contadorfan

Lives in United States United States
Joined on Jun 9, 2010

Comments

Total: 182, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On article Sony a9: Why being better might not be enough (764 comments in total)
In reply to:

mordor_74: After Reading the article My question was: Why should Sony care about that small niche? I really dont see the Point in invest years of developement For a 400f2.8 when there are lot of segment that already adopted Sony warmachines and may need some new topselling Lens. To be Clear i am looking at the investment vs revnue thing. Sony is pushing the Sensor market so My respect is due and already earned.

Besides, it's effective advertising to the masses when, at a sports event, you see "Sony" emblazoned across all the pros' equipment.

Link | Posted on Apr 24, 2017 at 16:36 UTC
On article Sony a9 shooting experience (902 comments in total)
In reply to:

contadorfan: Re a7 menu diving: what functions are users frequently diving for that is the basis of the menu diving complaint? What's buried in the menus that you need often? Can't these functions be assigned to a button or customized setting or screen menu for quick access? I've not shot with an a7 series camera. But my Sony a77ii seems so flexible re putting functions where I need them when I need them, that I wonder if the a7 menu diving complaint is due to true lack of accessibility or merely due to unfamiliarity with the camera customizations.

OT to the A9 perhaps, but seems like some are dismissing the a9 because of their experience with the a7 cameras. Hence, my curiosity...

I just did some Googling to answer my own question re using the memorized settings to switch between aps-c & ff. No can do. And nologo isn't alone in complaining about this.

Link | Posted on Apr 24, 2017 at 00:18 UTC
On article Sony a9 shooting experience (902 comments in total)
In reply to:

contadorfan: Re a7 menu diving: what functions are users frequently diving for that is the basis of the menu diving complaint? What's buried in the menus that you need often? Can't these functions be assigned to a button or customized setting or screen menu for quick access? I've not shot with an a7 series camera. But my Sony a77ii seems so flexible re putting functions where I need them when I need them, that I wonder if the a7 menu diving complaint is due to true lack of accessibility or merely due to unfamiliarity with the camera customizations.

OT to the A9 perhaps, but seems like some are dismissing the a9 because of their experience with the a7 cameras. Hence, my curiosity...

Thanks for replying, nologo. I can see how frustrating your situation would be. So you can't use the memory 1/2/3 settings to quickly switch back & forth from aps-c to ff video?

Link | Posted on Apr 24, 2017 at 00:01 UTC
On article Sony a9 shooting experience (902 comments in total)

Re a7 menu diving: what functions are users frequently diving for that is the basis of the menu diving complaint? What's buried in the menus that you need often? Can't these functions be assigned to a button or customized setting or screen menu for quick access? I've not shot with an a7 series camera. But my Sony a77ii seems so flexible re putting functions where I need them when I need them, that I wonder if the a7 menu diving complaint is due to true lack of accessibility or merely due to unfamiliarity with the camera customizations.

OT to the A9 perhaps, but seems like some are dismissing the a9 because of their experience with the a7 cameras. Hence, my curiosity...

Link | Posted on Apr 23, 2017 at 17:29 UTC as 119th comment | 5 replies
In reply to:

Yxa: Is it SONY PR day to day DPR?

Putting various camera companies in the DPR spotlight is one of the best aspects of this site. Long live variety! Looking forward to seeing what the other manufacturers have to offer. With all the amazing innovations, these are exciting times for photographers.

Link | Posted on Apr 20, 2017 at 13:18 UTC
In reply to:

Archiver: Man, this was an absolute beast when it was released. Being the first full frame DSLR after the Konica Minolta acquisition, it was as if Sony had packed everything they could into it to make their mark.

Idea for a future Throwback Thursday:

Canon S series, including the S30, S40 and S45 sliding lens cover cameras. The S line clamshell design stopped with the S80, and then the pocket sized S90 took its place. Or how about the Canon 1D? That was a beast back in the day, too.

Ah yes, the legendary Canon S90, my first serious camera, the one that made me decide to study photography so I'd know how to use the S90 better. I took a local photography class & wondered why the other students used those impractical, bulky, heavy dslrs. Several weeks later I understood why & bought my first dslr -- a Sony! Seven years later, I'm still happy with Sony/Minolta products & looking forward to getting my first FF camera -- the a99ii -- this spring.

Link | Posted on Apr 20, 2017 at 12:53 UTC
In reply to:

expressivecanvas: Nice interview! I like and agree with most of what was discussed, however, the area where I feel Sony is completely delusional is their thinking that the Sony PlayMemories app is their most effective tool to attract the cellphone crowd. As a mostly-happy Sony user (after decades of using just about every other brand available), I can accurately say that PlayMemories and their entire online experience is not only their weakest link in the chain but it is so bad that I suspect Sony loses customers forever because it is so poorly designed and executed. The cameras are outstanding though!

I have no problems with PlayMemories either. It's wonderful for sending a picture to my phone or tablet for sharing or focus checking.

Link | Posted on Apr 18, 2017 at 17:57 UTC
In reply to:

RadGuy: Goldsmith has no case, unfortunately. It's a derivative work of Goldsmith's photograph. And it hasn't impacted Goldsmith's ability to sell her original photo. She'll lose in court.

True there are more technically talented painters than Warhol. But conceptually, he was innovative and fresh at the time. Perhaps it's hard to see it now, 55 years later. But concept & innovation are a huge part of art too, are they not? Should we not call Christo an artist because all he does is drape fabric on things? Or Joseph Cornell, who "merely" clipped magazine pictures and pasted them in boxes along with dime store toys? How about the great art photographers -- they just press a shutter -- perhaps they aren't real artists? I would argue the ideas, the concepts behind these works are a major part of the artistic whole. Art isn't only about visual impact.

If you signed a contract with Vanity Fair or any other major national publication to use your photo, you wouldn't pick up an issue to see how it turned out?

Link | Posted on Apr 18, 2017 at 02:59 UTC
In reply to:

Sdaniella: lynn's suit is baseless as she is suing Warhol for his Warholian style of art (making his signature art from known imagery, be it canned soup or iconic ads or celebrity paparazzi photos, like marilyn monroe, etc, etc)

suing warhol for creating his unique original to himself iconic art style

He used a projector to project the photo image onto a silkscreen, and he drew the image on the silkscreen. For his portraits, he would smooth out bumpy noses and wrinkles and other facial quirks to make the image more flattering. Attractiveness sells.

Link | Posted on Apr 18, 2017 at 01:37 UTC
In reply to:

contadorfan: Very curious. Why did Lynn Goldsmith wait 33 years to file suit?

Not Andy's best work. I think the AW Estate should settle by handing over all these lame portraits to Goldsmith.

onlooker, I caught my own error. Doesn't anybody read the follow up comments?

Link | Posted on Apr 18, 2017 at 01:16 UTC
In reply to:

RadGuy: Goldsmith has no case, unfortunately. It's a derivative work of Goldsmith's photograph. And it hasn't impacted Goldsmith's ability to sell her original photo. She'll lose in court.

Goldsmith is claiming she had no idea that Warhol used her picture until now. I don't understand why, after giving consent to Vanity Fair & receiving payment in 1984, she didn't check the published result when the issue came out. That seems so unlikely. Vanity Fair is a prominent magazine, easily available & affordable; it would have been easy for her to see the resulting art work. It's unfathomable to me that she didn't try to see how her photograph was used, or at least didn't squawk about it if she felt ripped off at the time. And it seems very fishy to me that she's using far more stringent current copyright laws to make a case about something that happened 34 years ago.

(I'm guessing she didn't feel ripped off at the time; instead, she was flattered that her photo got the Warhol treatment in a prominent, national magazine.)

Link | Posted on Apr 18, 2017 at 01:15 UTC
In reply to:

Sdaniella: lynn's suit is baseless as she is suing Warhol for his Warholian style of art (making his signature art from known imagery, be it canned soup or iconic ads or celebrity paparazzi photos, like marilyn monroe, etc, etc)

suing warhol for creating his unique original to himself iconic art style

Warhol did his own drawing & tracing and usually altered the resulting picture to make the picture more flattering to the subject. If you compare the Warhol Prince with the original picture, Warhol made the ears less prominent, softened the jaw line, & gave a hint of a smile to the mouth too. An assistant may or may not have prepared the background -- sometimes Warhol did his own. Rupert Smith was his trusted silkscreener, but Warhol added his own painted touches to the final products.

This will probably boil down to what was in the contract with Vanity Fair that Lynn Goldsmith signed.

Link | Posted on Apr 18, 2017 at 00:49 UTC
In reply to:

RadGuy: Goldsmith has no case, unfortunately. It's a derivative work of Goldsmith's photograph. And it hasn't impacted Goldsmith's ability to sell her original photo. She'll lose in court.

Was that the copyright law back in 1984? It's changed so much since the 80s.

But she did give permission to use her work in 1984. And she was paid and given photo credit, according to this article in Artnet.com:

"In 1984, she says, Vanity Fair asked to use her black and white image of Prince “for an artist reference to create an illustration” with payment as well as the photo credit. “They never said the artist was Andy Warhol. It was common in those times for magazines… to request usage of a photograph for artist reference for a particular illustrated story.” "

Once she signed off, and he created his adaptation of it, now it's his art work, isn't it?

I do not believe that she didn't realize there was a Warhol version of her photo until Prince's death last year.

Link | Posted on Apr 17, 2017 at 21:15 UTC
In reply to:

contadorfan: Very curious. Why did Lynn Goldsmith wait 33 years to file suit?

Not Andy's best work. I think the AW Estate should settle by handing over all these lame portraits to Goldsmith.

More information here:
https://news.artnet.com/art-world/prince-photographer-fires-back-warhol-foundation-copyright-suit-923759

"In 1984, she says, Vanity Fair asked to use her black and white image of Prince 'for an artist reference to create an illustration' with payment as well as the photo credit. 'They never said the artist was Andy Warhol. It was common in those times for magazines… to request usage of a photograph for artist reference for a particular illustrated story.' "

This makes her case sound even weaker.

Link | Posted on Apr 17, 2017 at 19:27 UTC
In reply to:

contadorfan: Very curious. Why did Lynn Goldsmith wait 33 years to file suit?

Not Andy's best work. I think the AW Estate should settle by handing over all these lame portraits to Goldsmith.

I'm confused. Lynn Goldsmith hasn't filed suit yet, she's merely making claims about copyright violation in public. So the AWE is filing a pre-emptive suit against her first. Why on earth is she yapping in public about copyright violation before taking legal action?

Link | Posted on Apr 17, 2017 at 19:16 UTC

Very curious. Why did Lynn Goldsmith wait 33 years to file suit?

Not Andy's best work. I think the AW Estate should settle by handing over all these lame portraits to Goldsmith.

Link | Posted on Apr 17, 2017 at 19:03 UTC as 59th comment | 5 replies
In reply to:

Flashback: I love the innocence of the the front cover, in these strangely prudent days.

I think they knew good & well back then that a little cheesecake on the cover sells more magazines. People weren't naive in the 30s. Just watch a pre-Hays Code movie some time. Come & meet those dancin' feet & get a glimpse of the jiggling bits.

Link | Posted on Mar 7, 2017 at 17:20 UTC
On article Women Photograph is a directory of female photographers (218 comments in total)
In reply to:

JF69: "We can't look at everything through a predominantly white, male gaze — that's irresponsible and, frankly, colonial. "
That's a false narrative, & of course racist.

Cliches.

Link | Posted on Feb 22, 2017 at 14:32 UTC
On article Women Photograph is a directory of female photographers (218 comments in total)
In reply to:

fmian: Reinforcing peoples differences by enforcing diversity won't give you equality. It just quietly perpetuates prejudice.

...so says Robert Schroeder, making several unsubstantiated, purely ideological comments of his own.

Link | Posted on Feb 22, 2017 at 14:27 UTC

More good news for us film fans!

Link | Posted on Feb 21, 2017 at 23:26 UTC as 15th comment
Total: 182, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »