Lives in Hong Kong Hong Kong, Hong Kong
Works as a Photographer
Has a website at
Joined on Apr 29, 2012


Total: 34, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »
In reply to:

fluppeteer: If it saves anyone else some research, I just had a chat to DJI help:

The new props *are* compatible with the original Mavic Pro, although it'll need a firmware update (which isn't available yet). The sales page for the props say they'll help flight time and (probably more so) volume compared to the default Mavic Pro, but the new speed controllers mean the Platinum will still be quieter and fly longer.

As someone who just bought a Mavic Pro and hasn't flown it yet, that's the best I could hope from this announcement - I'll live with losing 11% flight time compared with cutting edge, but a bit quieter would be nice. And the props are relatively cheap, at least.

I feel for you, but I got mine a month ago and am having a blast with learning its capabilities every day. A few more mins flying time on each battery would be good, but I find you can get a lot out of one battery if you plan the shots and hone your flying skills. Plus, you need 1-2 extra batteries anyway. So a few mins here or there - nothing to lose sleep over! Enjoy!

Link | Posted on Sep 2, 2017 at 02:11 UTC

Reminds me of scenes from the old FPS game Half Life. Very atmospheric!

Link | Posted on Nov 6, 2016 at 13:52 UTC as 17th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

peterstuckings: Wait, are you telling me there are still people out there who think a photograph represents 'reality'?

Ok cool. As long as you believe it, it's true! I'm happy with that if you are.

Link | Posted on Jul 9, 2016 at 04:50 UTC

Wait, are you telling me there are still people out there who think a photograph represents 'reality'?

Link | Posted on Jul 7, 2016 at 04:09 UTC as 10th comment | 4 replies
In reply to:

6BQ5: If I take a picture of my kids or a landmark monument or something ... and someone in background wants me to delete the picture because they don't want themselves on it then do I have to? Does this change if the person is an adult or a child? I'm always a little confused on how far a right to privacy goes.

I'd call that harassment and would seek out law enforcement.

Link | Posted on Oct 2, 2015 at 04:47 UTC

I'm very interested to see image #4 has a ton of dust spots in the sky over the subject's head, plus one big spot on the left of the frame. Before the trolls get their claws out, I'm not having a go - I'm just curious why these spots were not cleaned up when these images surely have had a lot of post-processing done, and in this particular image the subject's outline has clearly been enhanced. Do some photogs simply not see dust spots? ...

Link | Posted on Jun 4, 2015 at 04:36 UTC as 10th comment | 2 replies
On article Opinion: Why the Canon XC10 is a big deal (740 comments in total)

I love the writer's enthusiasm. "If we buy into the idea that photography is about the 'Decisive Moment', what are the implications when we gain the ability to capture all the moments in the scene?" Well, my friend, it's the decisive moment precisely because it's the one the photographer captured. In any series of movements, there can be multiple choices. So what if you have 10,000 frames to choose from instead of 3, of which one is obviously the moment you hoped for? This is not photography, it is selecting a frame from video by spending more time at a computer than shooting. This is a video camera, and I'm pleased for video people they have yet another excellent tool for their work. Meaningless for photography as yet...

Link | Posted on Apr 9, 2015 at 01:15 UTC as 177th comment | 4 replies
In reply to:

Paul Guba: Honesty in photography never existed. If I simply reframe an image while taking it an entirely different message can be conveyed. This issue harkens back to the roots of photography when bodies were moved and composed for pictures of the US Civil War. So at what point does reporting and illustration cross. My belief is as soon as you begin to compose the image. Am I to believe that the photographer didn't direct the subject to stand in the beam of light in the above image or it was a happy accident. Maybe they filled the air with dust as well. I might have. So if all these things happen before the shutter actually moves is it so different afterward?

Thanks Paul! Every time this fishy topic crops up in the photography press I want to express the same views. You've nailed it perfectly. The very act of picking up a camera and stepping onto the location is exercising a bias, to frame the scene prior to shooting and choosing when to shoot so as to capture only what you want is all subjectivity, then selecting the images for submission, then cropping, then adjusting brightness to draw attention to certain aspects of the image - all bias and subjectivity. And that doesn't even account for the editors' and consumers' choices! To then claim a photog has done wrong and should be punished for, for example, removing a tiny distraction that in no way alters the information or the story in the image, is disingenuous and nit-picking nonsense. The problem was to ever believe that photography is objective...

Link | Posted on Mar 7, 2015 at 09:02 UTC

5D Mk4, with huge megapixels like 30, expanded HDR functions, infrared, wifi, GPS, espresso-maker, better video functionality (for those of us who get asked to do video while shooting photos - more and more these days), pop-up flash, apps like Instagram, tilting screen, available in 3 different colours and a range of strap designs. Oh, and waterproof.

Link | Posted on Oct 6, 2014 at 11:17 UTC as 791st comment
In reply to:

photo_rb: Let's see, if you put the camera on a tripod and the wind knocks the tripod against a tree which hits the shutter button, you do not own the copyright. Do I have that right?

Haha! Spot on. Just don't tell anyone.

Link | Posted on Aug 22, 2014 at 21:17 UTC
In reply to:

attomole: The photograph belongs to the photographer in question because he was in command of the creative process even if by accident part of it was random.

If the monkey had obtained the use of the photographic equipment made it available for use in the setting where the photograph was taken and rendered it in a suitable state to take the photograph with the intended artistic intent, the photograph would be the monkey's

It did not do any of those things, that was done by Mr. Slater. He is the owner of the photographs. Pressing the shutter is not important, ownership of the equipment is not important. by the deliberate actions of Mr. Slater, not the Monkey, created the photographs even if some of the circumstances of the event that captured the photograph were random, like the lighting or weather some things are out of your control in this case the timing of the shutter even if it was accidental.

attomole, I totally agree. My point further down the page almost exactly. "The photograph belongs to the photographer in question because he was in command of the creative process even if by accident part of it was random." Thank you for stating it clearly!

Link | Posted on Aug 22, 2014 at 12:20 UTC
In reply to:

(unknown member): The photographer did not just provide the tool. He selected the camera, the film (if any), the lens, focal length, all camera settings. He found the venue in which he was likely to get the shot, he patiently waited for the time, the lighting, and interactions with the animals. He risked personal injury knowing he would get great shots. Even if he did place the camera in the chimps hands, he did this with the intention of getting exactly these kinds of shots. Even if the chimp grabbed the camera from him, that camera was prepared in a way only someone with knowledge and intent could, and he let the chimp play with it expecting to get these results. VERY FEW self-described "Pros" on this site would have had the presence of mind to make this happen.

He took these steps and risks, knowing exactly what he was looking for. He got what he was looking for, and wikimedia used a legal loophole to steal his work.
The shame is on WikiMedia.

I totally agree, StevenE. My point similarly expressed further down the page.
I don't for a moment believe this was a stroke of genius by the monkey. It was a stroke of cleverness by a photographer to let it unfold this way, then let the story hit social media big-time, then make 5-figure stock sales around the world.
I work with kids and I get them to trigger the camera to photograph themselves all the time while they're too young to know what a camera is. Then I show the Mum and say 'Look, little Johnny took a selfie.' Neither Mum nor I believe for a moment he actually took the photo but we laugh and play along. It's called storytelling, and it's what marketing is made of.
Copyright remains with the guy who set up and ran the shoot. The law should be updated.

Link | Posted on Aug 22, 2014 at 12:16 UTC

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.

Link | Posted on Aug 22, 2014 at 02:26 UTC as 124th comment | 6 replies
On article Exposing sharks in a positive light (62 comments in total)

"newly single with some extra money" Please explain! ;-)

Link | Posted on Aug 14, 2014 at 21:18 UTC as 3rd comment

Ah yes, I recall the days as a photography student, when we used to mess around with all sorts of cool and fun concepts...

Link | Posted on Jun 29, 2014 at 22:50 UTC as 24th comment | 2 replies
On article Stream your photos... via backpack? (34 comments in total)

I read DPreview articles just to see the comments. Keep up the good work, folks ;-)

Link | Posted on May 19, 2014 at 14:28 UTC as 13th comment
On article Melt: Portrait of an Iceberg (40 comments in total)

What really interests me about this article is what Simon had to do to get DPreview to put his website address right up front and drive potentially a ludicrous amount of traffic to his site. Is there somewhere on this site I can apply to get an article and website mention about my work, please? I expect there's a fee involved but you can't put a price on this kind of PR.

Link | Posted on May 19, 2014 at 14:25 UTC as 5th comment | 4 replies
On article Rumors hint at pair of new Canon lenses (56 comments in total)

Anyone who needs Image Stabilizer on a 16-35mm lens probably shouldn't be spending so much money on high quality lenses.

Link | Posted on May 14, 2014 at 01:21 UTC as 3rd comment | 7 replies
On article 'City of Samba': Rio Carnival in tilt-shift (42 comments in total)

I've worked with tilt-shifts for years, and there's one thing that those of us who've invested crazy amounts of dollars in them are loathe to admit - that the almost-exact same effect can be achieved in post, even on an iPhone or iPad, with a $2 app.
Tech-based gimmicks will never be as impressive as truly thought-provoking photography. As one poster here said, the video minus the tilt-shift would've been more impressive.
Back to the drawing board, folks!

Link | Posted on Apr 28, 2014 at 17:05 UTC as 12th comment
On article Engineering a Difference: Benjamin Von Wong Part 2 (39 comments in total)
In reply to:

Jonathan F/2: Snooze. Nice photos if you're showcasing your work in a Photoshop magazine.

If the photo featured at the top of this page with the arc of fire and 2 fighters was done in front of the camera, there would be an arc of golden light on the jumping figure's skin, as well as the ceiling and pillars would be glowing golden. I agree with Jonathan F/2's comment above. You can't bullsh*t a bullsh*tter ;-)

Link | Posted on Mar 17, 2014 at 08:00 UTC
Total: 34, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »