citizenlouie

Joined on Jan 25, 2012

Comments

Total: 153, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

LWanTeD: Easy. Depression % = (# of selfies) / (# of photos).

I just finished reading the study. The conclusion and their study do not correlate (meaning the study is rubbish). Their statistics says one thing and their conclusion says another, and standard deviation is too wide spread (for those who doesn't know statistics, it means the study shows no strong correlation). The interpretation of reading is incorrect (go to Page 17 of study and see if you can come up with the same conclusion as the authors. BTW, 50% accuracy in statistics means "flip of a coin." That is, the study is no more accurate than pure chance). Sample size is extremely small (166 individual total, 71 of which are depressed), despite the number of photos sampled is large. The inconsistency of terms used (some uses lower case sigma to mean standard deviation, while another part of the article uses SD, gives clue the study is quickly patched by two separate researchers and maybe lack of peer review).

Link | Posted on Aug 19, 2016 at 02:44 UTC
In reply to:

citizenlouie: This is potentially a dangerous study. Most of the psychology has to do with self-reporting, and we need to question the methodology. A properly trained psychiatrist with extensive medical study usually avoids making quick judgment on someone's mental state based on one or two factors and usually takes one year of study to prove the person is in fact depressed. A lot of times people tend to "think" they are depressed, when they are not. Sometimes they just enjoy getting attention (which is not the same as depression). There are a lot of factors involved to accurately identify issues rather than stigmatize a person and scar them for life.

If you learned some medical sciences about how a person perceive color, you'd know it's actually "negatively correlated" with your mood. When your mood is tense, in sympathetic mode (aka, fight or flight), your rods and cones in your retina actually relax, allow keener light and colors. That is the reason why depressed individuals prefer darker colors, because normal color can be too eye-blinding. Knowing this as background, drawing a quick conclusion based on Instagram Hue, Saturation, and Value data is a big jump, don't you think?

Please do read the study and we can discuss it if you would like. This is not the right place for such in depth discussion of a subject most people might not understand.

Link | Posted on Aug 19, 2016 at 01:00 UTC
In reply to:

citizenlouie: This is potentially a dangerous study. Most of the psychology has to do with self-reporting, and we need to question the methodology. A properly trained psychiatrist with extensive medical study usually avoids making quick judgment on someone's mental state based on one or two factors and usually takes one year of study to prove the person is in fact depressed. A lot of times people tend to "think" they are depressed, when they are not. Sometimes they just enjoy getting attention (which is not the same as depression). There are a lot of factors involved to accurately identify issues rather than stigmatize a person and scar them for life.

I do not understand why you assume I am "going insane" or being a "layman." Have you read the study itself? I am reading it now, and find the study to be somewhat troubling. I went on to see the credential of the authors. They're mathematicians and statisticians.

They draw the conclusion based on popular believes. I am listing them some I find logically "oversimplified." (possibly because they do no have medical background)

1. Colorful = cheerful = happy
2. Cold spectrum of color = gloomy
3. Darker color = sad
4. Unhappy individual = depressed individuals

Some of these have positive correlation, but using these popular beliefs as premises of study, if not understood in its contextual sense, can result strange results, as we see in the study's methodology.

DSM (IV-TR or V, take your pick) specifically requires a specific numbers of criteria must be met, and authors picked only "sadness" to identify depression. And link it "questionably" to color perception.

Link | Posted on Aug 19, 2016 at 00:54 UTC
In reply to:

LWanTeD: Easy. Depression % = (# of selfies) / (# of photos).

I wasn't belittling anyone. The guy misinterpreted my words (of course..., this is the Internet). I was just saying everyone cope differently. Some depressed people post tons of selfies to boost them up, and some you couldn't get them to post just one selfie. Some depressed watch comedy to cheer them up, and some watch sad movies to make them feel they're not alone in this. World is very diverse, is what I am saying. You don't merely use one factor to identify depression. Even DSM requires the psychiatrist to identify 5 out of 9 major symptoms before he could say the person is depressed.

Link | Posted on Aug 18, 2016 at 23:59 UTC
In reply to:

citizenlouie: This is potentially a dangerous study. Most of the psychology has to do with self-reporting, and we need to question the methodology. A properly trained psychiatrist with extensive medical study usually avoids making quick judgment on someone's mental state based on one or two factors and usually takes one year of study to prove the person is in fact depressed. A lot of times people tend to "think" they are depressed, when they are not. Sometimes they just enjoy getting attention (which is not the same as depression). There are a lot of factors involved to accurately identify issues rather than stigmatize a person and scar them for life.

I was thinking about "Brown Eyes, Blue Eyes Experiment." The study has 70% success rate to identify depressed people, which means 30% failure rate. This is considered unacceptable for a potentially life-altering prognosis (notice I didn't say diagnosis). If 30% of people, who don't have depression, was told to have depression and receive the treatment for it, you with PhD degree, should know best how this would affect the life the individual (and their families). A lot of people who post photos on Instagram merely think it's cool and copy what other people's are doing. Should such innocuous behavior (aka "growing up") be stigmatized, and eventually become a self-fulfilling prophecy? Look, we don't need more people to identify themselves as depressed when they are just angsty coming-of-age. And we certainly don't want more pull a Pulse-like shooting. That's the lesson from Blue Eyes, Brown Eyes Experiment (or Stanford Prison Experiment).

Link | Posted on Aug 18, 2016 at 23:52 UTC
In reply to:

LWanTeD: Easy. Depression % = (# of selfies) / (# of photos).

@FLruckas, that's not true. There is no correlation. It depends on how people cope with the issues. I know people tend to project, but the issue is more complex than this "study" tries to make it to be.

Link | Posted on Aug 18, 2016 at 19:35 UTC

This is potentially a dangerous study. Most of the psychology has to do with self-reporting, and we need to question the methodology. A properly trained psychiatrist with extensive medical study usually avoids making quick judgment on someone's mental state based on one or two factors and usually takes one year of study to prove the person is in fact depressed. A lot of times people tend to "think" they are depressed, when they are not. Sometimes they just enjoy getting attention (which is not the same as depression). There are a lot of factors involved to accurately identify issues rather than stigmatize a person and scar them for life.

Link | Posted on Aug 18, 2016 at 19:30 UTC as 36th comment | 6 replies

Not surprise there. I rented my gears from them before. The renting behavior is very different from buying behavior. When you rent, you go for stuff you can't afford to own for the special occasion. You don't see as many portrait oriented lenses because wedding professionals can write the cost off on their tax return.

You also see a lot of Medium Format cameras, because let's face it..., they're expensive and you don't use them that often. It requires careful planning to shoot with one. Even as serious as a landscape photographer myself, only once a while I'd say, "I wish I had a medium format with me." Only one photo per trip requires a MF and MF landscape shots almost always require a tripod. So it's not a travel cam. Just rent the gears after you carefully planned your scout shots with a smaller format.

Link | Posted on Jul 30, 2016 at 19:18 UTC as 17th comment
On article Accusations fly over Fukushima photos (88 comments in total)

Is entering red zone without permit allowed? Can that be prosecuted?

Link | Posted on Jul 24, 2016 at 16:24 UTC as 5th comment
In reply to:

gianstam: I' m pretty amazed that people discuss about DOF equivalence in these focal lengths

@NAwlins Contrarian

Yes, almost all Olympus lenses (since 4/3 days) are performing their best at or near wide open. I don't think this one will be an exception. With m4/3 lenses, they tend to perform their best at f/4 (f/8 equivalent), rather than 4/3 lenses's f/5.6-6.3 range, so yeah, m4/3 lenses are at their best wide open. Don't know what's the reason. Maybe it's the sensor size format reason, or because those m4/3 lenses I used have max aperture of f/1.8.

I agree with you. Yes, samples are nice, but real world experience will be better, especially when people's shooting style tend to differ a little. Not everyone likes to shoot wide open.

Link | Posted on Jan 8, 2016 at 04:40 UTC
In reply to:

BarnET: Sharpest in the line-up?
Well i don't see it not compared to samples of the 75mm F1.8 at least

It'll be unfair to compare with 75mm since 75mm is easier to design.

The bokeh is pretty good for such sharp lens. And I'd say it finally is up the quality of 4/3 lenses (4/3 lens' bokeh tend to be much more sublime compared to m4/3). Sharpness usually comes with a busy bokeh, unfortunately. If you have a lens that's both sharp and has smooth bokeh, that's extraordinary, not the norm. You should appreciate such lens more, rather than put down other lenses as lesser.

BTW, if you think this bokeh is "common" 3rd grade consumer... then many of Canon L lenses would qualify as such.... Just go see some sample photos. And of course, the ability of the photographer matters too, when it comes to isolation decision.

Link | Posted on Jan 6, 2016 at 20:37 UTC
In reply to:

gianstam: I' m pretty amazed that people discuss about DOF equivalence in these focal lengths

Yes. Most of those people are theorists, not practitioners. The first useful aperture at such long focal length is f/8 for depth of field purpose (@35mm equivalent). The extra light at f/4 aperture is nice for handheld. But DoF wise, f/8 is extremely shallow already (and at closer subject-to-focal plane, it might be too shallow).

Link | Posted on Jan 6, 2016 at 20:25 UTC

In the specs it says Extending Zoom.... This is a fixed focal lens.

Link | Posted on Jan 6, 2016 at 19:53 UTC as 16th comment
On article Flickr brings back Pro account option (74 comments in total)
In reply to:

Ian: "...there’s no such thing as Flickr Pro, because today, with cameras as pervasive as they are, there is no such thing really as professional photographers..."
-Marisa Mayer, CEO, Yahoo, May 2013

So does this news mean that there are in fact "professional photographers"?

I couldn't resist...

The term is "serious amateur," if you don't make a living out of your photos but still very good at what you're doing. Inventing a new term when there is already one will just confuse people further.

As mentioned before, there is nothing wrong being a non-pro. And I've seen "pros" on the job who was totally clueless and think all those equipments and having hired assistants around them made them pro. Don't be so hung up by the title.

And yes, like Tim Gander said, be professional about your work. That's always a good thing and respect the laws of your jurisdiction. That and ethics are parts of professional conduct, too.

Link | Posted on Jul 24, 2015 at 16:58 UTC
On article Readers' Showcase: Oscar Cwajbaum (33 comments in total)

Well, I want to point out something about copyright comment on the Photo 9. Yes, you do need model release, and it's not misconstrued. That's one of the lessons you learn when you take your photography class (and property release, for that matter). The tabloid is in constant legal fight (and they don't mind paying that if they believe they can earn more money selling the paper or blackmail the celebrity in question. It's not the norm of a proper photography practice!). Let's not forget those people paparazzi shot are "public" figures. Their legal right to their image is much more limited to that of regular individuals like us or the cosplay models. Because court judge would definitely ask how much privacy does the person in the photo expects, and that will affect the outcome of the law suit. Lesson... model release is a yes because it's respectful, if not legal.

Link | Posted on Jun 21, 2015 at 17:16 UTC as 22nd comment | 6 replies
On article Flickr Wall Art removes Creative Commons prints (44 comments in total)
In reply to:

Edgar_in_Indy: This doesn't make sense to me. What is the purpose of the CC images, if not to use them? Of course it's going to cost money to make a print, and the bigger and fancier the print, the more it will cost.

As long as Flickr wasn't charging extra for a CC image, I don't see what the problem was. Now people just have less choices for their art.

If I'm a photographer who agreed to have my work on CC available for free use, then I would be flattered if people chose to pay to have it made into large wall-art.

(But I don't know much about Creative Commons, so if my understanding is flawed, I hope somebody will clarify it for me.)

There are many types of CC license agreement. Not all CC License gives any user the use the photo without restriction. CC only makes licensing easier, but one still needs to respect copyright!

Link | Posted on Dec 20, 2014 at 03:39 UTC
In reply to:

nerd2: I've been using 'crop' bodies for almost a decade, but still I hate olympus and its delusional marketing strategy which plagues many people.

To be equivalent to FF counterparts, smaller format body/lens should be:

a) FASTER to achieve the same total light and same DOF.
b) SHARPER to achieve the same sharpness.
c) has the similar MP count.

For example, to compete with A7 plus 24-70 f4 lens, one needs a 24MP m43 body and 12-35 f2 lens that is TWICE sharper than 24-70 f4. Of course most lenses (even $100 kit lenses) are now very good and can be used for professional purpose, but that does not justify Oly to charge the same money for inferior lenses.

Olympus lenses are twice as sharp. Look at the Olympus's MTF chart, they're normalized using TWICE the resolution (20 lines and 60 lines, instead of Canikon's 10 lines and 30 lines). It is specifically stated by Olympus engineers that in order to be competitive (they're fully aware their sensors are smaller), they have made their lenses TWICE the resolution, which is how their 4/3 lenses are made, and why regular 4/3 lenses have the largest lens size per sensor size ratio (i.e., they built their lenses significantly larger than the minimum requirement to reduce vignette and to gather significantly more light). They go by the same Zeiss Otus philosophy of no compromise optics. Some SHG lenses (Super High Grade) are made to order, individually inspected, just like Leica lenses, not mass produced. This is why SHG 4/3 lenses are quite a bit more expensive than m4/3 lenses.

Please research before you complain....

Link | Posted on Nov 5, 2014 at 00:04 UTC
In reply to:

gmke: The more I think about it, the more ridiculous the question becomes. Why buy an LX100 when you can have a GX7? An apple or orange, it rests on a questionable assumption, on purpose perhaps, that since the cameras are built around the same sensor, they are category siblings. They are not siblings. This one is a small lens story and the most appropriate question is, Why buy an RX100-iii when you can get an LX100? The paragraphs that come out of that question are far more interesting. The GX7 plays in the same league as the GH3 and OM-D cameras. The main difference is the location of the viewfinder. Take your pick. The styling matters not one bit. They ARE siblings. Take away the viewfinder and you get a tweener with an identity crisis.

@gmke

Okay, this is too close to real life for comfort. ;) I thought this is supposed to be a lalaland for gearheads.

Just kidding of course....

Link | Posted on Oct 4, 2014 at 20:24 UTC
In reply to:

samfan: Geez, what's your problem guys, so they asked a fashion designer to make a bag and put a white camera inside it. Big deal. It's just a white camera in a white bag. Something you can buy for your wife as a gift if you you know she doesn't appreciate the standard big black cameras. (And while I don't know SmC's work she's probably known enough that the bag itself would cost as much when bought separately.)

It's not like they had to pull firmware programmers or lens designers from their work on your dreamed out Canon MILC to make this.

If you cuts the popular mass with a truth that incises like a surgical scalpel, you would soon find yourself surrounded by them, and be whacked with their axe..., and a very dull one.

Link | Posted on Sep 27, 2014 at 18:50 UTC
On article Olympus Capture software now available for E-M1 owners (37 comments in total)
In reply to:

Jim Salvas: I've been using this for two days and it is a very well-designed app. It's responsive and everything works seamlessly.

I understand why Olympus has made this available only on the E-M1. The E-M1 is positioned as Olympus' professional-grade model and since tethered shooting appeals mostly to pros the app further helps differentiate this top of the line model.

O.I. Share App (for Android and iOS) can be used for all other newer cameras with WiFi built-in. It's just WiFi does not provide enough bandwidth for high-end tethering, so the cabled solution like this is better for the flagship model marketed as Pro camera. But non-pros can still do it with some basic functions (maybe not multiple flash control, but you can do that in-camera using LiveView).

Link | Posted on Sep 26, 2014 at 18:05 UTC
Total: 153, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »