Lives in Puerto Rico Puerto Rico
Works as a student
Joined on Apr 7, 2013


Total: 1300, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On article A photographer's guide to Cuba (44 comments in total)
In reply to:

Contra Mundum: How about a photographer's guide to North Korea, or Hitler Germany, or Fascist Italy? Talking about taking wonderful nature shots, etc. in a communist/fascist/nazist dictatorship is absolutely immoral.

The real message should be to photograph the heck out of Cuba, but just not the nicely restored tourist areas, photograph the untouched nature, the great people, the government repossessed and dilapidated buildings, etc. Exposure of all things (pun intended?) beats a marginalizing approach.

Link | Posted on Aug 14, 2016 at 20:32 UTC
On article A photographer's guide to Cuba (44 comments in total)
In reply to:

selimseval: Yes, Cuba is a photographers' heaven.

1. Try to be discrete and take permission while photographing people. I was carrying a Canon EOS 1Ds MkII and Canon EOS 5 D MkII in the streets with a backpack of several lenses (whites included). I was interrogated by police at the airport on my return flight. If you are photographing as a tourist, bring a tourist camera then it is totally safe and OK.
2. It is safe country, but keep all your gear with you at all times.
3. Make sure that your travel itinerary includes Trinidad and Santiago, in addition to Havana.
4. Have a local guide with you. He/she may take you off the usual tourist paths.
5. Go to a parador (home restaurant) and make friends with the family operating the venue.
6. Go to the cemetery in Santiago. Beautiful place!!! to photograph.
7. No chance that you will miss old American cars.

Enjoy your photography and a glass of Bacardi.

Here is my website for my Cuban photographs: Go to Places and then to Cuba.

Any Bacardi you drink in Cuba would have to be smuggled in or imported since they haven't distilled there in decades... Just saying. More of a Don Q guy myself but their distillery in PR is a nice tour. I believe they do distill a different rum under a different name in Bacardi's old facilities in Cuba tho, now surely owned by the government.

Link | Posted on Aug 12, 2016 at 12:48 UTC
In reply to:

DotCom Editor: What percentage of KickStarter campaigns are total scams?

100% of the dozen or so I've participated in were most definitely NOT scams, you just have to use some common sense when picking what looks feasible or realistic and what's clearly pie in the sky money grab...

Link | Posted on Aug 8, 2016 at 21:28 UTC
In reply to:

mpgxsvcd: Please remember that all broadcasts on cable and most of satellite in the US currently are 720p or 1080i. None of them are true 1080p @ 60 FPS from the source. There are a few true UHD/4K broadcasts on directv but you have to buy about $300 worth of equipment in order to get those very rare broadcasts.

1080p @ 60 FPS would be a fantastic upgrade in the states. Hardly anyone would complain at all about that over the current 1080i and 720p broadcasts. However, we are years away from that becoming a reality.

Why again are we talking about 8K?

Seems everyone's convinced it'll come via streaming, but average bandwith per household isn't much better, and that's with 1080 Netflix already hogging much of the bandwith on tap...

Link | Posted on Aug 3, 2016 at 17:40 UTC
In reply to:

M1963: Why do these guys believe people who take selfies are interested in correcting perspective? They aren't! They just don't care.
And, apparently, this app only works with ugly people. The selfies illustrating this article make Ernest Borgnine look pretty.

There's clearly a market that's interested in photography enough to pay for new $700+ phones with marginal improvements (often sold on the promise of the opposite), I'm guessing that's indicative of something... There's also a market of photography enthusiasts that have successfully turned their hobby into a niche and they're all too happy to keep their heads buried in the sand, to the detriment of the market as a whole, so there's also that.

Link | Posted on Aug 2, 2016 at 06:36 UTC
In reply to:

steelhead3: Interesting how analog cameras are slowly becoming a tool of the computer...leaving us old timers clinging to our big boxes designed for film.

Image manipulation isn't exactly exclusive to the digital age. Snobbery sure seems to be in excess of supply tho...

Link | Posted on Aug 2, 2016 at 06:32 UTC
In reply to:

marcio_napoli: I can't help myself, I'll leave here my opinion. If you disagree, feel free to leave yours.

I simply fail to see why anyone within the target audience (smartphone users would ever care for such gimmicks).

Like M1963 wrote a few posts below: "Why do these guys believe people who take selfies are interested in correcting perspective? They aren't! They just don't care. "


Know what? I'd include everything quality-related in the same comment. That DOF app... Do you really think a smartphone user taking a dumb selfie, or a burger shot, will care for "ahh... should I go with f0.95 or 1.2 bokeh? Zeiss or Leica bokeh?"

And that 41 mp Nokia?

I have a friend that owns this cell phone. She has ZERO knowledge about what megapixels really mean, she continues taking less than 2 mp worthy of real details images (motion blurred, noisy) and somehow she thinks her 41 mp cell phone is a "real camera".

Your Nokia owning friend is no more self involved than you are, instead of thumbing your nose up at her you might find a way to better channel the shared interest you have, maybe even show her why at times she might like a so called 'real camera'... Or just keep taking pot shots while the camera market shrinks largely due to a failure in marketing itself to a new generation, that seems to be working aces.

Link | Posted on Aug 2, 2016 at 06:31 UTC
In reply to:

Roland Karlsson: Interesting!

But do selfie photographers care?

Seems like some degree of automation is what they're going for... People do care, I hate this snobbish attitude that just because they're using a smartphone they can't possibly care. Smartphones aren't cheap, and yeah you probably need one anyway but expensive flagship models and upgrades over 2-3 year old models are sold largely on the basis of the camera, so people do care.

That they can't get out of their own way in some cases (wiping the lens, shooting video horizontal, etc) is not a sign of indifference, but of innocent ignorance. One would think a true photography enthusiast would be more interested in educating others or sharing their interest and knowledge than in turning their nose up at one of the biggest eras in photography, then again, the industry behind it isn't much better.

Link | Posted on Aug 2, 2016 at 06:23 UTC
In reply to:

NJOceanView: I'm very struck by this technology. I keep telling friends who need a quick smartphone portrait to shoot farther away and then crop in because of this very dynamic. I think if this is incorporated into smartphones, even the average selfie-taker will appreciate it. They have already learned how to frame their photos better because looking at the screen vs. a viewfinder is helping their composition, and I see no reason they won't over time appreciate how this will dramatically improve their selfies. Please keep us apprised of this company's progress, and thanks for the article.

There's a ton, you could argue millions, of smartphone photographers that DO care about quality and simply aren't well versed enough in the technology to even know what's available beyond a smartphone. They might know smartphones killed off the P&S, and they've probably been told that was for good reason, but they don't know about mirrorless or focal lengths or what their options are.

If you think people shelling out $700 for a new phone (largely on the basis of it's camera) don't care about quality you better pass that memo to the PR department at Apple and Samsung. They do care, they care a lot in fact, there's probably more interest in photography now than ever in history... However the camera industry has evolved around a very nice and enthusiast driven track.

It might be relatively easy for the average consumer to learn about photography (as easy as anything else really, if you're determined) but the gear and the industry behind sure isn't making it any easier, and they're certainly not marketing themselves properly in order to woo more customers... Otherwise $700+ phones wouldn't outsell $500 cameras by several orders of magnitude.

I largely blame the decade of P&S small sensor stagnation. Something like the RX100 (never mind the competition for it that took several years to materialize) should've happened several years earlier, along with Wi-Fi integration and a few other things that are only now becoming commonplace.

Link | Posted on Aug 2, 2016 at 06:18 UTC
In reply to:

nikanth: As we view more and more close distance selfies, the model in our head also getting trained to accept it.

I've been thinking about that, I mean, it HAS to be happening on a pretty large scale due to social media... But at the same time it still clashes with real life perspective. So what's the long term effect? Does the brain just adjust to it on the fly back and forth?

I guess that's plausible for faces we're familiar with it in person, but what about those we're not? What about younger people growing up with social media? Is it plausible their idea of what's attractive or pleasing changes over time due to things like this?

I mean, our whole concept of attractive and symmetry stems from some highly evolved reproductive instinct no? Doesn't that keep morphing over time? All those questions would be a pretty interesting sociology study.

Link | Posted on Aug 2, 2016 at 06:05 UTC
In reply to:

dosdan: Make sure you read this article from the guy who modified some lenses and cameras for Kubrick for this film:


That's a whole other level of DIY (or HIDFY as it were - have it done for yourself!), very interesting read. Quite a contrast vs that recent advert by Bentley (we used NASA tech! ... yeah, that anyone could use or emulate, and half the thing was still post work), the man used lenses actually developed by Zeiss for the Apollo missions, and had them modded on top of it heh.

Link | Posted on Jul 29, 2016 at 22:44 UTC
In reply to:

rfsIII: Please stop showing off your knowledge of pretentious Britishisms such as "shortlist." This is a US -based publication so please observe US usage; the term you want is "finalists."

Can't quite make out whether that's sarcasm or a real form of xenophobia, please expound.

Link | Posted on Jul 29, 2016 at 15:08 UTC
In reply to:

Roland Karlsson: So, she donated her pictures away to the Library of Congress. That is very fine indeed of the lady. Then comes Getty and messes it up by selling her photos and also "forgetting" to give due Copyright notice. Bad, bad Getty. They probably do fully know what they are doing, and that it is wrong. So, suing them seems appropriate.

But. $1 Billion? That is unreal. How can this misbehavior have caused the photographer damage of that amount?

The article clearly states that damages (probably already calculated to the max) *could* be tripled, but it could be half a billion or a third... Besides, so what if they go belly up? Why should we be a nanny state for corporations? Smaller and larger businesses mess up and go belly up all the time, why should Getty be any different? Are you saying what they did isn't "bad enough"? Laws drew the lines somewhere for a reason.

Link | Posted on Jul 28, 2016 at 22:06 UTC
On article Leica improves Q functionality with firmware 2.0 (59 comments in total)
In reply to:

BarnET: Leica copying fuji.

Ow man the irony

That isn't Panasonic's style, sadly.

Link | Posted on Jul 26, 2016 at 21:49 UTC
In reply to:

cbphoto123: Where are all the SONY A7R II's ??? :P

Even if they'd done that within 4 years, I doubt big services like this would overhaul their arsenal overnight... And preparation for the next Olympics or winter Olympics are probably underway already. Not sure why any Sony fan would be in a rush to serve a niche like this, the A7 are already far better at some much more common usage cases... Sony just needs to keep working that lens lineup.

Link | Posted on Jul 26, 2016 at 15:44 UTC
In reply to:

Gregm61: If they gave me 5 of those white lenses and sent me for free, I still wouldn't want to go to Rio to take pictures of anything.

For that to happen you're probably gonna have to wait for a few crooks to move out of office too...

Link | Posted on Jul 26, 2016 at 15:41 UTC
In reply to:

justmeMN: But wait, there's more: :-)

"NBC Olympics Selects Canon U.S.A. To Provide Field And Studio Equipment For Its Production Of 2016 Olympic Games In Rio"

"Over 70 Canon broadcast lenses will be used during coverage ..."

No fun without gear pr0n photos.

Link | Posted on Jul 26, 2016 at 15:38 UTC
On article Nikon D500 versus D750: Which one is right for you? (369 comments in total)
In reply to:

Impulses: " Some members of the DPReview editorial team (who shall remain anonymous) actually like Olympus menu systems. "

Huh, I now expect a comprehensive Olympus UI guide under an anonymous byline!

My money's on Richard.

Or Dan...

He/she will be ousted! :P

Link | Posted on Jul 25, 2016 at 21:54 UTC
On article Nikon D500 versus D750: Which one is right for you? (369 comments in total)

" Some members of the DPReview editorial team (who shall remain anonymous) actually like Olympus menu systems. "

Huh, I now expect a comprehensive Olympus UI guide under an anonymous byline!

My money's on Richard.

Link | Posted on Jul 25, 2016 at 21:51 UTC as 58th comment | 2 replies
On article Getting up close: Canon EF-M 28mm macro hands-on review (103 comments in total)
In reply to:

Jim Hully: "All the trump cards held by the Micro-Nikkor fold when other features of the EF-M 28mm Macro are brought in to consideration, though. First, even though it is a wider FOV lens, its nearest focus distance is 3.7", nearly 3" closer than the Micro-Nikkor. Even taking the slightly longer field of view of the Micro-Nikkor in to account, the Canon is able to achieve a 1:1.2 reproduction ratio in "Super Macro" mode over the Nikkor's 1:1."

I have this lens and the difference between 1:1 and 1:1.2 is not that great and certainly not worth being 3" closer if comparing it to the NIkkor. On specs alone, the Nikkor is a better macro. Having the lights is definitely a plus for focusing but they are not powerful enough to make much of a difference if your subject is beyond 1:2 or you are using a narrow aperture.

I like this lens, an all-purpose one with a semi-wide field of view combined with decent macro options.

There's a 30mm f3.5 coming from Oly too (no clue what, if anything, will set it apart)... Guess short macros are en vogue for mirrorless.

Link | Posted on Jul 22, 2016 at 07:55 UTC
Total: 1300, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »