Ansel Spear

Ansel Spear

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

Comments

Total: 37, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »

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 18th 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 38th comment | 1 reply
On article Top tips for composing great landscapes (127 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
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! :-)

BUT THEY'RE NOT COPIES. They are not imitations or copies of originals.

Link | Posted on Apr 22, 2016 at 11:48 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! :-)

There isn't a word. That's my point.
I bought a lens. I bought a camera body. I bought a car. I bought a washing machine. NOT copies.

Link | Posted on Apr 22, 2016 at 09:48 UTC

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! :-)

Link | Posted on Apr 22, 2016 at 07:46 UTC as 66th comment | 34 replies
On article Beta: try out our new 'light' color scheme (722 comments in total)

Much better. Welcome to the 21st Century :-)

Link | Posted on Apr 5, 2016 at 12:42 UTC as 412th comment
On photo Pig Bush clearing in the Fall challenge (1 comment in total)

These are not the correct colours. I don't know what colour space this site uses!

Link | Posted on Oct 15, 2015 at 13:18 UTC as 1st comment
On challenge Sky is in fire (2 comments in total)

I don't understand. Do you mean 'Sky is ON fire'?

Link | Posted on Aug 11, 2015 at 06:42 UTC as 2nd comment

So, when you say 'square'...?

Link | Posted on Jun 10, 2015 at 07:49 UTC as 12th comment | 2 replies
Total: 37, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »