Lives in United States Seattle, United States
Works as a electronics technician, retired
Joined on Mar 5, 2006
About me:

Canon EOS T6s, Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS USM, Canon EF-S 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS, Tamron 90mm f2.8 DI VC USD SP macro, Canon SX50 HS.


Total: 8, showing: 1 – 8
In reply to:

Gary Goodenough: I have donated to Wikipedia in the past, I am reconsidering where I will donate in the future.

I'll make up for it.

Link | Posted on Aug 23, 2014 at 06:57 UTC
In reply to:

TN Args: "According to the report, the 'selfie' captured by a black crested macaque on David Slater's camera cannot by copyrighted since it was created by an animal."

And in what legal sense is an animal activating a shutter different from a 'thinking machine' activating a shutter?

If the legal decision is fair and rational, then ALL photos taken in a manner where the photographer did not specifically determine the moment of capture, cannot be copyrighted. Because one thing is for sure, that monkey did not know it was 'taking a photograph'.

"one thing is for sure, that monkey did not know it was 'taking a photograph'."

What do you know about monkey cognition? Nothing beyond your everyday "common sense", clearly.

Link | Posted on Aug 22, 2014 at 05:36 UTC
In reply to:

smafdy: I did a series of paintings that sold quite well a few years ago. The paintings were left in public spaces for people to paint on (areas were masked, so that what was painted might, or might not, or might partially, show up in the final painting).

I signed and sold the paintings, but never transferred the copyright. Without my actions, they opportunity to let things happen (part on MY creative process), would have never been brought into being.

Without me, or MY idea, or my actions, the artwork would never have been created.

The work product belongs to the artist.

P.S: I guess the monkey chimped the shots to check exposure, and made the necessary adjustments to the camera settings to capture and express its creative vision.

"I guess the monkey chimped the shots to check exposure, and made the necessary adjustments to the camera settings to capture and express its creative vision."

Every time science shows that animals are smarter than we thought they were, those who can't handle that concept try to redefine intelligence, moving the goal posts. Since when does simple authorship require technical skill?

Link | Posted on Aug 22, 2014 at 05:32 UTC
In reply to:

RoundVu: I don't think a monkey is aware that by pressing the button a photo is taken so this isn't the same as the case where another human grabs a camera and takes a photo. So it seems to me that this case is similar to focus trap or laser trigger.

Since there is likely no awareness on the monkey's part that pressing the button does anything more than make an interesting noise, would it be any different than if the monkey knocked the camera off a tripod and it accidentally triggered a shot? What if, instead of a monkey, the wind , which also cannot hold copyrights, knocked the camera off a tripod and triggered a shot? Would the photographer lose the copyrights?

I think you're all making an assumption beyond your expertise. I read a lot about science, and it seems like every time we look at animal intelligence, we find that they're smarter than we thought they were (last time we looked).

Link | Posted on Aug 22, 2014 at 05:25 UTC
In reply to:

peterstuckings: This is quite simple. The photographer planned and executed a shoot, and regardless of how the camera's shutter was triggered, the photos were his creation, and hence so is the copyright.
Nature photographers set up auto-triggers to be set off by meandering animals all the time, and drones and such remote cameras are triggered automatically all the time. By Wikipedia's ridiculous reasoning, an errant animal or the maker of those trigger devices (or the force that triggered them) could be the copyright owners of those photos.
Cats, dogs and babies trigger cameras all the time. This does not constitute deliberate and knowing content creation, giving rise to copyright in the results of their actions.
Wikipedia is wrong and should remove the photos in line with the copyright owner's demands.

"This does not constitute deliberate and knowing content creation." There's the rub in this circumstance. Do we know for sure that the monkey didn't know what it was doing? With a modern camera, it might get instant feedback on what happens when you press that button, and once it got that part, I wouldn't be at all surprised if it started deliberately choosing content. If you think no animal has the intelligence and self-awareness for that, I don't think you've been following the research of the past few years. It's way past time to stop assuming that all invention is human.

Link | Posted on Aug 22, 2014 at 05:08 UTC
On article Little beauty: Nordin Seruyan's macro images (352 comments in total)


Link | Posted on May 10, 2014 at 07:52 UTC as 118th comment
In reply to:

Photo-Wiz: I just tried ACDSEE Pro 6. It purports to be non-destructive of the original image. But when I did a Clone on one Jpeg, it made a permanent change to the original image. Is this non-destructive?

Since "Clone" is not a term that ACDSee uses in the context, it's hard to say just what you did, but certainly it is possible to change your original image, but also there are multiple ways to avoid making changes. If you simply use Edit mode to Crop and then Save (not Save As), the Modified date of your JPEG will indeed be updated. But then go to Menu>Tools>Process>Restore to Original, the edit is reversed and the date changes back. To make the change permanent, you have to do Menu>Tools>Process>Commit Changes. THAT'S what they mean by non-destructive.

Personally, I do all my editing in RAW with rare exceptions. It's impossible to change the original RAW file (that's why I'm here: I can edit photos from my new Canon SX50 at last), the changes are applied to a new JPEG, so it's inherently non-destructive.

Link | Posted on Mar 9, 2013 at 08:06 UTC

If "awesome" means emulating Facebook or Instagram, count me out, emphatically.

Certainly, Flickr could use improvement, to make the posting and viewing of photographs more intuitive, more flexible, easier to search, easier to format comments, better quality video, etc.

By comparison to Zenfolio for example (of which I'm also a member), Flickr has just enough social networking to support the photography. As the first commenter mentioned, the user community is large and active: Flickr is the place to go if you want your photos noticed by others with like interests.

Zenfolio's UI customization, on the other hand, is so obscure that I gave up on it after attempting to make an improvement, trashed what I'd done before and couldn't figure out how to fix it.

But anything that takes the focus away from the photography is no improvement. And all the image manipulation I want occurs before posting.

Link | Posted on Jul 20, 2012 at 07:09 UTC as 67th comment
Total: 8, showing: 1 – 8