ambercool

ambercool

Lives in United States United States
Works as a Photographer
Has a website at http://www.ambercool.com
Joined on Aug 18, 2008

Comments

Total: 76, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous1234Next ›Last »
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.

@villagranvicent - "Ambercool how ironic. I just checked your website and voilá! A picture of the Eiffel Tower at night, in clear violation of all the things you so strongly support. The owners of its light system do not want you to take pictures of it, so why you took it? Are you ignorant or just don't care?"

Ironically... I do have permission from them to use the photos I took. If you write to them you can find out the terms just as I have, unless you want to default to ignorance or not caring again.

Link | Posted on Jul 4, 2016 at 19:14 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.

Guys look! Do I think companies should do this because they can? No.

Should I accept it because I purchased their product? Yes. Why? Cause I bought into it!

If I didn't like it I can not buy the product, or twist it in such a way where I am free of contract to void it, or let the lifecycle run out so the companies can't wait to get rid of it so they have no legal partial shared ownership responsibility with you and move on to controlling newer products.

Link | Posted on Jul 1, 2016 at 08:04 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 - "No photography means no photography" is always right if the person owns it and its in private property. Legally the owner of the zone or private property has protected freedom to do this. I mean some douchebag could own all the paintings in the world and command that, which I believe might be wrong, but legally ok to exercise.

Link | Posted on Jul 1, 2016 at 08:01 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.

Also, what you are talking about has voided connecting with the original product in any way. What we are talking about is still using a product with the original software and hardware. If you're already disconnected from them by voiding the product then they can't update to block your camera anyway with software or hardware. So your point is really moot. Most people are assuming they still own the product while partially having OEM control and being upgraded to affect them. They don't know they don't truly own it stock while still maintaining agreements.

Hardware agreements are usually snuck in on warranties. It's required by law to give an x days of warranty. Without enforcement, the companies would love to sell you hardware and never be responsible for it. They can't wait for those agreements to expire.

My argument here is thinking you own a current product while still being supported by them, which people are most concerned about.

Link | Posted on Jul 1, 2016 at 07:57 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.

zkz5 - When you got your Thinkpad, the agreement to "own" was that you installed one of the supported operating systems. I don't even think Linux is one and even if it was it would be RedHat. Next, if you fully own it then you fix it if it breaks. I guarantee you if it didn't work the 2nd day you "owned" it with Linux, they would not service your computer if you took it back to them with an unsupported OS - let's say it was CentOS. You control it because of breach of agreement not because the company agreed to it.

Same thing with your Nexus 5. You doing what you did to it violates your agreement with them. That's why legally if you do something like that you can choose to own it by breaking contract. If they happen to add some amazing camera hardware and awesome firmware update I guarantee you they won't welcome you with open arms to your mod. If you say you want to fully own something by breaking contract that's fine.

Link | Posted on Jul 1, 2016 at 07:48 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.

I mean technically and independent of devices, credit card companies already disable your card when they "feel" it's being compromised, or so they say. It is annoying but I know I agreed to it. They can also terminate your contract for largely most reasons, which I know in the fine print I also agreed to.

As far as cell phones go, ironically the companies encouraged banks to open up their kimono and allow digital payments over the phone. Again, it's something you don't even control as to whether it's there or not. Obviously you don't have to connect to the internet and patch, but then the "gotcha" is... well there's security patch you might want and if you don't well what we agreed with "our" product(still company referenced) is null and void. So it's a bonus feature anyway that I don't mind and I'm fine if it goes away.

I guess I am just ok with defaulting to cash and film so none of this bothers me and I am in awe of everyone's reaction to think you have full ownership.

Link | Posted on Jul 1, 2016 at 07:28 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.

You're still very ignorant. You don't control what you do on your device now do you? Clearly you don't. If you didn't know, now you do. Not being able to photograph is another extension of what you can and can't do, not the start of. Here's a news flash for you. You don't fully own your device. What you can and cannot do the company and carrier have control over that. This is not new. You normally don't fully own things you buy. There's always a fine print that says you cannot alter most things in any way. If you want to own something care-free of control and fully own it, you make it. The fine print in your software and hardware agreements are extensive and very detailed to this fact. Don't believe me? Read it. If you didn't want anyone to control your device you should have read the legal fine prints and also not purchased the device. Not reading it is not an excuse for not being ignorant.

Link | Posted on Jul 1, 2016 at 06:50 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.

Saying it's your device and you can do anything with it out in public is super ignorant. People that do that with their cars go beyond rules and crash people. I'd love there to be no speed limit, but people abuse their vehicles and that needs to be managed. Your neighbor owns their property just as you so they can have farm animals and roosters waking you up in the morning. But no, it's regulated. This is the same thing! For cell phones this is to protect intellectual property which is perfectly fine!

Art gallery type museums aren't going to turn people away with cell phones. I wish they would, but then people would be turned off by not going in. Disabling media recording such as video or photography is a great compromise.

It sucks that maybe you are not breaking the rules, but that's what happens when people disrespect policies that I clearly agree with. If you respect "no photography" private locations and zones then you should have no problem with this. The honor code? no

Link | Posted on Jul 1, 2016 at 05:58 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.

I mean I personally find it offensive when I see people take photos of art when the collector explicitly asks for no photography on private art. It happens all the time. I see this happen with Michelangelo's "The Creation of Adam". People are told many times to not photograph and they do anyway especially with cell phones. The idea of exercising "our" right to choose how and when we use devices we pay for is ignorant. People abuse things and just because you might have respect for property doesn't mean 90% of the population will. If I have to leave my phone in the car or at home, I would. Until they take my DSLR/SLR from my hands, please feel free to disable devices or DSLRs from people who have no respect for private intellectual property. And on that note, they will never take my DSLR/SLR from me. They will simply ask me to not bring it in or don't come in, which I am perfectly fine with.

Link | Posted on Jul 1, 2016 at 05:10 UTC

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.

Link | Posted on Jul 1, 2016 at 04:33 UTC as 141st comment | 44 replies

It's very interesting to observe statements on other better lenses when I'm sure those statements came from those that have never used this lens...

Link | Posted on Mar 26, 2016 at 03:34 UTC as 3rd comment
On article Alpha dog: Hands-on with Sony a7R II (1125 comments in total)

Can't wait to get mine!

Link | Posted on Jun 11, 2015 at 16:19 UTC as 135th comment
On article Mono a mono: Leica M Monochrom (Typ 246) hands-on (716 comments in total)

Sexy lens...

Link | Posted on Jun 2, 2015 at 03:38 UTC as 73rd comment
In reply to:

falconeyes: The Pro line of Olympus lenses are a good example that large mm aperture-diameter lenses for smaller sensors are expensive to make.

The 7-14mm is probably meant to match the Nikon, but in equivalent terms, it is 14-28/5.6 for Olympus vs. 14-28/2.8 for Nikon. I wonder if Olympus couldn't have made it F2.0 to match F4 lenses at least. OTH, the Olympus already at that aperture isn't much cheaper than the Nikon (which is expensive indeed).

The 16mm F3.6 equivalent prime is nice but expensive too.

For me, the 5.6 DOF equivalence is beneficial for what I use an ultra wide for. The 2.8 allows for more opportunities to hand hold so that's not a negative at all. Obviously, if you want a shallow ultra wide then this is not for those people.

Link | Posted on May 12, 2015 at 14:55 UTC
On article Readers' Showcase: Steve Badger (110 comments in total)

The most profound thing about this is "there's 'no excuse to be bored' when there's a camera at hand."

Link | Posted on May 3, 2015 at 21:33 UTC as 37th comment

I'm sold!

Link | Posted on Mar 29, 2015 at 05:39 UTC as 12th comment

WoW! Finally...

Link | Posted on Mar 26, 2015 at 01:05 UTC as 9th comment

When I was in Europe I jammed my camera and lenses in a basic small brown leather bag. My camera and lenses now have scars, but I guess it now has character.

I do carry brand name bags to gigs though. I think this bag in particular is good for an environment you are familiar with.

Link | Posted on Mar 15, 2015 at 08:41 UTC as 7th comment
On article Samsung NX mini Review (108 comments in total)
In reply to:

HowaboutRAW: I've never had any buffering problems when shooting raws with this.

I don't like that in raw, NR gets applied at higher ISOs, starting around 1600, even if you turn off NR.

"The Samsung doesn't really have an answering marquee feature except, perhaps, its 180-degree-tilting 'selfie' LCD — useful, but hardly an equalizer. "

Except Samsung has an optically excellent f/1.8 17mm lens, nearly PanaLeica level, but unlike good PanaLeica lenses it costs $250. There is no Nikon 1 system equivalent. And the Samsung kitzoom is optically better than either the kitzoom with the Nikon 1 V3 or the Panasonic GM1, or GM5 now.

So it's the lenses, not so much the body, but at least Samsung has an idea of how to do a touch screen menu.

I'm curious, have you owned the Nikon 1 V3, GM1, and GM5 with kit zoom to make these comparisons? More importantly, how long have you owned these three cameras in comparison to the Samsung for real world use?

Link | Posted on Nov 26, 2014 at 22:25 UTC
In reply to:

maxnimo: Okay, I'm trying hard to not burst into laughter, but what would a serious photographer use a 7-14mm lens for?

The only thing I can think of is a sneaky, dishonest realtor who wants to make a small room appear huge.

No one uses the Nikon 14-24 f2.8 either. A huge waste of time and money. <Insert other sarcasm here>

Link | Posted on Nov 3, 2014 at 03:21 UTC
Total: 76, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous1234Next ›Last »