Photomonkey

Lives in United States CA, United States
Works as a Photographer
Joined on Oct 28, 2002

Comments

Total: 793, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

Roland Karlsson: So, she donated her pictures away to the Library of Congress. That is very fine indeed of the lady. Then comes Getty and messes it up by selling her photos and also "forgetting" to give due Copyright notice. Bad, bad Getty. They probably do fully know what they are doing, and that it is wrong. So, suing them seems appropriate.

But. $1 Billion? That is unreal. How can this misbehavior have caused the photographer damage of that amount?

One can attribute motives to lawsuits all the time. Trump uses them as a weapon. Some use them for extortion.
Some use them for exacting legal compensation for injury.
Irrespective of your opinion, she is engaging in a legal process available to everyone. In this society, the process is slow and laborious precisely to ensure that capricious outcomes do not happen.
Likability should have no bearing on the case.
The scale of the lawsuit is consistent with the scale of the alleged offense.

If proven, the law provides for just those damages. The plan for these damages were written by legislators in consultation with the creative and IP community.
The fact that you don't like the possible penalties means that you would most likely be deterred.

It seems they have stepped in it well and truly and they will spend a very large sum to escape those penalties if at all possible.
I am betting that they will see serious problems and offer to settle.

Link | Posted on Jul 30, 2016 at 03:09 UTC
In reply to:

Roland Karlsson: So, she donated her pictures away to the Library of Congress. That is very fine indeed of the lady. Then comes Getty and messes it up by selling her photos and also "forgetting" to give due Copyright notice. Bad, bad Getty. They probably do fully know what they are doing, and that it is wrong. So, suing them seems appropriate.

But. $1 Billion? That is unreal. How can this misbehavior have caused the photographer damage of that amount?

@Roland Karlsson, it is not about revenge.
It is about creating barriers to wrongdoing.
Getty will not be fined out of hand.
If they go forward with the suit, a court ill hear arguments on the merits of their position.
Then a judgement will be rendered.
A judge may modify the judgement as they see fit consistent with justice.
Absent this system, we have nothing.

Link | Posted on Jul 29, 2016 at 11:20 UTC
In reply to:

Roland Karlsson: So, she donated her pictures away to the Library of Congress. That is very fine indeed of the lady. Then comes Getty and messes it up by selling her photos and also "forgetting" to give due Copyright notice. Bad, bad Getty. They probably do fully know what they are doing, and that it is wrong. So, suing them seems appropriate.

But. $1 Billion? That is unreal. How can this misbehavior have caused the photographer damage of that amount?

@Roland Karlsson. A system that permits companies to steal and cheat for the price of a wrist slap creates a business model for cheating.
Note that banks created a massive crisis in the world by criminal financial activity yet no one went to jail. Heavy fines were assessed but were insignificant compared to the impact on families who lost jobs, homes and lives to suicide. They are still doing the same things today.

So, yeah, I have scant sympathy for a company that feels they can bully their way to prosperity and if caught, pay a fine and carry on.

As so many say, If they didn't want to lose their company, they should not have tried to screw people.

Link | Posted on Jul 29, 2016 at 04:17 UTC
In reply to:

Neez: What i think happened is some low life copied images from the library of congress and sold them to Getty, pretending they were their own.

Getty assumed they had the copyright and charged people money for them. Even serving cease and desist orders.

If that were the case you can be certain that Getty will have that individual's info and will have a squad of lawyers waterboarding him as we type.

Link | Posted on Jul 28, 2016 at 20:02 UTC
In reply to:

Roland Karlsson: So, she donated her pictures away to the Library of Congress. That is very fine indeed of the lady. Then comes Getty and messes it up by selling her photos and also "forgetting" to give due Copyright notice. Bad, bad Getty. They probably do fully know what they are doing, and that it is wrong. So, suing them seems appropriate.

But. $1 Billion? That is unreal. How can this misbehavior have caused the photographer damage of that amount?

Because she registered the images with the Copyright office and is entitled to the statutory damages as permitted by the law.
The entire purpose of the law is to deter and punish those who would steal copyrighted material in precisely this manner.

Link | Posted on Jul 28, 2016 at 19:59 UTC
On article Rock Solid: Canon 1D X Mark II Review (334 comments in total)
In reply to:

Graham: Great review, but I am puzzled that RAW performance is tested using ACR, not DPP. The package consists of the camera body, a battery, RAW conversion software and accessories. The camera is tested with the supplied battery, not a third party substitute, so why are RAW files evaluated using third party RAW converters?

I attended a presentation of the new camera by Andy Rouse, who explained that his lovely high ISO images of kingfishers had been processed in DPP, that he could not achieve similar results with ACR or Lightroom, and that DPP seemed to be performing some kind of magic not available to Adobe.

Maybe that has changed since the beta version of the camera and ACR has caught up, but would it not be a more valid comparison to test ISO performance with the software supplied by the camera manufacturers instead of, or as well as, a RAW converter made by a third party? After all, everyone buying the camera will have the maker's software, but not everyone will have ACR.

Because it normalizes the comparisons.

In addition so many people use LR that it becomes a relevant metric.

Link | Posted on Jul 28, 2016 at 13:28 UTC
On article Rock Solid: Canon 1D X Mark II Review (334 comments in total)
In reply to:

Stefan Keller: and disappointing again: ISO auto is not possible with flash!!
instead ISO is set to 400 with flash, a wonderful value outdoors in sunshine :-(((
only exception:
"in <P> Mode using bounce flash ISO will be set automatically between 400 and 1600"
(see manual page 165)
Canon, why ?????

Firmware update

Link | Posted on Jul 28, 2016 at 13:26 UTC
In reply to:

eazizisaid: I honestly don't know why people are still starving for wide aperture lenses especially in longer focal lenght just because "bokeh" ! This is the route Sony is following ! I wish they offered a 2.8 lens lineup from 18mm to 135mm, it will be cheap and light !

Speed for dark environments is the best reason for fast lenses and was the original reason for their development.
Today, the fashion is shallow DOF.
In studio I rarely use an aperture larger than 5.6 on my 100 macro ($300). However, when I used to shoot weddings I was wide open on the fastest lenses I could lay my hands on. The greater distances in that environment gave me better DOF but I cursed the close ups of couples as only one would be tack sharp.

Link | Posted on Jul 27, 2016 at 16:05 UTC
In reply to:

mermaidkiller: Fluorine coatings ?
Using the most aggressive halogen (which is a gas) as coating ?? F2 gas will attack glass instantly.
Probably fluoride (with a d) is meant.

OT: No VR for a lens of this price range ? Furthermore it should be an excellent low-light lens with 75mm aperture. Ideal for astrophotography when vignetting and coma at full aperture f/1.4 is not too bad.

Some low priced lenses have VR some expensive lenses don't.
I doubt it will hurt sales.

Link | Posted on Jul 27, 2016 at 15:48 UTC
In reply to:

Nikonandmore: I have the feeling, just about all lenses now are "Leica" and MF price range. Sony, Zeiss, Canon, Nikon.. amazing! I don't understand how these manufactures survive to sell enough of these or how people manage to have money to feed this price frenzy. It will only take cell phone sensors, lenses and technology to get a bit better FOR ONE to buy DSLRs anymore. This market is dead and at these prices, sinking faster and faster. Costs 10 grand (or more) these days to buy a pro/enthusiast grade body and 2 or 3 lenses. Sorry, but this and it's pricing momentum is all becoming absurd. And mind you, these new lenses are all mass produced in 3rd world countries and with more and more dubious quality control. Long gone are the "Made in Japan" days with solid products made with extremely qualified manual labor, excellent quality control AND real long-term post sales support! Indeed Leicas start looking really affordable..

The companies are chasing profits where they can in a market rapidly commoditized by phones.
The market is not dead at all as evidenced by the interest here and across the web.
As for pricing, premium 35mm class lenses have been expensive for a long time.
I bought my Canon 70-200 2.8L IS used in 2003 for $1500. New list price was $1999 when introduced in 2001.

The manufacturers are very aware that a market exists for premium lenses for two reasons.
1. People demand them
2. They sell them

GAS is common and, like drugs, desensitizes us to expense. I used to think a $200 lens was the outer edge of affordability in the 70's. Now the Canon 11-24 at $3000 looks pricey but justifiable for my work.

As a working pro I choose carefully the lenses I buy so as not to blow up my business model. My hobbyist friends with grown children all have collections of gear that dwarfs mine.

They are the market.

Link | Posted on Jul 27, 2016 at 15:45 UTC

This will be an instant classic.

Link | Posted on Jul 27, 2016 at 15:29 UTC as 33rd comment
In reply to:

JackM: Prices actually seem reasonable for what these lenses are. They make Leica prices look absurd. Although I wonder why the 40-80 is so much more expensive than the 75-150.

So then you are back at comparing lenses.
At some point the differences there begin to fade also. The best lenses today are superb performers. The mid range scarcely stinks also.

So now can we go back to taking pictures?

Link | Posted on Jul 19, 2016 at 15:46 UTC
In reply to:

JackM: Prices actually seem reasonable for what these lenses are. They make Leica prices look absurd. Although I wonder why the 40-80 is so much more expensive than the 75-150.

The price comes from the difficulty of creating a wide to normal zoom with minimal distortion, vignetting and maximum sharpness across the 645 frame for a very picky client who just paid $9K for the lens.

Link | Posted on Jul 18, 2016 at 15:49 UTC
In reply to:

odpisan: For that price I can buy Pentax 645 Z with best lenses.

I think that quality of photos wouldn't be worth mentioning.

I always enjoy stupid MP comparisons.
For $600 you can get a Phone with 41MP and you can also order pizza.

Link | Posted on Jul 18, 2016 at 15:46 UTC
On article Fujifilm X-Pro2 versus X-T2: Seven key differences (358 comments in total)
In reply to:

Hugh2017: The only way to truly test this as a end user is either you buy every camera body (makes no sense) or rent.
Information is good, overload in the general sense not so much.

A working Pro making money with photography wants to see the same situation say a wedding shot with the DSLR set up from camera, lens, lighting to Fuji X or other mirrorless
I still do not know any working photographers that will stake their reputation and trust a Fuji X or Micro 4/3's camera to shoot certain types of photography.

I have to have a system with a good Flash for events,be able to control the flash from my camera body, use radio slaves. I must be able to use external battery packs for the system flash.
The new Fuji flash needs to be able to take take accessories like the Nikon SB-910 does like the included Gels are so nice plus diffuser. You used to have to buy a product like the Stolen-Omni Bounce for your Flash and Nikon includes this type of product, Cant speak for Canon, not a Canon shooter.

As a working professional I use Canon FF for the bulk of my work (architecture, commercial product photography) and I use m43 and 1 inch sensor cameras for event work.
Weddings and events are perfect for these small, high quality cameras because of their light weight (long shooting days) and the flexibility of their lenses. In the case of the Panasonic FZ-1000 I can shoot fill flash in bright sun at any shutter speed because of the leaf shutter. Weddings require getting the shot.

Corporate event are even simpler to shoot and generate more money. The ability to pre-chimp in available light means the keeper rate is higher not to mention the better AF.
Whenever I can justify the use of the smaller cameras I use them. The quality is excellent and they are way more fun to use than the DSLRs.
As for flash, I never use TTL. I use manual flash in the studio and on location. I can control the output from the camera and have no issues at all.
Clients look at results, not at files at 400%.

Link | Posted on Jul 18, 2016 at 00:32 UTC
On article Sony Planar T* FE 50mm F1.4 ZA Sample Gallery (268 comments in total)
In reply to:

Niala2: G-Master
- f1.4/ 42mm
- f1.2 / 70mm (or slightly less)
are what I'm really hoping for ! (Any road-map known?)
I don't consider 50/55mm to be a good in-between of what the above would mean to me.

The G-Master 85 is for me far superior to Canon's 1.2 85mmM2 but I always found 70mm at f1.2mm to be missing complement.

For me "normal-view" at 50mm is too narrow, 35 too large. 42mm? YESs! (Sorry-lol)
The 55 1.7 was finally good enough, with strait Eye-AF more than just a bonus.
A valid 28mm would have been logic.
Wide-open 42 and 70mm ; that would not only be spectacular, but allow new possibilities, and it would have avoided that feeling of unnecessary, abundant redundancy.
If indeed it proves to be the worth it's weight and size.., eventually it will replace my 55. But only maybe. Lol. But that really calls for comparison photos that should be really, really easy to provide by reviewers.
(Bad cats eye, true bokeh etc.: we all know how easy this should be COMPARED vs speculated)

Position of the camera determines the perspective.
Lens FL determines cropping.
Selecting ANY fixed FL lens means that unless one finds oneself within a few inches of the perfect position one will have to move thus changing perspective.

I went through the 70's "sacred full frame" fashion and it is just another trope.

Cropping does occur on a regular basis and the notion of being enslaved to a 2:3 aspect ratio is silly to most.

Link | Posted on Jul 16, 2016 at 18:16 UTC
On article Sony Planar T* FE 50mm F1.4 ZA Sample Gallery (268 comments in total)
In reply to:

Niala2: G-Master
- f1.4/ 42mm
- f1.2 / 70mm (or slightly less)
are what I'm really hoping for ! (Any road-map known?)
I don't consider 50/55mm to be a good in-between of what the above would mean to me.

The G-Master 85 is for me far superior to Canon's 1.2 85mmM2 but I always found 70mm at f1.2mm to be missing complement.

For me "normal-view" at 50mm is too narrow, 35 too large. 42mm? YESs! (Sorry-lol)
The 55 1.7 was finally good enough, with strait Eye-AF more than just a bonus.
A valid 28mm would have been logic.
Wide-open 42 and 70mm ; that would not only be spectacular, but allow new possibilities, and it would have avoided that feeling of unnecessary, abundant redundancy.
If indeed it proves to be the worth it's weight and size.., eventually it will replace my 55. But only maybe. Lol. But that really calls for comparison photos that should be really, really easy to provide by reviewers.
(Bad cats eye, true bokeh etc.: we all know how easy this should be COMPARED vs speculated)

35 too wide? With 24 or 42MP you have more than enough to crop and as for wanting not to crop, I scarcely believe you will not take a step closer or further away to adjust your crop irrespective of FL.

Link | Posted on Jul 15, 2016 at 19:15 UTC
In reply to:

AirJarhead: I understand Fuji may be trying to differentiate the X-Pro2 & XT-2, however it is a little to late for that. Fuji wasn't saying the X-Pro2 was a snap-shot/street-journalist only camera when they announced it. They marketed it as a PRO camera.
I take issue with the X-Pro 2 not getting the custom AF-C modes for the following reasons:
-The X-PRO2 has the word PRO in it, and costs more. So everyone should (rightly) assume it will have pro features.
-Given Fuji's history of firmware updates, I expected all features rolled out in the XT-2, would be ported over to the X-Pro2 (except 4k, I figured they wouldn't port that).
-There is no reason for them to keep the AF features separate.

Two different cameras. Look at them, test them buy what you like. Whatever the manufacturer claims is irrelevant as it either works for you or not.

Link | Posted on Jul 15, 2016 at 05:04 UTC
In reply to:

akjos: Major downfall is ergonomics. While specs are impressive im really disappointed fuji didnt redesign the body of the camera. I had xt10 and xt1 and they just were not comfortable in hand. You cant make DSLRish style body ( again) and but same subpar front grip on same annoying as hell strap holder that constantly pokes you into your palm between thumb and index finger , same ( or very similar) thumb grip and worst of all put shutter button on the very top ... if as much thought went to body of the camera itself as did into its guts it would have been amazing.
Shutter button is in unnatural place just like first sony a7 series was. ON TOP where you need to constantly twist your wrist trying to reach it comfortably :/
Front grip needs to be beefier and shutter button more forward like panasonic gx8 sony a6000 or a7II etc.
I had lensmate thumbgrip thing on my xt1 and while it made it little better it was still quite uncomfortable to hold for longer periods of time = not enjoyable to shoot with.
Too bad as I loved the lenses....

It's interesting to remember that back in the AE-1 days every camera was a flat box. Ergonomics was not a thing.

Link | Posted on Jul 15, 2016 at 05:02 UTC
In reply to:

SmilerGrogan: Fuji makes among the best lenses in the world, they are getting their video game together, and are rumored to be coming out with a medium format camera; what is stopping them from dominating the camera world? Nothing.
Look upon Fuji ye mighties, and despair.

@thx1138, a nice collection of lenses that is probably not replicated in more than a handful of owners globally.
Considering Canon has been at the SLR game that much longer than Fuji, I think that Fuji has an impressive collection of lenses with nary a stinker among them.

Link | Posted on Jul 15, 2016 at 05:01 UTC
Total: 793, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »