mr moonlight

Lives in United States Miami Beach, United States
Works as a Graphic Designer/Photographer
Joined on Dec 7, 2006

Comments

Total: 176, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »

I used to be a member. I didn't use it that many times, but when I did, I had my gear back in 3 days. Meaning I sent it next day air on Monday evening for AM delivery, had it back in my hands Wednesday morning. Can't get better than that. I never needed any loaner gear since I have backups of everything. Even a next day loaner can be a day late.

Link | Posted on Nov 14, 2017 at 04:05 UTC as 2nd comment
In reply to:

Flat Earther: Who needs EXTREMELY ACCURATE colors?

Accurate color is pretty essential if you have a large workflow and don't want to waste ink/paper. My workflow gives pretty accurate colors straight out and if I do need to adjust, it's slight and the second print is dead on. My NEC monitor is pretty much, WYSIWYG.

Link | Posted on Nov 4, 2017 at 21:42 UTC
In reply to:

BobT3218: I don't want to have to fiddle with a monitor to get it right? I want a monitor that provides correct colours straight out of the box and stays there, in other words, a plug-n-play reference monitor. Is there such a thing?

Closest thing I've used is the NEC. Great monitor and very accurate. Calibrating will obviously give you better accuracy, but out of the box it's pretty close to printing what you see on screen. Of course you have to have a good printer too.

Link | Posted on Nov 4, 2017 at 21:38 UTC
In reply to:

dash2k8: I've never used a textured background before and admit my complete lack of knowledge in this area. Could someone tell me the benefits of using a physical textured background versus green- or bluescreen and then applying it in post? Seems to me that for the same amount of work setting up the background (actual background vs bluescreen) a post-produced background is much more flexible (as long as the masking is done right) and you can get any kind of background imaginable. I fail to see the usefulness of this product.

Besides the additional photoshop work involved with green screens, it's nice for the client to be able to see what they're getting during the shoot. Plus it makes the session feel more unnatural to your subject with a big green background behind them. A few hundred bucks for a backdrop isn't much if it's a timesaver and you're a working photographer. Plus, I like the way it's curved. That will really make a difference when you're in a cramped space and you want to get different angles or you have a larger group.

Link | Posted on Sep 27, 2017 at 19:44 UTC
In reply to:

dash2k8: I want that flash! So small yet so powerful, why hasn't any of the major brands made something like this yet? Canon, Nikon, Sony et al., are you guys seeing this!?

Most likely made by Graflex.

Link | Posted on Jul 3, 2017 at 18:37 UTC
In reply to:

talmy: I've seen plenty of TV shows where you can hear the film advancing in a DSLR. Don't expect any accuracy here in a horror flick! And possessed Polaroid film has shelf life measured in hundreds, if not thousands, of years.

Since many cameras have a fake film advance sound, I give them a partial pass on that one.

Link | Posted on Jul 3, 2017 at 18:30 UTC
In reply to:

Steve in GA: If you try to use logic to explain a film like, "Polaroid", you're missing the point.

Zdman, Nightmare on Elm Street was totally realistic.

Link | Posted on Jul 3, 2017 at 18:25 UTC

The capacitor screeching is pretty typical of many older P&S cameras with built in flashes. Yes, louder than my studio strobe setup. Of course, this camera was able to flash whilst missing the flashbar. Now that is spooky!!!

Link | Posted on Jul 3, 2017 at 18:21 UTC as 8th comment
In reply to:

ozturert: It's a mystery to me how this company can stay in the market. Do many people really buy these sh..., I mean, lenses for outrageous prices?

Short run specialty lens = higher price point. It's like a recreation of a vintage car. It may not work nearly as well as the average new car, but people are still willing to pay high premiums for them.

Link | Posted on Jun 9, 2017 at 20:44 UTC
On article How do you know you need a new camera? (410 comments in total)

When your current camera stops working or starts to lose you money.

Link | Posted on May 30, 2017 at 01:26 UTC as 31st comment
In reply to:

lambert4: This is a great bag, I have a similar set up now that was an apparel sample bag from me sales days. It is a huge set up but that is what is needed to accommodate and protect the essentials. The $599 is the toughest pill for me to swallow, that is Pelican case territory for expense.

Actually, it's beyond Pelican case territory for expense. You can get a slightly larger Pelican case for $130 less. A soft case does have it's place, but I agree, it's hard to justify a purchase like this when you can get a more spacious Pelican for a lot less.

Link | Posted on Apr 8, 2016 at 03:51 UTC

Would there be an issue if the photographer had a model airplane that he flew over the spot while he took the shot? Or secured a small model with clear fishing line?

I'm not saying what the photographer did was right, but where do we draw the line between what is real and fake, discovered and staged? Every photograph has some level of influence by the photographer be it as simple as framing or as in depth as bringing in lighting and models to create a scene.

Avedon's Dovima and the Elephants is one of the most iconic images in all of photography, yet was entirely staged. Does this fact make it any more or less of an image than Bresson's Derriere la Gare Saint-Lazare? How much darkroom work was done on both these images?

Link | Posted on Feb 1, 2016 at 19:52 UTC as 62nd comment | 1 reply
On article Design, looks and desire: Olympus does it again (391 comments in total)

Looks a bit crowded when it comes to dials and buttons with a lack of a dedicated shutter speed and aperture dial. Seems kind of pricey for a m43 as well.

All in all a nice looking camera and one feature I absolutely love is the ability to flip the screen all the way around. It's not a new feature by any means, but it's a nice touch to be able to hide the lcd away.

Link | Posted on Feb 1, 2016 at 17:09 UTC as 125th comment | 1 reply
On article Hands-on with the Fujifilm X70 (262 comments in total)
In reply to:

attomole: I think its too crowded market now for this spec, Panasonic and Sony have more attractive offerings.
As Snapchick said of the D500 , I am afraid it might be too little to late.

Wait for clearance prices and it will be a cracking little carry everywhere camera though!

Wow, this looks like an awesome little camera. An APSC sensor with a fixed wide lens wide, compact body, and manual dials! I love my X100, but sometimes, for just hanging out with friends I need something a bit wider and smaller. This would be perfect. I don't really see much else on the market that gives you all these specs. I don't see how one can compare an APS-C to an M43 camera. Different format.

Link | Posted on Jan 15, 2016 at 15:14 UTC
In reply to:

Reactive: Isn't this a classic case of a solution looking for a problem? I wasn't aware my existing UV filter's tiny weight was a problem - it's insignificant compared with the lens weight. I wasn't aware it needed to be 10x stronger, as I've never been stupid enough to smash it against objects. I wasn't aware it needed to repel water and oil, since an occasional clean with IPA keeps it spotless. I wonder if Sigma will charge 'Art' prices for their completely clear glass filter? If so, they should move into homeopathy. Perhaps their next product will be a military-grade nuclear-hardened titanium lens cap?

I agree with AbrasiveReducer. Hoya makes good quality filters. I've been using Hoya and B+W for years and while B+W has a slight edge, it's not by much. Optically it's tough too see the difference even with a side by side comparison.

Link | Posted on Dec 16, 2015 at 18:36 UTC
In reply to:

Akos Kozari: I'm thinking on what Oskar Barnack would say about creating a machine that not aiming to make the photography as easy as possible. I think it does not fit to the original philosophy... It is my 2 cents. On the other hand: i can confirm: Leica has a feeling and i would be happy to own one. Now if i would have money i would rather choose Fuji X-T1 instead. That follows the philosophy i meant...

For a photographer who shoots in manual mode, this is about as simple as it gets. If it was smaller, lighter, monochrome, and not so expensive, I'd pick one up.

Link | Posted on Sep 18, 2014 at 13:48 UTC
In reply to:

Jan Bohme: Looking into the forum section of dpreview for the first time in a long while, I immediately realised why I quit posting in the first place: There is nothing ever as pig-headed as a photographer involved in a discussion who is wrong. :)

The legal issue is crystal clear: If the animal, as Slater claims, has pushed the trigger and pointed the camera by its own free will, that is the core creative moment, and Slater can't have copyright. Because it is not human, nor can the monkey. If we just discuss de lege lata - i.e. discuss the law as it stands - there is nothing more to discuss. While it is technically correct to say that the rulings of the US Copyright Office are only legally binding inside the US, there is nothing bizarre or outlandish in neither the US copyright legislations, or the specific ruling at hand, in this matter. The ruling will be the same in most, and very possibly all, countries signatory to the Berne convention.

@mariuss. That's the creative process leading up to "the creative moment" not "the creative moment". If I'm on vacation and ask a stranger to take a photo of me, I'll choose the place, lens, focal distance, settings, etc... but "the creative moment" still lies with the stranger who framed the shot and pressed the shutter. It would be the stranger who owns copyright. If all my work setting up the shot amounted had any more than a minimal effect on the outcome, those vacation shots by strangers would have actually come out half decent vs. utter crap.

Link | Posted on Aug 22, 2014 at 14:34 UTC
In reply to:

vFunct: The US Copyright office is going to delete this, since it's only a draft statement.

Photographs are never created by nature. The other examples that the Copyright office gives of natural works - elephants painting, driftwood shapes, rock grain formations - are all naturally contained works. They don't have any human involvement in its output.

Meanwhile, a photograph always relies on human involvement in its output - someone has to setup, process, and print/publish it.

It is not possible for nature to produce a photograph on its own.

The monkey did author the photo. You're not going to tell Stephen King he doesn't own the copyright to a book he's written just because publishers, printers, copy editors, designers, marketers, and distributors put much more time into creating his book than he did. It doesn't matter who hands the elephant a brush, processes a photograph, or rents the gear, it's the entity that frames the shot and presses the shutter that gets the copyright.

If Slater wanted copyright, he should have said that he planned for the monkey to take his camera with the hope that it would take a selfie. Then it would have been him directing a photoshoot vs. an accident.

Link | Posted on Aug 22, 2014 at 14:23 UTC
In reply to:

spencerda: Assuming that the monkey REALLY took it's own photo, I would agree Mr Slater has copyrights.

Why

One he owns the camera and the memory card and process the pictures.
Two We as humans do not give animals the right of ownership.
Three We as humans have ownership over animals and pets, we are held responsible for anything they might do, so there for Mr Slater has ownership of the copyright, laughing...

Mr. Slater did not own the monkey and it doesn't matter who owns the equipment.

Link | Posted on Aug 11, 2014 at 20:21 UTC
In reply to:

Digital Mike0697: My thoughts on this subject would be that Zoo owns the pictures not the photographer. Why I say this is because they owns the primate, the photos where taken on private property and the list goes on.

Yes the photographer owns the camera, but my impression on the copyright laws, you have to physically taken the photos yourself not anyone else or in this case a animal (primate). True the photographer may have setup the camera to take pictures, but in this situation the Zoo owns images.

I have a question, If the photographer owns the rights pictures, should he/ she ask the Zoo to sign a modeling release and will the Zoo be compensated to allow the photographer to make money off of images?

Slater may have chosen the lens and set exposure, but I don't see how that would hold up as creative authorship. So a friend asks to borrow my camera. I select the body, lens, and preset the exposure to F1.8, 1/800, and auto ISO since my friend doesn't know what he's doing, but I think those settings will make for a few good portraits as my friend is trying to learn portrait photography. I also instruct him to use his girlfriend as a model, how he should pose her, where he should take the shot, how to frame it, and to use the window in his living room to light it. The next day he comes back with some absolutely stunning shots using my settings, camera gear, the subject I chose, and instructions. Should I have some ownership of the photos since I had so much creative input?

Link | Posted on Aug 8, 2014 at 13:44 UTC
Total: 176, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »