larrytusaz

Lives in United States Tucson, United States
Works as a Database Design
Has a website at http://bit.ly/1DT7VSN
Joined on Aug 20, 2005
About me:

Equipment:
Sony NEX-6
16-50PZ
50mm 1.8 OSS

Nikon 1 J1, 10-30VR

Comments

Total: 452, showing: 61 – 80
« First‹ Previous23456Next ›Last »
In reply to:

larrytusaz: Again with the "slideshow" design with numerous "next, next, next, next, n..." clicks required, except on the mobile version of the page. One page would be better--and no, I don't care that advertisers want that design. Make it one page ANYWAY--and yes, I ask for it WITHOUT offering to pay for it. Do it ANYWAY.

Yes, I sure don't like it, and tact aside, it's the truth. We do enough "sugar coating" things, I find bluntness refreshing sometimes.

In other words--look, I get that advertisers pay the bills, but I'm tired of their interests always being catered to almost exclusively, almost to the point of cow-towing, and then we readers, who are the ultimate targets I would imagine (else we'd be seeing ads for tampons and football jerseys), are told "pay or zip it." It's an awful format and the most excellent format for reading should be the priority. It's fine that we have to acknowledge who pays the bills to a reasonable extent, but when it's taken this far, it smacks of things like advertisers plastering their logos all over every place they can find such as basketball floors or the backs of people's heads or the like.

Besides, you still end up with this even when you do pay for it, like the locked-in previews on DVDs & even Netflix has advertising, and these are things you PAY for.

Link | Posted on Sep 23, 2014 at 02:53 UTC

Again with the "slideshow" design with numerous "next, next, next, next, n..." clicks required, except on the mobile version of the page. One page would be better--and no, I don't care that advertisers want that design. Make it one page ANYWAY--and yes, I ask for it WITHOUT offering to pay for it. Do it ANYWAY.

Link | Posted on Sep 22, 2014 at 23:47 UTC as 93rd comment | 10 replies
On article Photographing Thailand with the Nokia Lumia 1020 (148 comments in total)
In reply to:

larrytusaz: Are you kidding me? You are taking a trip to another country, with all of the photographic opportunities that presents, and you use a PHONE? What next, a Casio Swatch Watch? Be real. Okay, a Canon 1DX and L glass perhaps would've been a bit heavy to lug everywhere, but would using something like an Olympus E-PM2 or Sony A6000 have killed you?

It should be REQUIRED by a licensed photography governing body that if you call yourself a professional photographer, you MUST use a real camera for every single professional pursuit you engage in and publicize as part of your "brand," or your license to practice photography professionally will be revoked. This is a bunch of nonsense, and people like that should be MADE--yes, MADE--to do otherwise, or run out of town on a rail.

Yes, not pros, or not acting like pros, if they use a phone. Simple as that.

Link | Posted on Aug 8, 2014 at 11:44 UTC
On article Photographing Thailand with the Nokia Lumia 1020 (148 comments in total)
In reply to:

larrytusaz: Are you kidding me? You are taking a trip to another country, with all of the photographic opportunities that presents, and you use a PHONE? What next, a Casio Swatch Watch? Be real. Okay, a Canon 1DX and L glass perhaps would've been a bit heavy to lug everywhere, but would using something like an Olympus E-PM2 or Sony A6000 have killed you?

It should be REQUIRED by a licensed photography governing body that if you call yourself a professional photographer, you MUST use a real camera for every single professional pursuit you engage in and publicize as part of your "brand," or your license to practice photography professionally will be revoked. This is a bunch of nonsense, and people like that should be MADE--yes, MADE--to do otherwise, or run out of town on a rail.

We are all nobodies really, so what. I have my opinion, you have your opinion. As stupid as I think that opinion is, you have as much right to recite your stupid opinion as I do my smart opinion.

I stand by what I said, and will keep on saying it as long as is necessary. To wit: if you call yourself a photographer, you use a REAL camera, just as a real golfer uses real golf clubs and you don't see professional swimmers practicing in Intex pools, even though they could outdo us even if they did. It's ridiculous and downright mentally insane. I don't care what your results are, you use a PHONE or a Holga or whatever when you have better equipment available, especially with small tools like an Olympus E-PM2 or Sony RX100, you're a pathetic excuse of a photographer and you ought to be ashamed of yourself.

Link | Posted on Aug 5, 2014 at 17:16 UTC
On article Photographing Thailand with the Nokia Lumia 1020 (148 comments in total)
In reply to:

larrytusaz: Are you kidding me? You are taking a trip to another country, with all of the photographic opportunities that presents, and you use a PHONE? What next, a Casio Swatch Watch? Be real. Okay, a Canon 1DX and L glass perhaps would've been a bit heavy to lug everywhere, but would using something like an Olympus E-PM2 or Sony A6000 have killed you?

It should be REQUIRED by a licensed photography governing body that if you call yourself a professional photographer, you MUST use a real camera for every single professional pursuit you engage in and publicize as part of your "brand," or your license to practice photography professionally will be revoked. This is a bunch of nonsense, and people like that should be MADE--yes, MADE--to do otherwise, or run out of town on a rail.

I'm a person with a BRAIN and taste, frankly. You don't have to, say, be a chef to know that someone who fancies themselves a chef and attends culinary arts school but serves Chef Boyardee as an example of their "work" is a total joke. Do you see Tiger Woods playing golf with broomsticks? Do I have to be Tiger Woods to know how silly that would be?

I learned how to work a 35mm SLR in the 80s when I was a teenager, without the benefit of anyone's help or Internet forums etc. I used to have a Kodak but it took no time to realize that if I wanted to be taken seriously even as a hobbyist that wasn't going to cut it. This sort of thing is a mockery of the pursuit of excellence and taste.

Now we have digital, no more constraints of film etc, and models like the Sony RX100 and Olympus E-PM2 giving you tremendous abilities in light packages, if portability is a concern. If toting something like that is too much of a burden, who should take such a person seriously? They're a stain on the art.

Link | Posted on Aug 4, 2014 at 16:27 UTC
On article Photographing Thailand with the Nokia Lumia 1020 (148 comments in total)
In reply to:

larrytusaz: Are you kidding me? You are taking a trip to another country, with all of the photographic opportunities that presents, and you use a PHONE? What next, a Casio Swatch Watch? Be real. Okay, a Canon 1DX and L glass perhaps would've been a bit heavy to lug everywhere, but would using something like an Olympus E-PM2 or Sony A6000 have killed you?

It should be REQUIRED by a licensed photography governing body that if you call yourself a professional photographer, you MUST use a real camera for every single professional pursuit you engage in and publicize as part of your "brand," or your license to practice photography professionally will be revoked. This is a bunch of nonsense, and people like that should be MADE--yes, MADE--to do otherwise, or run out of town on a rail.

I am glad that "stock" photo agencies have those requirements, if they still do. If they've changed that, they should be forced out of business. People who call themselves "photographers" should be MADE to use a real camera, even if just a Sony RX100 or Olympus E-PM2, or else be MADE to shut down. Period.

Link | Posted on Aug 3, 2014 at 20:13 UTC
On article Photographing Thailand with the Nokia Lumia 1020 (148 comments in total)

Are you kidding me? You are taking a trip to another country, with all of the photographic opportunities that presents, and you use a PHONE? What next, a Casio Swatch Watch? Be real. Okay, a Canon 1DX and L glass perhaps would've been a bit heavy to lug everywhere, but would using something like an Olympus E-PM2 or Sony A6000 have killed you?

It should be REQUIRED by a licensed photography governing body that if you call yourself a professional photographer, you MUST use a real camera for every single professional pursuit you engage in and publicize as part of your "brand," or your license to practice photography professionally will be revoked. This is a bunch of nonsense, and people like that should be MADE--yes, MADE--to do otherwise, or run out of town on a rail.

Link | Posted on Aug 2, 2014 at 15:00 UTC as 56th comment | 11 replies

That's like giving Kool-Aid the option to come already poured into crystal champagne glasses.

Link | Posted on Jul 2, 2014 at 03:47 UTC as 13th comment
On article Benchmark Performance: Nikon D810 review (1988 comments in total)
In reply to:

larrytusaz: Why does anybody care about the video specifications of this high-grade stills camera? If I had $3000 to drop on this I'd do so for the amazing pictures it can take, not the Vimeo or YouTube clips it can record. It's an SLR, not a camcorder.

I still say SLRs are NOT meant for video, I don't care if 10,000,000 other people say otherwise, I alone am right and they are all wrong. If they want video so bad let them buy a RED or the like. Show some respect for tradition.

In fact I place this as an item on my "if I were king for a day" list. To wit: if I were, I would FORCE the manufacturers of SLRs to no longer allow video, a la the Nikon Df, even if it meant doing so via legislative fiat. Maybe "the horse is already out of the barn," well then maybe the horse should be shot. You want a video camera, GET a video camera, quit corrupting SLRs with YouTube modes they were never meant to utilize.

Link | Posted on Jun 26, 2014 at 21:40 UTC
On article Benchmark Performance: Nikon D810 review (1988 comments in total)

Why does anybody care about the video specifications of this high-grade stills camera? If I had $3000 to drop on this I'd do so for the amazing pictures it can take, not the Vimeo or YouTube clips it can record. It's an SLR, not a camcorder.

Link | Posted on Jun 26, 2014 at 16:42 UTC as 421st comment | 13 replies
On article 2014 iPhone Photography Awards winners announced (102 comments in total)
In reply to:

jonrobertp: Phones as photography....let's be serious.

I didn't realize that a CAMERA was capable of lightening up.

Link | Posted on Jun 19, 2014 at 16:35 UTC
On article 2014 iPhone Photography Awards winners announced (102 comments in total)
In reply to:

jonrobertp: Phones as photography....let's be serious.

The scary and pathetic thing is they ARE serious. I guess I should head over to a golfing site and in the forums discuss using broomsticks or a mop instead of clubs, because "they're always with you" and "the tool doesn't matter."

Link | Posted on Jun 16, 2014 at 16:09 UTC
On article 2014 iPhone Photography Awards winners announced (102 comments in total)

(Manah) is right. I think it is extremely lazy to be of the frame of mind that "lugging" a camera where you go is too much work. Gee whiz, you have models like the Olympus E-PM2 and Sony RX100 to choose from, models that are very small yet do well, certainly way better than a smartphone. In the case of the E-PM2, it practically matches a Nikon D7000 and newer models like the Sony A6000 do even better.

I'm sorry, but if "lugging" an Olympus E-PM2 or Sony RX100 is more than a person can "bear," that's just pathetic and to me such people just don't rate. No one's saying you have to lug 4x6 film plates or a Nikon D4s, but come on already. Enough of this "the best tool is the one you have with you." My child has a Fisher Price camera with a pop-bottle lens, it's always around--I suppose Nikon, Canon and Sony E-mount gear just isn't necessary anymore? Yeah, right.

Link | Posted on Jun 16, 2014 at 15:58 UTC as 10th comment
On article Sony a6000 Review (897 comments in total)

Having shot with the NEX-6 before I would miss the level gauge. I can't shoot a level landscape without one if my life depended on it. There's always a Joby aftermarket spirit level, but then you can't see it if you're using the EVF. Why in the WORLD was this left off from the NEX-6?

However, I love what they'e done with having so many AF points covering so much of the frame. This is something that DSLR makers still don't seem to get--we don't want to have to "focus center and recompose," we want to compose as-is and then be able to place an AF point pretty much wherever on the screen with our current composition already accounted for. Even models like the D7100 don't provide enough coverage, to say nothing of the D3000 and D5000 series. Whenever you say "I want about 150 AF points covering the WHOLE screen" they look at you like you're asking for the moon or something. Sony proves that in fact you're not asking that at all.

Link | Posted on Jun 3, 2014 at 17:37 UTC as 193rd comment | 4 replies
On article Never forget a Photoshop or Lightroom shortcut again (70 comments in total)

I like the idea, very much, but I could hardly read anything on it. The ones I can remember in Photoshop CS2 (yes, CS2)--M turns on the normal cursor that it opens with, making it a quick way to exit out of the cloning or healing brush. CTRL-0 returns the image to its normal "fit to screen" size, CTRL + zooms in CTRL - zooms out. I am sure I would benefit from many others.

Also, I would LOVE a way to "lock" the adjustments palette on the right-hand side in Lightroom 4. I am CONSTANTLY accidentally clicking that "collapse" section on it while trying to make an adjustment (exposure compensation, white balance etc). I don't want that palette to EVER go away, EVER.

Link | Posted on May 19, 2014 at 14:42 UTC as 20th comment
On article Hungarian law bans photos taken without consent (321 comments in total)
In reply to:

REDred Photo: It seems to me this law attempts to address an ever growing concern about some people exploiting unsuspecting bystanders for financial or social gain. The spirit of this law is sound... if I were present in a public place, I would not appreciate a photographer "stealing" an image of me, and/or my interactions with others, and then profiting from the use of that image without my consent. In the current era, "profits" can be other than monetary, such as Facebook likes or YouTube views.

Whether the image is sold for cash or used to drive web traffic, if the person did not give consent to use their likeness for that purpose, it is an exploitation. In cases of public protest, parades, political rallies, etc. the "exploitation" is mitigated by free speech rights when the image is used to inform the public of events that occurred.

I would not delete an image someone protested, because their protests are ridiculous. At the least, I would delete but then immediately use another memory card knowing I could recover the image with image recovery software.

I'm not trying to stalk anybody, but to me pretty much every protest is ridiculous and I'm simply not apt to abide by it. It's high time that people who are too touchy about silly things be told that they are, rather than always tip-toeing around their exaggerated sensitivities.

Link | Posted on Mar 19, 2014 at 03:03 UTC
On article Hungarian law bans photos taken without consent (321 comments in total)
In reply to:

larrytusaz: If I were rich, I'd travel to Hungary, break this law, then DARE them to do a thing about it, and sic as many lawyers on the resulting case as there are grains of sand on the beach.

That declaration aside, in a way I'm not surprised. I don't know about the rest of the USA, but in eastern TX, I swear you can't take a picture of ANYTHING without people flipping out, especially if you're a male. Dumb idiots swear every man with a camera is a pervert out to feed the pedophile pond, as if someone pleasuring themselves to a photo, as sick as that may be, is really harming anyone to start with. (I'm referring to "street photography" or "incidental" candid/tourist photos, not something where kids are forced to undress against their will.) Regardless, even stopping and taking a photo of an old barn risks raising the tempers of neighbors who think you're stalking the landscape trying to abduct somebody. Paranoia has really taken over--but I click away anyway, as should every photographer.

Suspicion of terrorism? To be sure people aren't THAT stupid. Then again....

So people carry guns--so what? So what, the rest of us are just supposed to not do things that are completely legal because of fanatics? One would think that they aren't stupid enough to sign themselves to a 30 year jail sentence shooting someone for doing a perfectly legal act. In public, I take pictures all I want to, people don't like it--TOUGH. That they would be so illogical only makes me want to take even more just on the principle of how stupid their paranoia is. If taking a photo outside of a restaurant you're eating at so that you remember those small days many years later frightens someone that much, tough on them--there are many fine mental health facilities they're free to sign themselves into. Me: their illogical stupidity isn't going to dictate my actions.

Link | Posted on Mar 19, 2014 at 01:20 UTC
On article Hungarian law bans photos taken without consent (321 comments in total)
In reply to:

REDred Photo: It seems to me this law attempts to address an ever growing concern about some people exploiting unsuspecting bystanders for financial or social gain. The spirit of this law is sound... if I were present in a public place, I would not appreciate a photographer "stealing" an image of me, and/or my interactions with others, and then profiting from the use of that image without my consent. In the current era, "profits" can be other than monetary, such as Facebook likes or YouTube views.

Whether the image is sold for cash or used to drive web traffic, if the person did not give consent to use their likeness for that purpose, it is an exploitation. In cases of public protest, parades, political rallies, etc. the "exploitation" is mitigated by free speech rights when the image is used to inform the public of events that occurred.

Oh please, don't be ignorant. It has nothing to do with "exploitation," especially if the photographer isn't following you around jumping out of bushes like the paparazzi, and I'd expect readers at a hobbyist/enthusiast site like this to be the LAST people to think this, and to first to realize what it really is. It is about, at the least, chronicling the everyday events of your life as memories for recollection later, and potentially even about artistically expressing the world we live in, and doing so in a genuine "non-posed" manner that can rarely be obtained with posing. Can we say "Henri Cartier-Bresson?"

People who get upset about something as innocent as this simply have their panties up in a wad and are paranoid over nothing. Frankly, to heck with them. There is nothing to fear, and paranoia is no excuse for photographers to be told to put their cameras away except for plastic posed smartphone Instamatic-grade shots at Disneyland.

Link | Posted on Mar 19, 2014 at 01:13 UTC
On article Hungarian law bans photos taken without consent (321 comments in total)

If I were rich, I'd travel to Hungary, break this law, then DARE them to do a thing about it, and sic as many lawyers on the resulting case as there are grains of sand on the beach.

That declaration aside, in a way I'm not surprised. I don't know about the rest of the USA, but in eastern TX, I swear you can't take a picture of ANYTHING without people flipping out, especially if you're a male. Dumb idiots swear every man with a camera is a pervert out to feed the pedophile pond, as if someone pleasuring themselves to a photo, as sick as that may be, is really harming anyone to start with. (I'm referring to "street photography" or "incidental" candid/tourist photos, not something where kids are forced to undress against their will.) Regardless, even stopping and taking a photo of an old barn risks raising the tempers of neighbors who think you're stalking the landscape trying to abduct somebody. Paranoia has really taken over--but I click away anyway, as should every photographer.

Link | Posted on Mar 19, 2014 at 00:41 UTC as 65th comment | 3 replies
Total: 452, showing: 61 – 80
« First‹ Previous23456Next ›Last »