Ultan

Joined on May 11, 2012

Comments

Total: 32, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »
In reply to:

vscd: Hey Sigma, I wanted your 24-70 2.8 lens but I'm now waiting since months to get anything like a review or a possibility to test it. Now Tamron comes up with a new 24-70 2.8 VC and I will definately wait for this lens as comparision. As you often don't seal your lenses (but Tamron does) I'll tend to the new Tamron instead. Your fault.

@WastingTime: A corporation legally is a person.

Link | Posted on Jun 23, 2017 at 22:51 UTC
On article Analog gems: 10 excellent, affordable film cameras (805 comments in total)

I had a great time using the Minolta 7000i in the Costa Rican cloud forest for a couple of months shortly after the camera came out in 1988. Great camera. There was a Nat. Geo photographer there the whole time, but I think I got better shots of the hummingbirds at 1/2000 - 1/4000 in natural sunlight with ASA 800 Fuji film pushed to 3200. Not grainy at all, though it was only standard prints. Amazing place for birds, I wish I had had a longer lens than the Tamron 70-210mm.

Link | Posted on May 22, 2017 at 00:49 UTC as 142nd comment
In reply to:

james s. kennedy: When I came on active duty in the Air Force in 1958, I was stationed in the Bronx making a base pay of $222.30/month, so the pay rates seem fairly generous. At the time I retired in 1980 as a bird colonel, my pay was about 32K/year. I worked for Boeing for the next 24 years as a software, systems and test engineer. I came to Boeing with 5 degrees in engineering and physics, including 2 masters from MIT.

The pay rates in this article still seem generous, but no mention is made of pensions, healthcare insurance, sick leave, vacations, etc.

But if you love what you are doing..., that makes all the difference in the world. My Air Force pension, thanks to the magic of inflation, is now , more than twice my pay when I retired, and I have nearly free healthcare, via TriCare, not the VA. I see any doctor I want when I want, no copays, no deductibles, no nothing. P.S. The Air Force paid for nearly all my education.

Please feel free to sign up.

I'd like to point up the implication that:
Today's $1000 pay for a self-employed person will buy the same amount of MIT education as $11 cash in hand would buy in 1958, which at the time one could net from less than 15 hours at the $1/hr. minimum wage. That gives the 1958 minimum wage the educational buying power of $67/hr. in 2017.

Link | Posted on May 6, 2017 at 13:37 UTC
In reply to:

james s. kennedy: When I came on active duty in the Air Force in 1958, I was stationed in the Bronx making a base pay of $222.30/month, so the pay rates seem fairly generous. At the time I retired in 1980 as a bird colonel, my pay was about 32K/year. I worked for Boeing for the next 24 years as a software, systems and test engineer. I came to Boeing with 5 degrees in engineering and physics, including 2 masters from MIT.

The pay rates in this article still seem generous, but no mention is made of pensions, healthcare insurance, sick leave, vacations, etc.

But if you love what you are doing..., that makes all the difference in the world. My Air Force pension, thanks to the magic of inflation, is now , more than twice my pay when I retired, and I have nearly free healthcare, via TriCare, not the VA. I see any doctor I want when I want, no copays, no deductibles, no nothing. P.S. The Air Force paid for nearly all my education.

Please feel free to sign up.

$1000 today is the equivalent of
$120 in 1958 ($22 if you're buying MIT tuition, was $1100, now $50k)
$354 in 1980 (your $32K = $90K in 2017)

$1000 dollars in salary and benefits cost to an employer gives about $700 in gross pay to an employee, which after tax gives the employee about $540 in spendable money. Since photographers are self-employed, they basically get to spend only half of what they are paid. So a $600 day rate means $300 spending money, the equivalent of $36 in 1958 or $106 in 1980. That's without looking at direct expenses for equipment, travel and lodging. Also, this is the top tier of the profession, only a few million dollars per year is paid to photographers by all the top publications combined, there probably aren't more than a couple of thousand photographers in the world that gross over $100k in such day rates per year and they spend like someone who makes less than half that much, less than US GDP per capita.

Link | Posted on May 6, 2017 at 12:58 UTC
In reply to:

Mr Bolton: IF the drone was really 276 feet in the air, and traveling versus hovering, then it seems like it shouldn't have been shot at. The shooter should reasonably have to pay for the drone, and that should be the end of it.

But this is America, so facts (telemetry data, in this case) don't matter because FREEDOM.

brycesteiner: "I doubt birdshot could come close to travelling 276 feet, especially at a vertical angle."
276 ft vertically has only 133 fps (40.6 m/s) less velocity than the same distance horizontally. The initial velocity is between 900-1200 fps. Horizontally, 276ft is close to the limit under ideal circumstances (full choke, center of tight pattern) for breaking a clay with birdshot, but drones are more delicate than clays. One pellet through any essential trace on a printed circuit will take it out, there are hundreds of pellets and at least a few square inches of drone vitals. Not reliable, but not unlikely, especially over several shots.

Link | Posted on Mar 27, 2017 at 17:03 UTC
In reply to:

Magnar W: Many photographers don't know why art is something else than commersial photography or amateur photography. They 'know' that art is 'fake', they don't even have to argue, and they typicelly claim that they themselves or their children could have done much better! All this even without examining what modern art is, it's present status, or how photography is used as a technique and a medium by those highly trained artists who are critically and analytically looking into 'our' medium - those who work within the tradition called art and the field called contemprorary art.

Why not just check out what this is all about before commenting?

Diving into this field is exciting and challenging, and what I have found has surprised me over and over again, made me question how I look at and how I read photographs and other kinds of visual work, and learned me a lot more about pictures, also about my core interest, photography! ;-)

You made no argument that today's art isn't fake. Objectively, art before WW I was far better than anything that critics praised after WW II. Aesthetics is not merely subjective. The academics, curators and critics are posturing politically for each other. The aim of these people and their patrons is to destroy the idea of beauty itself, of objectivity, of standards, of Western culture. It is a mode of warfare designed to atomize, to alienate, to make ugly, to destroy the spirit of the target peoples so they can more easily be persuaded to commit national suicide. And it's working.

Link | Posted on Mar 12, 2017 at 15:26 UTC
In reply to:

Edmond Leung: How come so many people jealous... Those people should learn how to admire.

The question is why so many people are supporting this BS, pretending to some great sophistication. A bunch of words can't somehow turn these contrived, mediocre, "message" pictures into great art. Those who parrot the opinions of "art experts" reveal not only their lack of esthetic judgement but their hollow pretense of humanity. Only bad art has been acceptable to the "experts" for the past 80 years or so, those who claim to like such attacks on beauty are either liars or without souls.

Link | Posted on Mar 12, 2017 at 15:09 UTC
On article Nine tips to help you win at photography competitions (100 comments in total)
In reply to:

BadScience: I've won several competitions, always with photos that are not the greatest (not even my best). Here are my observations (some of which are at odds with the tips given here)

1) Judges LOVE cliches. If you are submitting, say an Autumn theme, crank up the oranges. Doesn't matter that those colours don't exist in nature - most of the time a saturated, fake photo will look more appealing than a natural one. This is the current fashion. Things may change.

2) Cute children - always a winner

3) Beautiful young women

4) Cliched ethnic tropes - gnarled asian man in market selling peppers; hunters etc.

5) animals. (Not cats)

6) For news stories : Misery and/or poverty always tend to be preferred over happiness and affluence. When was the last time a good-time story won a press or news photo competition?

7) Drones are in fashion. They used to be called remote control helicopters when I was a kid. Now they are drones. If you can combine one or more of the themes above with a drone...

*Be somewhere there is likely to be something worth photographing.
*Be there when the light is good.
*Take lots of pictures, if it's worth looking at, it's worth shooting
*When you have the light and the subject, find new angles, experiment with composition
*Check one now and then, but time spent checking is time not shooting
*Be ruthless in culling after the shoot, but don't cull good compositions that have minor flaws that can be fixed in post.
* Crop. Composition isn't just for the viewfinder.
*It may not need it, but if it isn't /worth/ spending an hour or three dodging, burning, tweaking curves, etc. then it's probably not going to be an art photo competition winner.
*edit on a color-calibrated IPS monitor
*try variations in post, but don't make final selections the same day you edit, come back with fresh eyes

Link | Posted on Mar 6, 2017 at 16:25 UTC
In reply to:

John Koch: Perhaps a WIP. The supplied link enables one to see a few dozen HQ images, not 375,000.

Former NYC Mayor Bloomberg (born to modest means, self-made, cordial, generous) donated funds for this philanthropic venture. Might he have made a great president?

NYC used to be mostly British/Dutch Americans once upon a time, now that's a few percent at most. Better to keep that from happening to the whole country.

His type is not what made NYC or the Metropolitan Museum of Art. Bloomberg is an oik.

Link | Posted on Feb 20, 2017 at 03:34 UTC
On article Sony FE 100mm F2.8 STF bokeh demystified (355 comments in total)
In reply to:

Ultan: Why don't they put a transparent grayscale LCD where the iris would otherwise be? Then you could set not only f-stop but also the gradient width between the central clear aperture and the opaque surrounding region. Anybody who wants to patent it, be my guest, but contact me to put my name on the application.

I'm easy with terms, up-front fee $10K, $10 royalty per unit, or let's talk.

Thanks. I would have figured the screen-door effect wouldn't happen, that it would be out of focus and just make it a bit blurrier. B/W should be smoother than color LCD. With sufficiently high resolution, perhaps thin (under 10 micron) circles/arcs as pixels in a bulls-eye pattern it might work.

Other ideas: glass iris blades with gradient edges, maybe made similarly to Sony's apodizing element.

something something electrowetting

Two flats with index-matched oil between them, a stretched flexible membrane separating the oil into two flat volumes, the oil in one of those pigmented with a dark gray colloidal suspension, the other side clear. Varying the amount of clear oil from 100% to ~60% bends the membrane from being entirely pressed against the gray-side flat (open) to just having a small central region against / close to that flat (closed aperture). The curvature of the membrane where it is not pressed against the flat gives a catenary gradient, close to parabolic.

Link | Posted on Feb 18, 2017 at 15:03 UTC
In reply to:

Ultan: So much idiocy in the comments. The winning photo does not glorify anything.

#2 on the other hand, gives an entirely false impression of what happened and is happening with the (only violent criminal) Black Lives Matter (unless killed by another Black criminal). It glorifies a violent movement based on lies that has forced innocent people out of their homes, cost hundreds of retirees their life savings in Ferguson, Missouri by making their houses unsaleable, killed cops and made the rest reluctant to arrest Blacks, resulting in thousands more murders of Blacks by Blacks.

Shootings they protest were nearly all justified, but the BLM mob lies. Black officers are more likely to pull the trigger in such incidents, White suspects are more likely to be shot in similar circumstances. The photo lies, implying cops are violent and Blacks are peaceful, cops are cowardly and Blacks are brave. Truth is Blacks are over 25 times more likely to attack a White than the reverse (DOJ victim survey).

1. Nah, no TV.
2. Is that technically stereotyping or "othering"?

Link | Posted on Feb 18, 2017 at 03:57 UTC
On article Sony FE 100mm F2.8 STF bokeh demystified (355 comments in total)

Why don't they put a transparent grayscale LCD where the iris would otherwise be? Then you could set not only f-stop but also the gradient width between the central clear aperture and the opaque surrounding region. Anybody who wants to patent it, be my guest, but contact me to put my name on the application.

I'm easy with terms, up-front fee $10K, $10 royalty per unit, or let's talk.

Link | Posted on Feb 18, 2017 at 03:26 UTC as 37th comment | 3 replies

So much idiocy in the comments. The winning photo does not glorify anything.

#2 on the other hand, gives an entirely false impression of what happened and is happening with the (only violent criminal) Black Lives Matter (unless killed by another Black criminal). It glorifies a violent movement based on lies that has forced innocent people out of their homes, cost hundreds of retirees their life savings in Ferguson, Missouri by making their houses unsaleable, killed cops and made the rest reluctant to arrest Blacks, resulting in thousands more murders of Blacks by Blacks.

Shootings they protest were nearly all justified, but the BLM mob lies. Black officers are more likely to pull the trigger in such incidents, White suspects are more likely to be shot in similar circumstances. The photo lies, implying cops are violent and Blacks are peaceful, cops are cowardly and Blacks are brave. Truth is Blacks are over 25 times more likely to attack a White than the reverse (DOJ victim survey).

Link | Posted on Feb 17, 2017 at 00:42 UTC as 6th comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

stevo23: Surreal photo. Shouldn't be glorified though.

@polarabbit If you look at the main site you'll see that there were dozens of more gory shots that didn't win, the Pakistan bombing with 70 dead, for example.

Link | Posted on Feb 17, 2017 at 00:14 UTC
In reply to:

Ruy Penalva: That is a shame. Where we are? This award is mixed with blood of prejudice against Russia people. Too bad!

"Photographer" is not a race. The "divine right of cameramen" attitude is bound to annoy some people, and being in the pay of some big propaganda outlet doesn't usually help.

Link | Posted on Feb 16, 2017 at 23:42 UTC
On article Flat metalenses now work with a range of colors (43 comments in total)

"This method for dispersion engineering can be used to design various ultrathin components with a desired performance,” said Zhujun Shi, a PhD student in the Capasso Lab and co-first author of the paper.

“This platform is based on single step lithography and is compatible with high throughput manufacturing technique such as nano-imprinting.”

Link | Posted on Feb 9, 2017 at 20:53 UTC as 3rd comment
On article Flat metalenses now work with a range of colors (43 comments in total)
In reply to:

bubblyboo: Visible light spectrum is around 300nm in total. This only works for a 60nm block . Still a long ways away.

BEKippe, the dichroic prisms would have to be lens objective size, so much heavier than regular optics of the same diameter. 3-sensor cameras have prisms that work after the light has been mostly focused, just before the sensors which are typically smaller than 1" nominal (~1/3 in actual). The difference in prism weight could easily be over 100x.

Link | Posted on Feb 9, 2017 at 20:50 UTC
On article CES 2017: Hands-on with Nikon D5600 (322 comments in total)

It's no exaggeration to say that of all the models of camera in the world, this is one of them.

Link | Posted on Jan 6, 2017 at 22:53 UTC as 11th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

junk1: and knives are weapons, so ban them too? What else would a knife ever be used for?

Britain has long been that nuts. There, "knife crime" means having any knife or other cutting tool over 3 inches long or that has a fixed blade or a lockable blade or which could be used as a weapon. Naturally, this only disarms the law-abiding public, meanwhile an African Muslim decapitated a British veteran with a machete on the public street and no one could stop him. No right to self-defense at all, even in your own home against armed men breaking in. That's what they have planned for the US -- disarmed citizenry and importing violent criminals who are effectively above the law. Sweden is even worse. I hope that they will soon be liberated and rid of invaders, clearly they're under enemy occupation.

Link | Posted on Oct 27, 2016 at 16:14 UTC
In reply to:

Nixyz: How is it an abuse of power if being on Facebook is not mandatory in the first place?

Because Facebook was funded by In-Q-Tel, the venture capital arm of the CIA. Because Facebook does in fact have power, which they use to limit public discourse more than the government may legally do directly, and that power which they abuse is ultimately derived from government. Because Facebook is a publicly chartered corporation whose owners get immunity from lawsuits. Because Facebook is a publicly traded corporation with a fiduciary duty to its shareholders not to chase off users or to assume liability for what its users post, which it does when it takes control over what they post. Because Facebook is effectively a monopoly in its market, so is subject to stricter regulation than normal businesses.

Link | Posted on Oct 27, 2016 at 15:42 UTC
Total: 32, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »