fmian

fmian

Lives in Australia Sydney, Australia
Works as a Photographer/Re-toucher/Consultant
Joined on Mar 28, 2010
About me:

If you're reading this it's probably because I wrote something that confounded or intrigued you. You should know that much of what I say is uncomfortable truth laced with straight faced sarcasm. Don't take it to heart.

Comments

Total: 895, showing: 81 – 100
« First‹ Previous34567Next ›Last »
On article Special K? Pentax K-1 Review (2669 comments in total)
In reply to:

Thematic: http://www.dpreview.com/files/p/articles/2896376384/IMGP1036.jpeg

WOW!

Appart from landscapes and architecture - has anyone tried pixel shift on portraits? Do models have to be "super" still for it to benefit? Waste of time?

Thank you.

I wasn't specifically referring to shifting film, or film of any sort for that matter.

Link | Posted on Jul 5, 2016 at 23:20 UTC
On article Special K? Pentax K-1 Review (2669 comments in total)
In reply to:

Thematic: http://www.dpreview.com/files/p/articles/2896376384/IMGP1036.jpeg

WOW!

Appart from landscapes and architecture - has anyone tried pixel shift on portraits? Do models have to be "super" still for it to benefit? Waste of time?

Thank you.

C'mon.. if they were successfully taking long exposure portraiture 100+ years ago why do people have to feel like it's an impossibility nowadays?
There are even modern commercial photographers who do multi shot stitched portraiture...

Link | Posted on Jul 5, 2016 at 23:04 UTC
In reply to:

fmian: I can finally see the strange shrouded religious research compound that popped up near my parents house a few years ago...

Also.. doesn't it take a bit of time for DNS servers and stuff to refresh their cache with content like this being accessed all over the world? I'm not an expert on that stuff though... even it kinda sounds like I know what I just said...

Linky:
https://www.google.com.au/maps/place/Science+of+the+Soul+Study+Centre/@-33.881484,150.8021908,290m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m12!1m6!3m5!1s0x0:0xea886dd4050cef40!2sScience+of+the+Soul+Study+Centre!8m2!3d-33.8816302!4d150.8023927!3m4!1s0x0:0xea886dd4050cef40!8m2!3d-33.8816302!4d150.8023927

Link | Posted on Jul 5, 2016 at 06:41 UTC
In reply to:

fmian: I can finally see the strange shrouded religious research compound that popped up near my parents house a few years ago...

Also.. doesn't it take a bit of time for DNS servers and stuff to refresh their cache with content like this being accessed all over the world? I'm not an expert on that stuff though... even it kinda sounds like I know what I just said...

With a thermal image camera...

Link | Posted on Jul 4, 2016 at 22:54 UTC
In reply to:

ambercool: No photography means no photography. Why are some of you guys against this? If it's that big of a deal to take a photo we still have our cameras(existed way before cell phones) and film for press related things.

Ok. If something isn't directed at you and you have no need to absorb it, then why change its context in a quote and/or react to it?
No need to reply to the above question by the way. Just think about it.

Link | Posted on Jul 4, 2016 at 05:35 UTC
In reply to:

ambercool: No photography means no photography. Why are some of you guys against this? If it's that big of a deal to take a photo we still have our cameras(existed way before cell phones) and film for press related things.

No need to leave anything out. You don't have to protect me from my own words. They are already written there for people to read, and I'll take them back when I feel I've made a mistake.

'where you just insult people'
It's funny that people can be blind to the facts put before them but will readily absorb an insult in the same sentence.

Link | Posted on Jul 4, 2016 at 02:25 UTC
In reply to:

ambercool: No photography means no photography. Why are some of you guys against this? If it's that big of a deal to take a photo we still have our cameras(existed way before cell phones) and film for press related things.

@meanwhile
Yes, quote me on the first part of a sentence and ignore the rest of it because it changes the context to something that doesn't suit your own needs. While you're at it add some extra lines to the end of my half quote so it makes it look as if I'm saying something different.
ie. There was the word 'and' just after the bit you quoted me on. Follow that path perhaps...

Link | Posted on Jul 4, 2016 at 01:56 UTC
In reply to:

ambercool: No photography means no photography. Why are some of you guys against this? If it's that big of a deal to take a photo we still have our cameras(existed way before cell phones) and film for press related things.

@Yake, 'We understand that *very* well! '
You actually don't seem to understand it at all.

I don't have an anti-photography stance. You mistake something for theft of photography, and I never said to ban all lawful photography. I have an anti-ignorance stance. Especially when it combines with confidence to breed more ignorance.

LOL.. Free speech is something you think you have but you don't, no one has it. So it's irrelevant whether I'm for it or against it. I just understand the rules and plainly see when others have no concept of them yet clamour about it like they know what they're talking about.

Link | Posted on Jul 3, 2016 at 12:15 UTC
In reply to:

ambercool: No photography means no photography. Why are some of you guys against this? If it's that big of a deal to take a photo we still have our cameras(existed way before cell phones) and film for press related things.

@Yake, yes, I confused Richard Prince with the name of the kid from Simpsons. My mistake.
His work with the instagram stuff was just as much copying as Warhol did with the Campbells soup can. He added to it and made it his own. It became a commentary on social media rather than just an image. That's different from simply copying and using something. That's what you don't seem to understand.
From wiki: 'Inherent in our understanding of appropriation is the concept that the new work recontextualizes whatever it borrows to create the new work. In most cases the original 'thing' remains accessible as the original, without change.'

Duncans original post on the matter claimed he was taking the photos for commercial purposes (for the owner of the company that provided the building materials in that site) and witnesses mentioned that he had an assistant and large tripod with him.
This wasn't mentioned when he was interviewed on tv.
Commercial photography in that area requires permission.

Link | Posted on Jul 3, 2016 at 06:36 UTC
In reply to:

Davidgilmour: Lol, any $99 p&s camara takes sharper photos than this one!

@Davidgilmour, so you've used such a camera from this era have you? Please show us some comparison shots so we can continue to have a good 'lol' at you.

Link | Posted on Jul 2, 2016 at 21:13 UTC

Ughh.. It just pains me to see something considered to have historical value like this be treated with contempt and photographed poorly on the carpeted floor of someone's house. And then we get to to the open back plate and all I can imagine is dust and fibre being kicked up into the guts of the camera.
*shakes head*

Link | Posted on Jul 2, 2016 at 21:07 UTC as 16th comment
In reply to:

fmian: What they should do is put a chip in every camera and give you an account so you have to pay $x.xx in license fees in order to take a certain amount of photos in specific locations. Like a road toll. That way people will think before they pick up their cameras, and might choose to enjoy the scenery instead of live their life through their device. Plus it will bring the value of photography up among the general public.

There's a reason Apple have looked into doing such a thing. There's call for it.
As far as I see it people can react in one of three ways:

1. Understand what it is and why Apple are exploring this option, and let it happen.
2. Deflect the logic behind it, spout nonsense about what they 'think' the laws are and make the situation worse.
3. Come up with a better solution.

So far by reading the posts here and observing similar attitudes to similar issues elsewhere, I'd say most photographers respond by doing option 2.

Link | Posted on Jul 1, 2016 at 23:11 UTC
In reply to:

ambercool: No photography means no photography. Why are some of you guys against this? If it's that big of a deal to take a photo we still have our cameras(existed way before cell phones) and film for press related things.

Some common sense from the OP of this thread.

The whole 'protect my rights' argument has gone too far and is abused by the ignorant, often fighting to protect rights they never had in the first place and stepping on someone else's rights in the process.

When the whole Martin Prince thing happened how many photographers jumped up and down claiming what he was doing was illegal, without even trying to understand the notion of appropriation? That's photographic professionals acting as if they know their rights but not having a clue about copyright.

And again when Ken Duncan was asked to stop taking photos by security in Barangaroo, the photographic community on social media rose up and claimed they have the right to take photos in public of whatever they please whenever they want however they want. Truth is there are many situations in which you CAN'T take a photo in public. Because you know.. It's been written as law for decades..

Link | Posted on Jul 1, 2016 at 16:27 UTC

What they should do is put a chip in every camera and give you an account so you have to pay $x.xx in license fees in order to take a certain amount of photos in specific locations. Like a road toll. That way people will think before they pick up their cameras, and might choose to enjoy the scenery instead of live their life through their device. Plus it will bring the value of photography up among the general public.

Link | Posted on Jul 1, 2016 at 15:38 UTC as 72nd comment | 4 replies
On article DxOMark confirms Canon EOS 1D X II sensor advances (217 comments in total)
In reply to:

XeroJay: I'm a bit late to the party, but doesn't DxO Mark directly conflict with DPR's findings? DPR claims that the 1DXII simply can't keep up with the D5 in low light. DxO finds the 1DXII clearly and marginally superior in low light. I thought DxO and DPR were affiliates?!

The phase of the moon and fluctuations in the earths gravitational field were obviously not taken into account when testing took place. That is the only explanation. Obviously wasn't human error or sample variation...

Link | Posted on Jul 1, 2016 at 04:37 UTC
On article DxOMark confirms Canon EOS 1D X II sensor advances (217 comments in total)

Not comparing it to the Panavision Millennium DXL ... fail.

Link | Posted on Jul 1, 2016 at 04:32 UTC as 18th comment
On article Meyer-Optik Goerlitz launches 3-element 95mm F2.6 (124 comments in total)
In reply to:

J A C S: Three elements for $1,700. Those must be the most expensive elements in lens history...

Meanwhile I'm sitting here looking at quotes for single piece ground glass elements the size of Super35 @$600 each... plus tax...

Link | Posted on Jul 1, 2016 at 03:47 UTC
In reply to:

fmian: I can finally see the strange shrouded religious research compound that popped up near my parents house a few years ago...

Also.. doesn't it take a bit of time for DNS servers and stuff to refresh their cache with content like this being accessed all over the world? I'm not an expert on that stuff though... even it kinda sounds like I know what I just said...

I'ts called the Science of the Soul Research Centre. High metal gates always locked and a brick/concrete perimeter with tall thick bushes behind the iron grills so you can't see through them. Plain looking buildings, one large, another medium, and another as small as a shed. When the bushes were not so thick, and through the gate, you can see a massive car park with pretty much no one ever there. Google now describes it as a place of religion, but it doesn't look like anything religious I've ever seen. Really creepy.
I mean.. If it were something that represented spiritual harmony of some sort this would be reflected in the architecture in some way at least. Even the Baha'i temples which accept people of all faiths have beautiful designs instead of something generic and nondescript. As if they don't want people to know they are there.

Link | Posted on Jun 30, 2016 at 13:00 UTC

I can finally see the strange shrouded religious research compound that popped up near my parents house a few years ago...

Also.. doesn't it take a bit of time for DNS servers and stuff to refresh their cache with content like this being accessed all over the world? I'm not an expert on that stuff though... even it kinda sounds like I know what I just said...

Link | Posted on Jun 30, 2016 at 03:08 UTC as 7th comment | 16 replies

This one place I worked at and processed film, we had a regular client who would bring in rolls, and like some distorted clock he had odd requests and everything had to be done in a very specific fashion. If anything was out of place - like a film strip in the carrier the wrong way - he would be sure to let us know so it didn't happen again. I was there for two years watching him do this every week without fail.
From a design theory standpoint his images were junk. Not even fun family photos of people having special moments. Everyone in them looked bored, or as if the photo was taken just before or after the expression you want to remember. Just photos for the sake of photos. I know those images weren't important to anyone but him and his family, so it didn't really bother me cause he wasn't claiming otherwise.

Moral of the story is that just because someone has OCD doesn't mean they have some profound artistic vision.

But something like 1200 unprocessed rolls.. I want to see more.

Link | Posted on Jun 29, 2016 at 05:20 UTC as 42nd comment | 1 reply
Total: 895, showing: 81 – 100
« First‹ Previous34567Next ›Last »