Ansel Spear

Ansel Spear

Lives in United Kingdom Portsmouth, United Kingdom
Works as a Architectural & Construction Photographer
Joined on Nov 1, 2010

Comments

Total: 44, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous123Next ›Last »
In reply to:

JoopIII: What a waste of time to publish this sort of crap. By the way: Canon is written with one "n" in the middle.

The author knows that. That's what (sic) means. Doh!

Link | Posted on Dec 29, 2016 at 09:21 UTC

It makes me shudder at the hoops we had to jump through in the name of 'art'.

Link | Posted on Dec 13, 2016 at 09:20 UTC as 38th comment
On article TIME releases 100 most influential images of all time (165 comments in total)
In reply to:

Ansel Spear: Gripping iconic images ruined by a clumsy, frustratingly slow, tortuous web site. I gave up. Who designs stuff like this?

It's not the speed of the connection that's the issue. It's the long, drawn out navigation/menu system that's a turn off. I simply lost the will to live.

Link | Posted on Nov 20, 2016 at 08:25 UTC
On article TIME releases 100 most influential images of all time (165 comments in total)

Gripping iconic images ruined by a clumsy, frustratingly slow, tortuous web site. I gave up. Who designs stuff like this?

Link | Posted on Nov 18, 2016 at 09:30 UTC as 38th comment | 2 replies
On article Nikon reportedly eliminating 1000 jobs in Japan (518 comments in total)

It's no wonder they're having a regroup when you consider their eye-watering array of some 15 PAS cameras in assorted colours, 3 or 4 premium compact cameras, 12 or so consumer DX DSLRs, 4 prosumer FX DSLRs, 2 Pro FX DSLR's, retro and Nikon 1 ranges, Nikon's offerings appear so unstructured and scatter-gun. Surely it's time for them take a long hard look at their market and slash this lot down to a couple of choices in each group.

Link | Posted on Nov 9, 2016 at 11:04 UTC as 19th comment | 2 replies
On article DPReview Asks: What was your first camera? (764 comments in total)

It's been a long, expensive struggle and I suspect it's not over yet...

Instamatic 33
Halina Paulette Electric
Practica Nova 1B
Yashica Twin Lens 4x4
Minolta SRT 101
Nikon F2
Minolta 7000
Nikon F601
Nikon F90x
Nikon Coolpix 900
Nikon Coolpix S1
Nikon Coolpix 5000
Nikon Coolpix P5100
Nikon D70
Nikon D200
Nikon D3200
Nikon D800
Sony RX100 m3

Link | Posted on Nov 5, 2016 at 14:51 UTC as 177th comment
In reply to:

Debankur Mukherjee: Imagine a time bomb being tied to a drone by a terrorist.......it is dangerous......every country must have control on purchase and use of drones........

They do. It's called a driving licence!

Link | Posted on Oct 25, 2016 at 07:42 UTC

Why is everybody calling this a smile? When you look at a larger image, this is clearly a grimace as he sees how close his rival is.

Link | Posted on Aug 24, 2016 at 06:19 UTC as 20th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

basshead: Iconic moments always get captured by a canon

What a fatuous point.

Link | Posted on Aug 24, 2016 at 06:17 UTC
In reply to:

Ansel Spear: We call it The Ministry of Defence!

This happened to me when I was shooting from a Hunter T2 in 1990. We were sea skimming, simulating an Exocet missile - giving the surface fleet 'attack' training. My 400mm Nikkor slipped and fell between my joystick and ejector seat. I retrieved it just in time...!

During my induction the day before, nobody thought to brief that all cameras must be attached around our neck at all times. It's now a standard part of the briefing.

I've been corrected. It was a Hawker Hunter T7. I was a civilian photographer, not Fleet Air Arm.

Link | Posted on Aug 17, 2016 at 12:22 UTC

We call it The Ministry of Defence!

This happened to me when I was shooting from a Hunter T2 in 1990. We were sea skimming, simulating an Exocet missile - giving the surface fleet 'attack' training. My 400mm Nikkor slipped and fell between my joystick and ejector seat. I retrieved it just in time...!

During my induction the day before, nobody thought to brief that all cameras must be attached around our neck at all times. It's now a standard part of the briefing.

Link | Posted on Aug 17, 2016 at 09:14 UTC as 39th comment | 1 reply
On article Top tips for composing great landscapes (129 comments in total)
In reply to:

Boss of Sony: Personally I prefer my snapshots of Japan taken over a three week period with the Panasonic LX100: http://japantraveldiary.tumblr.com

I don't. :-( I feel the B&W doesn't add anything. In fact it confuses the eye in a lot of places.

Link | Posted on Jul 24, 2016 at 08:09 UTC
In reply to:

Ansel Spear: Whilst I'm a Keith Loutit fanboy, many TL sequences, this amongst them. are completely lacking any narrative.

Whilst an extremely competent piece, this is little more than moving eye candy with a ghastly soundtrack.

Couldn't be bothered.

Link | Posted on Jun 15, 2016 at 14:49 UTC
In reply to:

Ansel Spear: Whilst I'm a Keith Loutit fanboy, many TL sequences, this amongst them. are completely lacking any narrative.

Whilst an extremely competent piece, this is little more than moving eye candy with a ghastly soundtrack.

Have you watched Twelve Angry Men? Just because you're in the minority, it doesn't mean than you're wrong ;-)

Link | Posted on Jun 15, 2016 at 09:08 UTC

Whilst I'm a Keith Loutit fanboy, many TL sequences, this amongst them. are completely lacking any narrative.

Whilst an extremely competent piece, this is little more than moving eye candy with a ghastly soundtrack.

Link | Posted on Jun 14, 2016 at 07:02 UTC as 25th comment | 6 replies
In reply to:

Ansel Spear: Why do some of you across The Pond insist on referring to lenses and bodies as 'copies' of lenses and bodies?

They are not copies of lenses and bodies. They ARE lenses and bodies in their own, original, genuine bona fide right.

There isn't a 'master' lens or body from which all others are copies. You don't buy a copy of a car or a copy of a can of beans, so why a lens or a body.

Not that I feel strongly about it! :-)

"Think about buying/comparing/testing two lenses versus buying/comparing/testing two copies of a lens. Do those expressions mean the same thing?"

That's entirely my point. They don't. You don't test two copies of a the same lens. You test two identical lenses.

Testing two copies would imply that you're testing (say) Tokina's and Tamron's copy of (say) the Nikkor 24mm f1.4, not two Nikkor 24mm f1.4 lenses. .

Link | Posted on Apr 22, 2016 at 15:30 UTC
In reply to:

Ansel Spear: Why do some of you across The Pond insist on referring to lenses and bodies as 'copies' of lenses and bodies?

They are not copies of lenses and bodies. They ARE lenses and bodies in their own, original, genuine bona fide right.

There isn't a 'master' lens or body from which all others are copies. You don't buy a copy of a car or a copy of a can of beans, so why a lens or a body.

Not that I feel strongly about it! :-)

...Apart from the 7 'likes' that I've received, you mean! I took that to mean that 7 people agree with me.

Oops, I've run out of bread. I'm just popping out to buy another copy.

Link | Posted on Apr 22, 2016 at 14:47 UTC
In reply to:

Ansel Spear: Why do some of you across The Pond insist on referring to lenses and bodies as 'copies' of lenses and bodies?

They are not copies of lenses and bodies. They ARE lenses and bodies in their own, original, genuine bona fide right.

There isn't a 'master' lens or body from which all others are copies. You don't buy a copy of a car or a copy of a can of beans, so why a lens or a body.

Not that I feel strongly about it! :-)

Many, many words are homonyms, we all know that. You're pretty savvy to have identified that 'copy' has many different meanings. However, I'm not discussing whether you're using it as an adjective, verb, slang, etc, etc. I'm referring to correct usage.

Using 'copy' in the context of referring to an identical item in a manufacturing production run is plain incorrect.

End of :-)

Link | Posted on Apr 22, 2016 at 14:01 UTC
In reply to:

Ansel Spear: Why do some of you across The Pond insist on referring to lenses and bodies as 'copies' of lenses and bodies?

They are not copies of lenses and bodies. They ARE lenses and bodies in their own, original, genuine bona fide right.

There isn't a 'master' lens or body from which all others are copies. You don't buy a copy of a car or a copy of a can of beans, so why a lens or a body.

Not that I feel strongly about it! :-)

If Tokina copies the design of a Nikkor lens, it is known as a Nikon copy.

When Zorki brought out the Zorki 4, it was known as a Leica copy. But if you bought a Leica, you weren't buying a Leica copy, you were buying a Leica. Full stop.

You don't make a copy of your own product, you produce it - and the customer buys the product, not a copy.

But in reply to darngooddesign's question, you can call it what you want, but calling it a 'copy' when it isn't is just plain wrong.

Link | Posted on Apr 22, 2016 at 13:43 UTC
In reply to:

Ansel Spear: Why do some of you across The Pond insist on referring to lenses and bodies as 'copies' of lenses and bodies?

They are not copies of lenses and bodies. They ARE lenses and bodies in their own, original, genuine bona fide right.

There isn't a 'master' lens or body from which all others are copies. You don't buy a copy of a car or a copy of a can of beans, so why a lens or a body.

Not that I feel strongly about it! :-)

I've just seen a copy of a car I must go and buy!

That really doesn't work, does it?

Link | Posted on Apr 22, 2016 at 12:52 UTC
Total: 44, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous123Next ›Last »