LMCasey

Joined on Feb 11, 2012

Comments

Total: 67, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous1234Next ›Last »
On article Why you should own a 135mm F2 lens (386 comments in total)
In reply to:

Lee Jay: I once had the Canon 135/2L on my wish list. But I ultimately never bought it and never plan to. The main reason is because I find the flexibility of a 70-200 zoom far superior to the one-stop aperture advantage of the 135/2, and I find the stabilization of that lens to be too valuable to give up. The weight advantage of the prime means nothing to me.

Yup, I have both of these for my Canon bodies, and use the 70-200 more often than the 135/2 (even though the prime gives virtually perfect results every time I use it).

Link | Posted on Jan 2, 2018 at 19:38 UTC

Don't be evil.

Link | Posted on Dec 31, 2017 at 16:28 UTC as 26th comment
In reply to:

Simon Stanmore: Troy, this is easily up there with the most impactful and insightful nature/wildlife photographs I’ve encountered over many (approx’ 20 years) of keenly observing this type of work. It’s stunningly good on the visual level, and pretty much perfect as an environmental observation... Huge admiration for this this image on every level.

It's a scene that I've seen for my entire life. This particular photo, with it's steamy look, is more interesting than most.

Link | Posted on Oct 10, 2017 at 20:05 UTC
In reply to:

LMCasey: The bear is there because it feels it's the best/easiest place to find food. What's sad about that. It's not because of habitat, it's because it's easy.

Find out where this landfill is (or find the location of any landfill). Go to google earth and find one of these landfills. Now zoom out and out and out. See how little space is utilized by landfills. The bear is there because it's finding food there.

Link | Posted on Oct 10, 2017 at 19:54 UTC

The bear is there because it feels it's the best/easiest place to find food. What's sad about that. It's not because of habitat, it's because it's easy.

Link | Posted on Oct 8, 2017 at 15:18 UTC as 104th comment | 2 replies

Jesus does Photoshop training....Hmm.

Link | Posted on Oct 1, 2017 at 21:39 UTC as 5th comment | 3 replies

Kodak could have been on the leading edge of digital photography, but they were too slow, too blind. Now they are reduced to this.

Link | Posted on Sep 23, 2017 at 16:34 UTC as 8th comment | 4 replies
In reply to:

AbrasiveReducer: Remember that photo of you, falling down drunk, that cost you your job? Now you can relive the moment, with enlargements by Kodak.

And posted it on your wall.

Link | Posted on Sep 23, 2017 at 16:31 UTC
In reply to:

KrisAK: "...you grant us a non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, worldwide license to use any IP content that you post on or in connection with Facebook (IP License)." And since privacy settings seem to cascade through the settings of "friends" with whom you've shared your content, shouldn't one assume that privacy on Facebook is meaningless?

I'm wondering: what's to keep this (or any FB service/app/whatever) from selling your stuff to others, without your knowledge?

I tend to be skeptical of any and all free services you get on the internet. Nothing is for free. Yes, FB is another way to collect things from all of the members, and to use this "stuff" for it's own profit. It's a business, and we shouldn't forget that.

Link | Posted on Sep 23, 2017 at 16:28 UTC
In reply to:

Steve in GA: I had a Facebook account years ago, but I got concerned about what seemed to be an uptick in Spam email, and that got me to thinking that Facebook was either selling or allowing a lot of unsavory types access to my information. So, I tried to close the account.

In those days, you COULDN'T close a Facebook account, you could only, "suspend" it. So, I did that, and I tried my best to edit my information and overlay it with nonsense. I have never logged into Facebook again.

I agree with you about FB and every service you get "free" on the internet; it all comes with a cost. I do however, applaud Kodak for trying to stay relevant and in business. Kodak is such and institution and it makes me sad where they are today.

Link | Posted on Sep 23, 2017 at 16:26 UTC
In reply to:

(unknown member): What's the point of the photo of that beautiful film camera to head the article? Is that an FM? FM2? Now, those were the days!

Does any APS-C or FF mirrorless camera available today weigh the same as an FM?

Link | Posted on Sep 17, 2017 at 19:24 UTC
In reply to:

(unknown member): What's the point of the photo of that beautiful film camera to head the article? Is that an FM? FM2? Now, those were the days!

I wish they could make FF that small and light today.

Link | Posted on Sep 17, 2017 at 19:20 UTC

Please improve liveview.

Link | Posted on Sep 6, 2017 at 19:11 UTC as 4th comment

I own the 17TSE and love it. I don't know what I would do with a 135 though.

Link | Posted on Aug 30, 2017 at 00:38 UTC as 13th comment | 11 replies
In reply to:

HetFotoAtelier: Price D850 in USA much lower! 😮 Nikon compensate the Americans for Trump😎

Average tax 9% Where do you live? Tax 5%.

Link | Posted on Aug 24, 2017 at 18:30 UTC
In reply to:

sop51: The article doesn't mention if the defendants have sufficient recoverable assets to satisfy this judgement, or some type of liability insurance policy that would cover such acts. If they don't, the wedding photographer won't see any part of that award. The Goldmans are still waiting for OJ to send them their money.

No responsible attorney should undertake such an action without some realistic possibility of recovery for his/her client. Perhaps the plaintiff's attorney was charging by the hour, in which case the wedding photographer will be left paying thousands in legal fees and never see a dime of the award. All for $125.

That would be like real journalism. Come on, be realistic lol.

Link | Posted on Aug 1, 2017 at 17:13 UTC

Doesn't quite fit the 'Art' moniker.

Link | Posted on Jul 29, 2017 at 10:05 UTC as 25th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

LMCasey: Programmed to give err 20 at around 200,000.

Of course it was a sarcastic reply.

Link | Posted on Jul 8, 2017 at 18:17 UTC

Programmed to give err 20 at around 200,000.

Link | Posted on Jul 6, 2017 at 18:24 UTC as 55th comment | 3 replies
On article Sony a9: more speed, less dynamic range (669 comments in total)
In reply to:

Manfred Bachmann: i just wonder if it could be an adobe penalty also, because in capture one the image looks better to my eyes.

It doesn't. It's just a meme that circulates every time a new camera is released.

Link | Posted on May 19, 2017 at 23:24 UTC
Total: 67, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous1234Next ›Last »