AlanG

Lives in United States Silver Spring, United States
Works as a Photographer
Has a website at www.goldsteinphoto.com
Joined on Mar 3, 2003

Comments

Total: 661, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

AlanG: This is all backwards. Forget film emulation... there are many ways to get there.

What Kodak has to do is come out with a 35mm film that can emulate the resolution, look, color quality, lack of grain, performance, flexibility, and consistency of the best FF 35mm digital cameras... at a really affordable price.

@ Svet Do I need to use a sarcasm indicator? Sometime ago Kodak was a big sponsor of ASMP. I remember being at meeting and they could not give away free bricks of film as door prizes. All of us were shooting digitally.

Link | Posted on Jan 17, 2017 at 02:29 UTC
On article Lily Robotics sued over claims of false advertising (92 comments in total)
In reply to:

CheersUK: A shame, but no surprise.
Its already been mentioned, but DPR really need to think about promoting crowd funded projects in the future through their news section. I'm sure they'll say that its their job to make their readers aware of the latest photo related news etc, but that should be balanced with a regard to potential consumers rights issues.
Too many crowd funding ideas end in failure and leave consumers out of pocket. My view is, if an idea has to resort to crowd funding instead of the recognised areas of investment (banks, investment speciists), then its either not a good idea or the business plan sucks.

Edit: Im not saying banks are a shining example for having good business plans and fleecing people, but you know what I mean.

What I'm saying is why is DPReview reporting on vaporware from unknown companies? I don't expect them to investigate the likelihood of it succeeding so they should not report on it until there is a product to test and buy.

If someone announced that an unknown company was raising money on Kickstarter for a 10-500mm full frame f2.8 lens for $499, would they report that without questioning it?

Link | Posted on Jan 15, 2017 at 21:47 UTC
On article Lily Robotics sued over claims of false advertising (92 comments in total)
In reply to:

CheersUK: A shame, but no surprise.
Its already been mentioned, but DPR really need to think about promoting crowd funded projects in the future through their news section. I'm sure they'll say that its their job to make their readers aware of the latest photo related news etc, but that should be balanced with a regard to potential consumers rights issues.
Too many crowd funding ideas end in failure and leave consumers out of pocket. My view is, if an idea has to resort to crowd funding instead of the recognised areas of investment (banks, investment speciists), then its either not a good idea or the business plan sucks.

Edit: Im not saying banks are a shining example for having good business plans and fleecing people, but you know what I mean.

@dquangt What it wrong is they reported a lie. "Lily Robotics has unveiled Lily Camera, a self-flying drone designed to autonomously track and record its owner." The headline says, "Lily Camera flies itself and follows its owner" That would make one think that the copter exists and actually can do this. Much else in the article is misleading also.

In what way was this product "unveiled?" Did DPReview test one? Did one capable of doing what the company promised ever exist? Did anyone at DPReview get suspicious that the video used to sell the product was way too good for anything that could be made by the copter being shown and described? Did DPReview even ask Lily if that was footage from their own copter?

So what kind of reporting is this?

Link | Posted on Jan 15, 2017 at 03:01 UTC

This is all backwards. Forget film emulation... there are many ways to get there.

What Kodak has to do is come out with a 35mm film that can emulate the resolution, look, color quality, lack of grain, performance, flexibility, and consistency of the best FF 35mm digital cameras... at a really affordable price.

Link | Posted on Jan 15, 2017 at 02:52 UTC as 2nd comment | 2 replies
On article Lily Robotics sued over claims of false advertising (92 comments in total)
In reply to:

CheersUK: A shame, but no surprise.
Its already been mentioned, but DPR really need to think about promoting crowd funded projects in the future through their news section. I'm sure they'll say that its their job to make their readers aware of the latest photo related news etc, but that should be balanced with a regard to potential consumers rights issues.
Too many crowd funding ideas end in failure and leave consumers out of pocket. My view is, if an idea has to resort to crowd funding instead of the recognised areas of investment (banks, investment speciists), then its either not a good idea or the business plan sucks.

Edit: Im not saying banks are a shining example for having good business plans and fleecing people, but you know what I mean.

@mxx This is how advertising and marketing works. You get free publicity via press reports and various "influencers." Sometimes people and companies in reality are compensated for this "free" publicity but it does not fit the old definition of paid advertising.

This kind of publicity and reports by so-called independent reporters and influencers is usually more effective at swaying individuals to make a purchasing decision. The reason it is more effective is that DPReview is looked at as in independent biased source whereas people are more skeptical of claims in typical advertising.

So in this particular case, some may have interpreted the Lily coverage in DPReview as being an endorsement.

If DPReview wants its readers to respect the reporting it provides then it has an obligation to investigate the stories and not publicize whatever some company sends it. At minimum they need to run a disclaimer that distances themselves from the story when it is unverifiable B.S.

Link | Posted on Jan 15, 2017 at 02:01 UTC
On article Lily Robotics sued over claims of false advertising (92 comments in total)

It would be interesting to see the actual quality of the video from the Lily to compare it with the promo video.

Link | Posted on Jan 14, 2017 at 22:29 UTC as 7th comment
On article Lily Robotics sued over claims of false advertising (92 comments in total)
In reply to:

CheersUK: A shame, but no surprise.
Its already been mentioned, but DPR really need to think about promoting crowd funded projects in the future through their news section. I'm sure they'll say that its their job to make their readers aware of the latest photo related news etc, but that should be balanced with a regard to potential consumers rights issues.
Too many crowd funding ideas end in failure and leave consumers out of pocket. My view is, if an idea has to resort to crowd funding instead of the recognised areas of investment (banks, investment speciists), then its either not a good idea or the business plan sucks.

Edit: Im not saying banks are a shining example for having good business plans and fleecing people, but you know what I mean.

imsabbel wrote, "DPR does NOT have to advertise every scam or snakeoil thats for offer. Its their choice."

Yes, that is true. Publication in "respected" media lends credibility. DPReview should stick to reviewing actual products and LEGITIMATE corporate announcements. If a company is a start up and has no product and no track record, let them prove themselves first.

Besides the possible loss of money, I wonder how many waiting for this put off buying something they could have used for the past year or more. So this is also a disservice to the good companies that deliver actual products.

Link | Posted on Jan 14, 2017 at 22:20 UTC
On article Lily Robotics sued over claims of false advertising (92 comments in total)
In reply to:

AlanG: 60,000 people thought this was a good idea and would be useful to them? I'd like to know what percentage of them also voted for President Tweet?

@wkingsie. Did it ever occur to you that you can't help rising to the bait? Just like the king of tweets. Can't you at least try to find a new and improved way to state this stuff?

Link | Posted on Jan 14, 2017 at 05:45 UTC
In reply to:

Guido FORRIER: i still have a mf camera but will never use it again . no film anymore . developing film is bad for the environment . slide film has very low DR . digital 35 mm surpasses 35 mm film in resolution , dynamic range and color .
film is not for ever . maybe kodakchrome last longer than ekta , but the support and the emulsion degrade .
digital is simply digits and can be duplicated for ever without any loss . when a storage device is no more available :copy it to an new device/computer system .
film is already processed and you can not go back to the original : digital raw can be also processed in camera ( who knows) but you have always the "original " .
and so on ...(scratches , film not flat ...)
i used film and enveloped it all myself for more than 35 years , so i know something about the pitfalls .
i suppose younger people will buy it as they never used film and will find it "cool" to, go back to the artisanal way .

Guido

I still use strobes too. But on 35mm I only need f8 when shooting home interiors not f16 when I shot 6x9cm and maybe f22 on 4x5. So the strobes are much smaller and lighter now.

As I said, I KNOW I PRODUCE MUCH LESS WASTE AND LESS POLLUTION since switching to digital capture. I enumerated all of the transport and other steps in a post above. I have no idea what cell phones and computers have to do with it. They aren't cameras and you'd be using them if you shot film or not. I'm sure millions and millions of cameras such as Instamatics ended up in landfills. Not to mention the countless single use ones actually called "disposable cameras."

Link | Posted on Jan 14, 2017 at 01:22 UTC
In reply to:

Guido FORRIER: i still have a mf camera but will never use it again . no film anymore . developing film is bad for the environment . slide film has very low DR . digital 35 mm surpasses 35 mm film in resolution , dynamic range and color .
film is not for ever . maybe kodakchrome last longer than ekta , but the support and the emulsion degrade .
digital is simply digits and can be duplicated for ever without any loss . when a storage device is no more available :copy it to an new device/computer system .
film is already processed and you can not go back to the original : digital raw can be also processed in camera ( who knows) but you have always the "original " .
and so on ...(scratches , film not flat ...)
i used film and enveloped it all myself for more than 35 years , so i know something about the pitfalls .
i suppose younger people will buy it as they never used film and will find it "cool" to, go back to the artisanal way .

Guido

@EzeE...you need to look up the history of mining silver just as one example. If you just buy a camera such as a Canon 5DIV and use it for 10 years, it will be just like buying a film camera, that also has electronics, and using that for 10 years. A lot of commercial photographers replaced their film cameras pretty often to ensure reliability.

Even if you replace the camera more often, compare that to manufacturing, shipping, processing, trash and pollution from just a thousand rolls a year and a lot of Polaroid for proofing.

When I shot film, I had several different camera systems, a color darkroom and all kinds of things such as color meters, countless color correction filters, many hot lights, powerful studio strobes, a Foba camera stand for my view camera, refrigerators for film and color paper, and on and on. There was a lot of waste and pollution.

You need much less stuff to do comparable photography today.

Link | Posted on Jan 13, 2017 at 22:19 UTC
On article Lily Robotics sued over claims of false advertising (92 comments in total)

60,000 people thought this was a good idea and would be useful to them? I'd like to know what percentage of them also voted for President Tweet?

Link | Posted on Jan 13, 2017 at 21:28 UTC as 22nd comment | 20 replies
In reply to:

dash2k8: Nostalgia is one thing, I don't think any film revival can be a real source of income for a company. It's going to be a niche market.

There may very well be an unfilled niche market there. And if it were as easy and cheap for Kodak to make Kodachrome and provide the processing for it as it is to make vinyl records, they'd still be doing it.

Link | Posted on Jan 13, 2017 at 21:22 UTC
On article Lily Robotics sued over claims of false advertising (92 comments in total)

So the pre-orders were between $499 and $899. One just has to look at the industry and see how DJI has been developing technology and driving the price down. (DJI will sell you a Phantom Standard refurb for $359... an actual product that works well!) DJI has a lot of top designers and programmers plus the economy of scale along with efficient production, marketing and distribution.

So if DJI can't sell one that is waterproof along with tracking etc. for the price of the Lily, how could Lily be able to do this?

The Lily does not appear to have a gimbal for the camera and does not have a radio control system with live video feed. Really... people must have to be pretty ignorant and hopeful to want to buy something like that.

Link | Posted on Jan 13, 2017 at 21:08 UTC as 26th comment | 3 replies
In reply to:

gravis92: 1/20 people here plan to shoot film next year. I'm not sure how many unique visitors DPreview gets over the course of a few months, but 5% is a lot in sheer numbers especially considering that nearly every one of these people for sure have at least one digital camera. And I would doubt that DPreview visitors are any different than visitors to other sites. Kodak is onto something. Make a product at a profit that 1/20 people in the entire photography market would buy...and likely continue to buy on a regular basis? Id say that's a win. Especially since it takes literally no r/d, just restart the old machines and get the distribution network restocked.

Of course they still make film, but this drums up even more interest and attracts attention to their existing products. The fact that they still make porta, etkar must mean they are breaking even, or at least not bleeding money.

More than twice that number said that in 2017 they want to Find a Cure to Gear Addiction Syndrome. So much for depending on polls like this.

Link | Posted on Jan 13, 2017 at 01:12 UTC
In reply to:

Guido FORRIER: i still have a mf camera but will never use it again . no film anymore . developing film is bad for the environment . slide film has very low DR . digital 35 mm surpasses 35 mm film in resolution , dynamic range and color .
film is not for ever . maybe kodakchrome last longer than ekta , but the support and the emulsion degrade .
digital is simply digits and can be duplicated for ever without any loss . when a storage device is no more available :copy it to an new device/computer system .
film is already processed and you can not go back to the original : digital raw can be also processed in camera ( who knows) but you have always the "original " .
and so on ...(scratches , film not flat ...)
i used film and enveloped it all myself for more than 35 years , so i know something about the pitfalls .
i suppose younger people will buy it as they never used film and will find it "cool" to, go back to the artisanal way .

Guido

I'm trying to understand why it should matter to me if billions and billions of photos, whether on film or digital, should survive in the future. If people care that these things live on in the future, they need to take some kind of action to secure that. If they don't bother to do it, why should I care? The same if they keep diaries, notes, sketches, paintings, audio recordings, homemade crafts, whatever.

As for film vs digital. I don't care if someone prefers film. I do resent the pompous statements that some make about film being better or necessary for one to be a craftsman, whatever.

Link | Posted on Jan 12, 2017 at 16:35 UTC
In reply to:

gravis92: 1/20 people here plan to shoot film next year. I'm not sure how many unique visitors DPreview gets over the course of a few months, but 5% is a lot in sheer numbers especially considering that nearly every one of these people for sure have at least one digital camera. And I would doubt that DPreview visitors are any different than visitors to other sites. Kodak is onto something. Make a product at a profit that 1/20 people in the entire photography market would buy...and likely continue to buy on a regular basis? Id say that's a win. Especially since it takes literally no r/d, just restart the old machines and get the distribution network restocked.

Of course they still make film, but this drums up even more interest and attracts attention to their existing products. The fact that they still make porta, etkar must mean they are breaking even, or at least not bleeding money.

What I'm saying is that it is foolish to project conclusions from a tiny unscientific poll. Kodak in the past did not have the capacity to scale production to serve a small market. The assumption is that this has changed but no evidence has been presented.

There have been plenty of examples of mismanagement and outright stupid decisions in Kodak's past that should prevent everyone from concluding they know what they are doing. So let's wait and see what they do and we'll learn if it is a good choice or not.

If it is so clear that re-introducing Kodachrome will be profitable then they should have no problem raising the money to do it.

Link | Posted on Jan 12, 2017 at 15:53 UTC
In reply to:

gravis92: 1/20 people here plan to shoot film next year. I'm not sure how many unique visitors DPreview gets over the course of a few months, but 5% is a lot in sheer numbers especially considering that nearly every one of these people for sure have at least one digital camera. And I would doubt that DPreview visitors are any different than visitors to other sites. Kodak is onto something. Make a product at a profit that 1/20 people in the entire photography market would buy...and likely continue to buy on a regular basis? Id say that's a win. Especially since it takes literally no r/d, just restart the old machines and get the distribution network restocked.

Of course they still make film, but this drums up even more interest and attracts attention to their existing products. The fact that they still make porta, etkar must mean they are breaking even, or at least not bleeding money.

5.5% of 2767 respondents is 152 people who made a New Years resolution to shoot film. What can be projected from this to start up an entire production, processing, distribution and marketing program for Kodachrome? That is a handful of self selected people who may not even follow through. For all we know most of them want to shoot b/w only.

Link | Posted on Jan 12, 2017 at 04:32 UTC
In reply to:

Kenferg1: It was a commercial shoot. It seems that whether you like it or not, whether or not she can be definitely identified, he had an obligation to honor her refusal to sign a release. That is the commercial photographer's legal and ethical duty. This was clearly not a public space exception, since it appears he asked for a release and she refused. If the facts come out otherwise, then bully for the photographer. But if her allegations are upheld, then one or both owe her compensation - not $2 billion - but certainly reasonable damages and compensation.

Yes, it's hard to see why that photo would be used by anyone for anything.

Link | Posted on Jan 12, 2017 at 04:24 UTC
In reply to:

jerry7171: Before everyone piles on me, I'm making an observation on what seems to be a grey area.

In general, people have no right to an expectation of privacy in public areas. By extension, if a property owner/manager permits photography the same rule would apply. Isn't this how photographers are able to shoot candids and later sell their work? Do photographers chase after people they just shot in public areas to secure a signed release? What is the difference here?

I can understand the woman's point of view if she'd been photographed through a window in her home, but sitting within Chipotle's property?

We've been down this road before. We've all observed how people share everything online, but play the victim if someone else shares something that might have them in the background.

People like this woman ought to be shamed in public opinion for her self-indulgent attitude. It reminds me of the careless woman who put scalding hot coffee in her lap at McDonalds.

Yes Optical1 it is up there with the successful spin Republicans did to Gore making most people think he said he invented the internet.

BTW Chipotle was once owned by McDonalds.

Link | Posted on Jan 12, 2017 at 04:19 UTC
In reply to:

Kenferg1: It was a commercial shoot. It seems that whether you like it or not, whether or not she can be definitely identified, he had an obligation to honor her refusal to sign a release. That is the commercial photographer's legal and ethical duty. This was clearly not a public space exception, since it appears he asked for a release and she refused. If the facts come out otherwise, then bully for the photographer. But if her allegations are upheld, then one or both owe her compensation - not $2 billion - but certainly reasonable damages and compensation.

If the woman is not recognizable there is no case. I saw the b/w photo posted and if truly is the image in question, I can't see how she has a case. Her hand is in front of her face and she is pretty small in the frame. There are a couple of bottles near her but you can't tell if they are beer bottles.

Is this the photo? If so I can see why Chipotle would not worry about a release.

https://consumermediallc.files.wordpress.com/2017/01/screen-shot-2017-01-09-at-9-27-35-am.png

https://consumerist.com/2017/01/09/woman-sues-chipotle-for-2-2-billion-over-a-photograph/

Link | Posted on Jan 12, 2017 at 02:14 UTC
Total: 661, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »