teams of lawyers that write terms of service that give up all of your rights and indemnify them against lawsuits if copyrighted content is displayed on their network. I think Pinterest specifically rely on the fact that people are unlikely to ask for content to be taken down because the websites who create the content get traffic from Pinterest.

Link | Posted on Feb 16, 2018 at 18:52 UTC
In reply to:

zsedcft: I only used this to download high-res album covers for my CD albums. Fortunately, they are all tagged now. A lot of people used it as a means for easy copyright infringement so this is good news for photographers.

This is a fairly big deal for photographers. Make sure your sites are set up logically so that the user can go from your gallery pages to somewhere they can buy an image or book your services. Probably even make a prominent disclaimer about copyright and where they can license the image. If your image search performance is strong this could potentially be a source of income.

@tkbslc

It's an interesting question. So I guess if the website that was hosting the album cover had ads then it would not be fair use and if I got it from there it would be copyright infringement.

Link | Posted on Feb 16, 2018 at 18:43 UTC
In reply to:

Edmond Leung: Really useful to protect copy rights??
I don't think so.
The bad guys just simply copy the image location; then they still can steal the photos.
It is just two more clicks. Clicks for copy and paste the image location!

@tungsten nordstein

Stealing is probably the wrong word as you are only illegally displaying an image for your own financial benefit.

Literally millions of images every year are found on google images and used without attribution. There is a whole industry where "lawyers" crawl the web for copied images and sue the publisher. They split the proceeds with the photographer. I have worked for a lot of ad agencies and every single one has had to settle a copyright suit because an intern or junior employee took an image from google image search for a blog. Most agencies have mandatory training so this kind of thing doesn't happen.

Link | Posted on Feb 16, 2018 at 17:56 UTC
In reply to:

zsedcft: I only used this to download high-res album covers for my CD albums. Fortunately, they are all tagged now. A lot of people used it as a means for easy copyright infringement so this is good news for photographers.

This is a fairly big deal for photographers. Make sure your sites are set up logically so that the user can go from your gallery pages to somewhere they can buy an image or book your services. Probably even make a prominent disclaimer about copyright and where they can license the image. If your image search performance is strong this could potentially be a source of income.

@tkbslc
That is a minefield.

In the USA, you are legally allowed to create a digital copy of the album you own physically as long as you retain the physical copy - you can't sell the CD and keep the digital copy. You also can't copyright a scan of another artist's work. So that means the person who scanned it (if it wasn't the record publisher) doesn't have a copyright claim. I am pretty sure the music publishing company wouldn't be able to argue that my usage wasn't fair use because it is for personal use and I am not profiting from it (although I very much doubt they would want to bring a suit against me because I already legally own the album).

Link | Posted on Feb 16, 2018 at 17:47 UTC
In reply to:

Edmond Leung: Really useful to protect copy rights??
I don't think so.
The bad guys just simply copy the image location; then they still can steal the photos.
It is just two more clicks. Clicks for copy and paste the image location!

Sure, people can still steal images. The main problem is that most people don't know they are stealing images. They think that if an image is on the internet, it is free to use without payment.

Link | Posted on Feb 16, 2018 at 17:05 UTC
In reply to:

panther fan: I just use the Button to view the image full screen. Most websites make it unnecessarily hard to do that, or even find the image. What is all this protection worth if it handicaps the normal viewer. This will just force everyone to use a new stupid workaround

@panther fan

The problem wasn't people viewing images - you can view images on Flickr or Instagram. The problem was people getting images without visiting the site. People often think that if an image is on the internet then it is free to use without payment. This function of google images meant that people could just download the image without any interaction with the website.

People can still get the images by using a free chrome extension (or even inspect element) that tells you the URL, but this may help drive more traffic to photographer's websites which will inevitably generate more business for photographers.

Link | Posted on Feb 16, 2018 at 17:00 UTC

I only used this to download high-res album covers for my CD albums. Fortunately, they are all tagged now. A lot of people used it as a means for easy copyright infringement so this is good news for photographers.

This is a fairly big deal for photographers. Make sure your sites are set up logically so that the user can go from your gallery pages to somewhere they can buy an image or book your services. Probably even make a prominent disclaimer about copyright and where they can license the image. If your image search performance is strong this could potentially be a source of income.

Link | Posted on Feb 16, 2018 at 16:50 UTC as 54th comment | 6 replies
In reply to:

stratplaya: I vote for the flaming Venezuela protestor. For some reason the media are pretty much ignoring that situation.

I have been to Cuba and have seen that pursuing an idea, even when it is to the detriment of the people of the country, is foolish. The problem is that the same is true in the USA. The difference is that the USA has gone too far the other way where everything is for sale to the highest bidder, including the politicians.

Link | Posted on Feb 15, 2018 at 15:09 UTC
In reply to:

Arastoo Vaziri: Ivor Prickett (#5) is a name I'll be fllowing closely. What a prodigious compostion!

@Tape5

Why would you take time to criticize another person for their opinion? How many images have you had nominated for this award?

Link | Posted on Feb 14, 2018 at 19:07 UTC
In reply to:

stratplaya: I vote for the flaming Venezuela protestor. For some reason the media are pretty much ignoring that situation.

@A200Eric
I bet you still wear your "Make America Great Again" hat. At least Trump is redistributing the wealth $130k at a time.

Link | Posted on Feb 14, 2018 at 18:55 UTC
On article How to shoot Log video using DJI's D-Log color profile (27 comments in total)
In reply to:

imagined_by: This is a beautiful article apart from the fact that D-LOG is just compressed D-CINELIKE, yielding way lower dynamic range und thus inferior results while grading.

So no, shooting in D-LOG is certainly not a must.

This information applies to the Mavic Pro, about the other drones I have no solid information about since I don't own it.

See this vectorscope image of virtually the same footage, d-log shown in blue, d-cinelike shown in red:
https://imgur.com/XtKCGQ6

I think that the early firmware on the Mavic Pro had this issue but people were generally happy once DJI fixed it in a later firmware update.

I may be wrong, but I believe that is what I read.

Link | Posted on Feb 9, 2018 at 14:49 UTC
On article How to shoot Log video using DJI's D-Log color profile (27 comments in total)

That footage is disgusting. Way too blue, false colors.

Link | Posted on Feb 9, 2018 at 14:47 UTC as 4th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

zsedcft: MicroSD cards come in 400GB size now. Why don't the journalists move the sensitive pictures from their cameras to their phones and encrypt them on there (probably even in a hidden folder)? Delete all of the sensitive pictures on the camera cards and just leave the ones the government will be happy with. If the country has some internet, you can also use your phone to connect to a VPN so you can potentially already have the pictures in your dropbox before you get to the airport if the country doesn't have a total ban on VPNs.

I am not saying that camera encryption is a bad idea, I'm just saying that this use case doesn't make sense. If you are a journalist then your camera is the first thing they are going to ask you to unlock and they may not let you board a plane until you either give up your memory cards or unlock them.

I never said I was a journalist but there is literally a photojournalist who you disagreed with in one of the previous comments.

Link | Posted on Feb 8, 2018 at 15:19 UTC
Total: 300, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »