whyamihere

whyamihere

Lives in United States Philadelphia, United States
Works as a Higher Education IT
Joined on Apr 8, 2012

Comments

Total: 238, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

photoaddict: Seriously, people need to stop expecting smartphone cameras to be as good as a DSLR. It's physically impossible. While the iPhone camera is great, it doesn't even come close to what a DSLR is capable of.

I don't think the aim is to have the IQ of a DSLR. I think the aim is to help overcome one of the limitations of smartphone photography. Maybe it could be used to take a test photo before breaking out the DSLR. Or maybe help make photos that live only on social media look better. Or, I don't know, any other number of creative uses that doesn't imply replacing dedicated cameras.

Break your brain out of the dull beige box its stuck in and think of how a tool can be used instead of fuming about how it doesn't replace another one you already have.

Link | Posted on Aug 7, 2017 at 19:49 UTC

I don't understand the pessimism from the previous commenters. I have had friends who thought buying a new camera would help them better their photography, when it really won't, necessarily. Now I can recommend they stick with their phone, invest in a radio trigger, a manual camera app, and a light with an umbrella, [hopefully] for less than the cost of a new camera. *That*, in my opinion, is a better investment for someone looking to learn.

Link | Posted on Aug 7, 2017 at 19:43 UTC as 32nd comment
In reply to:

whyamihere: I think anyone who denigrates Prince -- as evidenced by a fair few cringe-worthy comments below -- misses the point of his body of work. I'm not a fan of his, but I can at least get what he's trying to do, at least from a sociological and political standpoint.

Not only is he questioning the ownership of an image and copyright law, but he's also, in a way, poking fun at people who buy "controversial" art, and challenging what value art should have. If it weren't for the fact that he's constantly running afoul of the legal system, he'd probably not make as much money on his art. If people wanted their art to be seen and shared, not coveted or financially compensated for, then it would all be fair use and completely free.

I'm aware my defense basically boils down to, "Because art," and I'm fine with that. Because art. Let the moral outcry of a thousand internet denizens over my perfectly reasonable statement begin.

Greg VdB: Congratulations, I think you're the only person in this thread who gets my (and probably Prince's) point, at least somewhat. This is way, way more complex than simple "theft" than people accuse. "Art" is an abstract concept, as is "work" and "copyright" and "worth" and so on. This involves sociology, psychology, politics, economics, and how absolutely arbitrary each of these human constructs are.

Sure, he's a pr*ck, but most provocateurs tend to be. They're messing with you, on purpose, and feeding off your moral outrage because all you can see is "he done stole someone's photo" and not the idea that it's, from a certain perspective, a dumb thing to accuse someone of.

Of course, I speak from a perspective of someone who likes messing with people in an attempt to get them to think. Maybe I'm just an outlier here.

Link | Posted on Jul 28, 2017 at 02:15 UTC
In reply to:

whyamihere: I think anyone who denigrates Prince -- as evidenced by a fair few cringe-worthy comments below -- misses the point of his body of work. I'm not a fan of his, but I can at least get what he's trying to do, at least from a sociological and political standpoint.

Not only is he questioning the ownership of an image and copyright law, but he's also, in a way, poking fun at people who buy "controversial" art, and challenging what value art should have. If it weren't for the fact that he's constantly running afoul of the legal system, he'd probably not make as much money on his art. If people wanted their art to be seen and shared, not coveted or financially compensated for, then it would all be fair use and completely free.

I'm aware my defense basically boils down to, "Because art," and I'm fine with that. Because art. Let the moral outcry of a thousand internet denizens over my perfectly reasonable statement begin.

I think you missed the part where I basically said, "You're accusing him of stealing something that he thinks cannot be considered stolen because it has no intrinsic value."

I come from the position that art only has implied and arbitrary monetary value, not actual value beyond its societal contributions. This is evidenced by the numerous photographers who ask the question, "What should I charge a client for my services?" That is to say, your photograph has no monetary value until you attribute such a value to it. It's all part of a social contract that means nothing unless society agrees something has monetary value.

Link | Posted on Jul 27, 2017 at 21:48 UTC

I think anyone who denigrates Prince -- as evidenced by a fair few cringe-worthy comments below -- misses the point of his body of work. I'm not a fan of his, but I can at least get what he's trying to do, at least from a sociological and political standpoint.

Not only is he questioning the ownership of an image and copyright law, but he's also, in a way, poking fun at people who buy "controversial" art, and challenging what value art should have. If it weren't for the fact that he's constantly running afoul of the legal system, he'd probably not make as much money on his art. If people wanted their art to be seen and shared, not coveted or financially compensated for, then it would all be fair use and completely free.

I'm aware my defense basically boils down to, "Because art," and I'm fine with that. Because art. Let the moral outcry of a thousand internet denizens over my perfectly reasonable statement begin.

Link | Posted on Jul 27, 2017 at 21:27 UTC as 48th comment | 12 replies
In reply to:

SomeNobody: Went out of my way to buy tickets to see it in 70mm IMAX in Philly tonight. Can't wait. Christopher Nolan hasn't let me down once yet.

Franklin Institute, right? I saw The Dark Knight there nearly 9 years ago to the day. The IMAX 70mm scenes in that movie were stunning.

Link | Posted on Jul 22, 2017 at 01:55 UTC
On article Should I buy a Canon EOS 6D Mark II? (447 comments in total)
In reply to:

quietrich: What short memories we have. On this site six days ago:
"It seems Nikon D750 shutter issues are still plaguing the company 2 full years ...... that means that affected units were being manufactured from July of 2014 all the way through September of last year."
Just saying.

Interesting, because I've had a number of friends who shoot exclusively with the D750, and they've never had a problem.

Of course, I shot with a D600, and never had any issues with the shutter, either, but I've had three misaligned Fujifilm lenses.

Luck of the draw, I suppose. Or, if you're on the internet in the forums and comments sections, it's a widespread issue that'll doom each company, never to sell a camera ever again.

Link | Posted on Jul 19, 2017 at 16:46 UTC
On article Video: How to make a DIY 'beauty dish' for $12 (30 comments in total)
In reply to:

Josh Leavitt: Kind of cool I guess, but a 22" white beauty dish will only run you $40, and a 28" silver beauty dish can be had for as little as $60. Don't really see the point in DIY solutions when the price gap is that small.

Sometimes, the price gap is bigger than you think.

I started out with a pair of $20 flash guns, a pair of cheap light stands, and two white umbrellas. That allowed me to experiment without sinking the same amount of money into a single modifier (and no light to attach it to -- do recall that most beauty dishes, without modification or an adapter, only mount to a monolight). A simple foam core cutout to create another look is a killer idea if you're a novice or enthusiast on a budget who just wants to get to know strobe lighting better before investing serious amounts of money into your gear.

Link | Posted on Jul 11, 2017 at 21:42 UTC
In reply to:

M Chambers: In theory it's legal but depending on the specific actions of the photographers it can be considered illegal if the activity is harassing or obstructing. Also note how this is only in federal court. States, counties, and cities, have recently passed laws making the mere act of photographing the police illegal. I'm no saying I agree with those laws but people shouldn't think that this ruling means they won't get in trouble.

As a Philadelphian, and a political sciences guy, everything Tony said is correct. The police who choose to ignore federal law are generally acting under a typical misguided notion that state and local ordinance somehow manage to supersede federal law. That is not true. Ever.

What people mistake for 'state/local law' overriding federal law is actually just a lack of enforcement at the federal level. Philadelphia decriminalized marijuana, for example, even though it's banned at the federal level. Federal agencies *could* make this a problem, if they chose to do so, but they're not being asked to.

The "gotcha" is really defining what is considered "interfering with police conduct" in a case against the city. *That* can be debated and possibly defined at the state or local level. (It could also go to the federal level to be interpreted based on the Constitution, but that's a hard road to travel.)

Link | Posted on Jul 10, 2017 at 19:16 UTC
In reply to:

PhotoKhan: I am not an American and certainly not very well acquainted with your legal system, so I have this question:

If it has already been considered and ruled upon at Federal Court level why do cases keep being sent there?

Is it a case of repeatedly "throwing it against the wall to see if it sticks" in what concerns a possible reverse ruling?

Finally putting that political sciences degree to work ;)

Link | Posted on Jul 10, 2017 at 19:05 UTC
In reply to:

PhotoKhan: I am not an American and certainly not very well acquainted with your legal system, so I have this question:

If it has already been considered and ruled upon at Federal Court level why do cases keep being sent there?

Is it a case of repeatedly "throwing it against the wall to see if it sticks" in what concerns a possible reverse ruling?

PhotoKhan:

Our Constitution is vague, purposefully so, one might even suggest. The Federal Courts and Supreme Court exist to interpret our vague Constitution. The problem they typically face is setting precedent, where a vague outline for citizens' rights is made more clear (e.g., it was only 10 years ago that our 2nd Amendment -- the right to bear and keep arms -- was defined to at least allow the possession of handguns for home protection). However, once precedent is set, courts are typically unwilling to go back on it, much like any other public good is difficult to rescind once granted.

These cases go to the courts because the circumstances might be different than a previous case. Most of the time, precedent is upheld, but there are times when another definition is introduced. Occasionally, cases attempt to exploit those new intricacies, which occasionally lead to a new interpretation of the Constitution.

See? Clear as mud.

Link | Posted on Jul 10, 2017 at 18:56 UTC
On article Simple demo shows the power of a polarizing filter (134 comments in total)
In reply to:

virtualreality: Totally [striketrough]change[/s] destroy a scene. Reflections are cool.

I don't get why people make comments like yours.

Yes, reflections can be cool. They can also be annoying. It all depends on the effect a photographer is going after. It's all situational, much like most artistic things.

I suppose my sentiments are too emotionally complex to have in a comments section?

Link | Posted on Jul 3, 2017 at 20:27 UTC
In reply to:

goblin: A few things:
1) There are already enough blogs out there

2) DPR has started, evolved, and survived with three things:
a) Accurate, technical, in depth reviews
b) Great (and fancy looking) comparison tools. Your lens tool for example is second to none.
c) The ability, in the last few years, to sustain the illusion that a) is still there, and that b) is still relevant (let's pass on different lenses used for the studio tool within the same standard and call it a day).

I read you for your reviews. I am interested in what you find about the cameras and lenses you test.

I am interested in the image taking features - image quality, AF quality, image speed acquisition. I still have enough gray matter to figure out factors such as weight, size and extra options on myself. I don't need these to become pros and cons.

Feel free to add a list of useful criteria for useful reference. "Has usb charging, has this, has that". Just don't make them play in the final score.

Do not turn into a blog

Something tells me you don't actually know what a 'blog' is.

Factoring in additional aspects of user experience ≠ blog.

Link | Posted on Jun 28, 2017 at 16:38 UTC
In reply to:

daleeight: What good will be USB charging of a camera be when the world, and the camera cable makers, switch to USB-C ? The ends of the cord will be different than the plug-in ports all over the place. So for a year or 3 you might need an adapter.... another adapter. never ending world of "re-buy"....

"The ends of the cord will be different than the plug-in ports all over the place."

Isn't this already a problem with the end of any USB cable that's meant to interface with the camera? I've been through several camera brands, and nobody uses the same USB interface, even within the same manufacturer's product line.

Link | Posted on Jun 28, 2017 at 16:35 UTC
In reply to:

Rick Knepper: Micron, I'll remember this: "higher value markets and channels". If you ever come sniffing around a consumer market again, you'll not get a dime from me.

"Micron, I'll remember this: 'higher value markets and channels'. If you ever come sniffing around a consumer market again, you'll not get a dime from me."

To avoid Micron, I recommend against buying:
SSDs
Hard drives
RAM
Using cloud services
USB flash drives
Memory cards
Laptops
Desktops
Smartphones
Dumbphones
Tablets
Certain monitors
Buying anything with the brand name "Intel" on it...

I'm sure I'm forgetting other things, but that's the major stuff. Oh wait, one more thing...

Cameras. Cameras use Micron NAND for their buffers.

Have fun with that Micron "ban" of yours.

Link | Posted on Jun 28, 2017 at 01:17 UTC

As someone who follows the NAND market, I'm not even slightly surprised by this. Their RAM/SSD arm, Crucial, is raking in tons more money, given the much higher demand (and current scarcity of product) for those devices -- think data centers and partner technology patents with Intel. Lexar was, what, low cost-overhead memory cards and USB flash drives?

Micron pulling out of this market is about as surprising as Samsung bailing on cameras: It was probably losing money, or breaking even, and the brand/IP is probably worth more than the products it was printed on.

Most of the complaining I see below is, "Boo hoo, my brand is gone!" as if brand = quality. Memory cards fail. Only 3 companies make NAND, 3 make the controllers (two of which also make NAND), and what you wind up with is the end result of a small combination of hardware, most often coming from the same company, with someone else's brand slapped on it and, if you're lucky, maybe a firmware tweak.

You'll be fine.

Link | Posted on Jun 28, 2017 at 01:00 UTC as 32nd comment | 8 replies
In reply to:

whyamihere: I love these technical articles! Richard, et al, thank you so much for making them happen.

One item I wish could be added would be an explanation as to why using xenon flash -- or, for that matter, flash sync or HSS -- isn't possible with the current implementation of electronic, non-global shutters. Is it the flash duration, how the sensor readout works, both, or some other wonky technical reason? I have theories, but I have yet to have found a well-researched answer to this.

Thanks!

That's what I believed the primary reason to be. It would be interesting to find out how long those shutter speeds needed to be, at least in theory, and how technological improvements -- such as Sony's advancements in readout speed in their newer sensors -- could mitigate it, or if simple changes to flash duration or pulsing can work around technological limitations. Or, maybe the whole method of flash photography needs to go into a waste bin and be completely rethought, assuming photography is moving towards a completely shutter-less paradigm.

Link | Posted on May 22, 2017 at 21:53 UTC

I love these technical articles! Richard, et al, thank you so much for making them happen.

One item I wish could be added would be an explanation as to why using xenon flash -- or, for that matter, flash sync or HSS -- isn't possible with the current implementation of electronic, non-global shutters. Is it the flash duration, how the sensor readout works, both, or some other wonky technical reason? I have theories, but I have yet to have found a well-researched answer to this.

Thanks!

Link | Posted on May 22, 2017 at 17:29 UTC as 29th comment | 2 replies

The first two thoughts that immediately jumped to mind:

1. This is, to me, the more interesting of the two lenses announced today.

2. I can only imagine how much the lens is depending on the camera for image correction. The Sigma and Canon equivalents are big and have huge, bulbous front elements in order to produce the flattest image possible at the wide end. I can't imagine this lens producing the same level of image quality across the frame as its competitors, meaning there will probably be some optical compromise (distortion, vignetting?) that the camera will try to correct. Of course, that's always the price you pay for a more compact lens.

Link | Posted on May 17, 2017 at 16:28 UTC as 34th comment | 2 replies
On article The Sony a9 is a 24MP sports-shooting powerhouse (1908 comments in total)

While I'm personally not in the market for another camera, this camera seems to mostly resolve all my qualms with the Sony A7 series: Touch screen, fast sensor readout, a "My Menu", dual (fast!) card slots, a deep buffer (though, hopefully, you'll be able to do other things with the camera while buffered files are writing to the card), batteries that hold a charge for longer than a few hundred images... thanks for listening, Sony!

What I'm worried about is the stability and heat issues that plagued other Sony cameras. These technological advancements are all for nought if the camera crashes when you're trying to get work done. (I'm assuming, based on pricing and capability, Sony is aiming this at people who are working photographers, who can't afford to have a camera fail during critical moments that can't be repeated.)

Here's hoping Sony made a truly awesome product, instead of another flawed beta product that will be iteratively replaced in 6 months.

Link | Posted on Apr 19, 2017 at 15:49 UTC as 379th comment
Total: 238, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »