Tazz93

Tazz93

Lives in United States Pasadena, United States
Joined on Feb 1, 2007

Comments

Total: 153, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

Mark Turney: Since there are likely countless copies of this event, why not just go appreciate it and leave the gear in the car? Later, you can grab a copy from the gift shop or dind one online. If practice is the point, then I understand. But I personally am
Just not interested in capturing that which has become a tourist fad. It’s the same reason I don’t photograph at “designated” photo “spots”. Let’s all find aome new moments to capture.

For the record, yes I do avoid many of these scenes personally, but I'd never discourage someone to see or do something like visiting the Grand Canyon or shoot Horseshoe bend just because it's been done many times before. Honestly, I think that type of exercise is vital in determining your own style.

Link | Posted on Feb 9, 2018 at 19:39 UTC
In reply to:

Tazz93: One other point which I would assume is a big deal... liability. If they introduce it it has to be perfect or they open themselves up to lawsuits. Whether a user loses data through a corruption or lost encryption key, or someone hacks and decrypts it, the manufacturer's liability exposure may be a huge factor in their decision. And that doesn't even take in to consideration the performance challenges.

You two make a good point and I don't want to discount that entirely, but the argument, "It's not a problem now, so it will never be", is not really confidence inspiring.

I'm sure it's not just any one thing. It almost certainly is a combination of issues and costs that create the author's impression of ignorance from the manufacturers. I'm simply giving a different point a view from an important standpoint to any business.

Link | Posted on Feb 7, 2018 at 00:40 UTC

One other point which I would assume is a big deal... liability. If they introduce it it has to be perfect or they open themselves up to lawsuits. Whether a user loses data through a corruption or lost encryption key, or someone hacks and decrypts it, the manufacturer's liability exposure may be a huge factor in their decision. And that doesn't even take in to consideration the performance challenges.

Link | Posted on Feb 6, 2018 at 20:39 UTC as 60th comment | 3 replies

This should be scary to everyone related to the industry. Whether you make money with it or not, whether you're an end user or a company like DPReview. At the very basis of this, it will change the way a photo is valued. To make a long story short, the devaluation of a photo will have a negative effect on new camera sales. I don't see a lot of long term positives for any party.

Link | Posted on Feb 5, 2018 at 17:46 UTC as 10th comment

Funny, I never realized how niche these lenses were. It's an uber sharp, uber fast, nearly optically perfect lens that really isn't practically for much else beside landscape. All that said... I still want one.

Link | Posted on Jan 30, 2018 at 21:35 UTC as 22nd comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

Dylthedog: "And scr*w you, LR 6 users!!!!!!

Get on our subscription cash-cow, or go find another software vendor"

Just makes it easier to walk away when something competitive is made available. Currently, the options available are not bad, but they are not as good. At some point the companies will stop making odd features issues with their offering and people will seriously consider them.

Link | Posted on Jan 29, 2018 at 18:09 UTC
On article Review: Rylo is a 360º camera done right (71 comments in total)

I never could get in to 360 degree imaging thing... just didn't fit my perception, until now.

Link | Posted on Jan 17, 2018 at 23:09 UTC as 8th comment
On article We are better than that! (23 comments in total)

In all honesty, of the six togs in that frame, only one is shooting. I think that says something about the one guy.

Link | Posted on Jan 17, 2018 at 03:27 UTC as 1st comment
In reply to:

desertsp: What value do cryptocurrency and blockchain add?

As I understand it, blockchain is a distributed "ledger" to record undisputable facts. So the fact that a particular person owns a photograph becomes more trustworthy, versus that fact being stored in a central database where a hacker could modify the fact. But how unlikely is that?

Their infringement monitoring is only as good as the enforcement. How will that work? Do they have a team of lawyers at the ready? Are they banking on courts understanding the blockchain concept to prove ownership if a lawsuit is initiated?

The cryptocurrency part is even more confounding. I think people just want the easiest most straightforward way to pay. How is this better?

It seems kind of like they're advertising the technical minutia of the backend computer system as selling-points.

God I'm negative lol

Desertsp, I'm just guessing. A strict blockchain doesn't do anything for the infringements besides possibly verifying a transaction, but using other crypto tech could potentially reap huge benefits.

Link | Posted on Jan 9, 2018 at 22:29 UTC
In reply to:

freeAgent85: Why is this on a blockchain rather than simply a database maintained by Kodak? It sounds like the whole ledger/blockchain will be maintained by Kodak anyway. This sounds to me like just a marketing scheme to cash in on blockchain/cryptocurrency buzz.

@panther fan, I am assuming they are setting up a network similar to mining. While that wasn't stated, its the only thing that makes sense. But you could be right.

Link | Posted on Jan 9, 2018 at 22:25 UTC
In reply to:

desertsp: What value do cryptocurrency and blockchain add?

As I understand it, blockchain is a distributed "ledger" to record undisputable facts. So the fact that a particular person owns a photograph becomes more trustworthy, versus that fact being stored in a central database where a hacker could modify the fact. But how unlikely is that?

Their infringement monitoring is only as good as the enforcement. How will that work? Do they have a team of lawyers at the ready? Are they banking on courts understanding the blockchain concept to prove ownership if a lawsuit is initiated?

The cryptocurrency part is even more confounding. I think people just want the easiest most straightforward way to pay. How is this better?

It seems kind of like they're advertising the technical minutia of the backend computer system as selling-points.

God I'm negative lol

Infringement enforcement is the easy part (the courts), its the monitoring that is the hard part. Blockchaining/crowdsourcing the monitoring is where I assume the value of this service comes from.

Link | Posted on Jan 9, 2018 at 22:16 UTC
In reply to:

freeAgent85: Why is this on a blockchain rather than simply a database maintained by Kodak? It sounds like the whole ledger/blockchain will be maintained by Kodak anyway. This sounds to me like just a marketing scheme to cash in on blockchain/cryptocurrency buzz.

A blockchain will allow them a huge amount of processing power making their photo registration very impressive at catching infringements. The crypto-coin idea was likely an afterthought just trying to cash in on a craze.

Link | Posted on Jan 9, 2018 at 22:12 UTC
In reply to:

A Owens: What a magnificent lens. Will be coveted by serious wildlife photos. Probably the most useful mammal lens possible. Especially when paired with a D5/D850/D500, it will be sublime. Price it's totally predictable. In this super-tele sphere, a stop is worth 5-10x price. Add the zoom capability, 1.4 converter, top level AF and build and it probably represents reasonable value. Hugely envious!

While I don't agree that it is a value, I would say, its par for the course. And it will no doubt be highly useful to those with a specific need. From my understanding, lots of sports guys are starting to use the Canon version so I'll assume the Nikon version will be adopted in the same manner to go along with the safari and bear crowd.

Link | Posted on Jan 9, 2018 at 21:00 UTC

If stock wasn't dead, this might upset me.

Link | Posted on Jan 6, 2018 at 06:01 UTC as 25th comment
On article A letter from the Publisher (331 comments in total)
In reply to:

MShot: Sponsored content = fake news. Advertising. Would a sponsor pay for a negative review? Do they approve the content in advance? Cold it be unbiased?

Just ignore it.

I really dislike the idea of "Sponsored" articles. Sure it's available for everyone to see, but that doesn't mean it will be recognized as that. Facebook started this crap, and the articles have completely delegitimized the site. Does DPR really want to try to navigate those waters?

Link | Posted on Jan 3, 2018 at 16:47 UTC
In reply to:

anticipation_of: Good thing nobody sentenced you to death thren, bud. I bet the photographer would have settled for less if you’d been honest up front about losing those prints. Given that he had to drag you to court to get you to take responsibility, this sounds perfectly fair to me. You broke (lost) ‘em, you bought ‘em.

Agreed... but the real "Winner" here were the attorneys.

Link | Posted on Dec 20, 2017 at 16:46 UTC
In reply to:

ZeBebito: Unless they lost the original negatives or digital files, I don’t see why they can’t simply reprint the portfolio? More than 1k per print seems too much.

It's about the value of the work. If they went missing and he doesn't collect their value, the photographer is out expenses and income. For a photographer like you and I, that's simply an "Oh well... on to the next" moment, but for a fine art photographer that makes his/her living selling their work, that's a big deal. I assume the publisher had a similar view as your original statement, but the courts confirmed that is a very expensive way of looking at this problem.

Link | Posted on Dec 20, 2017 at 16:45 UTC

Sue him and file charges. Done and done.

Link | Posted on Dec 11, 2017 at 23:30 UTC as 134th comment

I get they want to appear like they care... but they find illegal content and decide to put the onus on their users to fix it? WTH... package that crap up and send it to the local law enforcement.

Link | Posted on Dec 7, 2017 at 00:45 UTC as 6th comment | 8 replies
In reply to:

steelhead3: Why isn't the Pentax mentioned in this article...death by omission?

Thanks Otto and CQui,
That would make a difference, but I wouldn't expect it to be enough to omit the Pentax from the image processing speed improvements... unless the others currently have a terrible AF speed.

Link | Posted on Nov 17, 2017 at 16:29 UTC
Total: 153, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »