pdxtrojan

Lives in United States United States
Joined on Feb 22, 2011

Comments

Total: 25, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »
On article Flickr Marketplace image licensing program shuttered (92 comments in total)
In reply to:

larrytusaz: Maybe I'm weird, but to me Facebook (which is where a lot of people seem to post photos nowadays) is about the sorriest place to post a photo. They are so much more limited than a real photo-hosting site, and with the "tagging" feature people nowadays freak out sometimes when you take their photo at a party enjoying themselves, scared that their boss or such will see it. The 'tagging" of people with their real names, such has made photography so much more awkward in such social situations than it used to be. However, people use them because in fact many times they think it's IMPOSSIBLE to share a photo with someone unless it's in Facebook. Have they never heard of Flickr, PBase, Smugmug, and heck--email?

Again, maybe I'm weird, but I APPRECIATE how in Flickr I don't know those people I appreciate that I'm seeing something from someone far away who's not in my life in any meaningful way. I don't want to only see photos just from my "friends."

You're welcome, JacobC. Though I'm sad about whatever it is that's turned you into such a bitter, unhappy, and rather unpleasant little fellow. Hope you find relief soon.

Link | Posted on Sep 26, 2016 at 08:23 UTC
On article Flickr Marketplace image licensing program shuttered (92 comments in total)
In reply to:

doctor digi: "Shuttered" - do you mean "closed".

No doubt you "reached out" to them to find that out.

Sheesh. So sick of this BS-Speak.

Mine is "fanboy".

Link | Posted on Sep 25, 2016 at 08:31 UTC
On article Flickr Marketplace image licensing program shuttered (92 comments in total)
In reply to:

larrytusaz: Maybe I'm weird, but to me Facebook (which is where a lot of people seem to post photos nowadays) is about the sorriest place to post a photo. They are so much more limited than a real photo-hosting site, and with the "tagging" feature people nowadays freak out sometimes when you take their photo at a party enjoying themselves, scared that their boss or such will see it. The 'tagging" of people with their real names, such has made photography so much more awkward in such social situations than it used to be. However, people use them because in fact many times they think it's IMPOSSIBLE to share a photo with someone unless it's in Facebook. Have they never heard of Flickr, PBase, Smugmug, and heck--email?

Again, maybe I'm weird, but I APPRECIATE how in Flickr I don't know those people I appreciate that I'm seeing something from someone far away who's not in my life in any meaningful way. I don't want to only see photos just from my "friends."

The counterpoint is that if you build up a decent reputation as a photographer, people have the option of "following" you rather than "friending" you, and they'll only have access to those photos you make public, i.e.,to those people that actively follow you. Your private drunken naked lampshade photos can remain accessible only to your friends or those you've not imposed any other customized restrictions on. I have 5k followers as an amateur, and I don't follow anyone on any of the other sites you mentioned. Fair to question, though, that I might be the one with the more restricted audience as a result (but that's partially what I want, anyways)...YMMV...

Link | Posted on Sep 24, 2016 at 07:37 UTC
In reply to:

maljo@inreach.com: I wish Fuji well. I believe this will be an excellent camera, but it is entering a crowded market.

Brandless1 can defend himself, of course, but I'll just point out that at no point does he use the word "mirrorless".

Link | Posted on Sep 23, 2016 at 03:31 UTC

1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 10.5. Interesting system you got there.

Link | Posted on Sep 10, 2016 at 07:22 UTC as 287th comment | 1 reply
On article Interview: Landscape photography master Charlie Waite (29 comments in total)

"Find your way of seeing. And be memorable for your particular way of seeing. I was given that advice, and it’s a bumpy ride, like acting. It’s really not easy. It’s precarious and insecure, but there are many different ways of seeing, and many ways that are still to be found. Make your images have meaning."

A thousand times, YES. So many out there shooting with soulless intent, looking for quick bucks and/or likes from the social media masses. I'm not going to legislate how or why someone chooses to pursue their photography, but if you're going to be little more than a photocopier, you shouldn't try to present as God's gift to photography...

Link | Posted on Sep 6, 2016 at 16:23 UTC as 20th comment
In reply to:

alcaher: Congrats Canon, how does it feel to finally make cameras with great DR?

Logical fallacy: Based on this speculation, the 5D4 is superior to the D810 or a7R2. Personally, I think every customer chooses the right product for their specific needs. There is no one superior camera, although I think the a7R2 is a pretty high-ranking all-arounder. (I don’t do sports, wildlife, weddings, or videography though.)

If you want to call that hubris, go right ahead. But if I’ve got the definition of hubris right, that would mean I’d be touting the a7R2 as DR champion despite the fact that the D810 is slightly but noticeably superior in these tests. No, what you call hubris, I call keeping the discussion precisely in line with the purpose and message of the original post. Whether or not I’m successful with that is at least partially dependent on whether or not people want to continue on with feeble attempts at character assassination or other forms of misdirection.

If I erred at any point, it was in not finishing my original query with, "...with respect to DR?"

Link | Posted on Sep 1, 2016 at 17:26 UTC
In reply to:

alcaher: Congrats Canon, how does it feel to finally make cameras with great DR?

Fact: This IS a posting about and test of sensor DR capability, specifically in the areas of exposure latitude and ISO invariance, NOT long-term business sustainability or live view AF or anything else.

Fact: Canon and Sony make (most of?) their own sensors; Nikon does not (for their D8--x models, anyway…who has time to research their entire lineups?).

Fact: Despite making its own sensors, Canon still lags behind Sony and Nikon flagship offerings in terms of DR, but they’ve (to their credit) closed the gap. If their pace of improvement seems bounding, it’s only because you’re comparing two data points constituting back-to-back generations (i.e., the previous incarnation was so far behind as to make the leap forward look more substantial in a microscopic framework).

Speculation (from those folks diverting the argument to business practices, not from me): Nikon’s outsourcing of sensors is an unwise, unsustainable practice compared to Canon’s strategy of keeping things in-house.

Link | Posted on Sep 1, 2016 at 17:24 UTC
In reply to:

alcaher: Congrats Canon, how does it feel to finally make cameras with great DR?

@Yossarian1, you seem like an otherwise well-reasoned person, so I’d encourage you not to weaken your credibility with further false assumptions and straw men. Let’s break this down into facts versus speculations versus other.

Fact: The only Nikon products I’ve ever owned in life are a 62mm lens cap as a backup for my Tamron (because the generic offerings at my local brick & mortar have poor impact resistance) and a second-hand plastic bag also passed on by that same brick & mortar.

Fact: I jumped ship from a Canon 5D2 when I was due for an upgrade and the 5D3 failed to live up to my expectations. I went to Sony because of their sensor tech and the ability to adapt my Canon glass to allow me to gradually transition to FE mount lenses of comparable quality. Currently I run with an a7R2 and an a6300. Still consider me a Nikonite?

Link | Posted on Sep 1, 2016 at 17:24 UTC
In reply to:

alcaher: Congrats Canon, how does it feel to finally make cameras with great DR?

And if we really want to go "there," you could look at it this way: All that in-house sensor manufacturing all these years has gotten Canon's tech to where, exactly? Answer: STILL behind Sony and Nikon... :/

Feel free to bookmark this post in five or ten years when Canon's finally caught up. (Inevitable, right?) I'll make plenty of room for crow...

Link | Posted on Sep 1, 2016 at 06:49 UTC
In reply to:

alcaher: Congrats Canon, how does it feel to finally make cameras with great DR?

@Yossarian1, the OP made a Bronx cheer remark about Canon finally making a sensor whose capabilities are closer to what we should expect in this technological era. Responder retorts with, "and unlike nikon..... canon actually is able to make it´s own sensors." I didn't get the sense that OP was commenting about any business strategy at all but rather the ability to produce a product that was long overdue from a technological standpoint. As a consumer, all I care about is the product. If Nikon goes out of business because they don't make their own sensors (really??), then Nikon shooters can switch brands then. But switching brands now when the alternative product is still inferior based on fear about what theoretically MIGHT happen 5, 10 years from now makes no sense at all...unless you're into thumb-twiddling. In other words, it's a non sequitur or straw man reply at best.

Link | Posted on Sep 1, 2016 at 06:48 UTC
In reply to:

alcaher: Congrats Canon, how does it feel to finally make cameras with great DR?

I see you all arguing this fro the business perspective, which is fine and dandy. I looking at it from the perspective of I don't care that Nikon didn't make the sensor for the D810. It's still a damn fine camera, and it's silly to pass it over as a consumer simply on the premise that it's a Sony sensor.

Link | Posted on Sep 1, 2016 at 00:07 UTC
In reply to:

alcaher: Congrats Canon, how does it feel to finally make cameras with great DR?

Because making your own sensors matters...how?

Link | Posted on Aug 31, 2016 at 19:39 UTC
On article Photoshop CC 2015.5.1 available (89 comments in total)
In reply to:

John Tannock: The bugs are included with your subscription whether you want them or not, or at least that's what a subscriber has told me. By that I assume that you're programs are upgraded automatically, correct? That being the case, I'll stick with my nice, stable CS6/LR6. Adobe seems to be using its customer base as their beta testers.

Updates are not automatic. Perhaps there's a setting to allow that, but I prefer to update manually anyways.

Link | Posted on Aug 9, 2016 at 18:51 UTC
On article 8 creative tips for shooting waterfalls (159 comments in total)
In reply to:

ShelNf: It nevers fails that every picture or article about waterfalls will bring out the silky vs frozen debate. Do it how you like and don't moan because someone did it how they like. Just look away and move on.

I went into a techno club last night and yelled at everyone to leave because techno isn't real music. Everyone just kind of looked at me funny. :/

Link | Posted on Aug 4, 2016 at 21:30 UTC
On article 8 creative tips for shooting waterfalls (159 comments in total)
In reply to:

win39: The flowing snow appearance of water was created by large format photographers because of the limitations of their equipment. They could not shoot fast. It seems to me that to slavishly continue to copy that distortion with modern equipment is an assault on the eye. It is like taking a buggy whip to your automobile to make it go faster. It has reached such universal acceptance that I have begun to wonder nonsensically if most people have defective vision. Water does not look like that on this planet.

That's fine, mikeoregon, but I still wouldn't say I find that freezing of water to be any closer to reality than what a slower shutter would produce. I find 'freezing' water to be an effective conveyance of size and power in a larger cataract, but here I just find the garbled textures not as aesthetically pleasing, apart from whether or not it's a 'truer' portrayal of way the waterfall looks like.

The point I'm making isn't that one shutter speed range provides a more accurate rendering of waterfalls than another--indeed, I was making the case that NO static image could effectively do so. So let's reframe the question from one of visual literalism to one of artistry and aesthetics. If you want to make the case that the short shutter speed rendering as in your example is more visually pleasing to you, then who am I (or anyone) to legislate your taste? And who would you (or anyone) be to legislate my preference for more smoothly-textured water? You like your apples, I'll like my oranges. But all this silly talk of the apple or the orange being more 'fruit' than the other I think is a totally irrelevant point. Just as some shoot long-exposure clouds or star trails, so it is with moving water. No one's judging the end results on their purely journalistic merits--we already know stars don't look like streaks and clouds aren't featurelessly smeared across the sky in real life. Shoot waterfalls the way you want to shoot them. Your audience will always find their way to you...

(Typed on mobile device...please forgive any typos.)

Link | Posted on Aug 3, 2016 at 07:36 UTC
On article 8 creative tips for shooting waterfalls (159 comments in total)
In reply to:

win39: The flowing snow appearance of water was created by large format photographers because of the limitations of their equipment. They could not shoot fast. It seems to me that to slavishly continue to copy that distortion with modern equipment is an assault on the eye. It is like taking a buggy whip to your automobile to make it go faster. It has reached such universal acceptance that I have begun to wonder nonsensically if most people have defective vision. Water does not look like that on this planet.

Apparently I can't edit my own messages, so here it is again without typos. That'll teach me for trying to reply on a mobile device... :/

So what shutter speed captures moving water as it appears to the naked eye? 1/250? 1/80? 1/4? 2 seconds? I've personally never seen nor made a photo that accomplishes that because, you know, water moves and photos don't. So I make *artistic* decisions with my stills camera and leave it up to the viewer to decide if they like it or not. I think if I really wanted to translate tit for tat what moving water looks like, I'd become a videographer instead...

Link | Posted on Aug 1, 2016 at 20:42 UTC
On article 8 creative tips for shooting waterfalls (159 comments in total)
In reply to:

win39: The flowing snow appearance of water was created by large format photographers because of the limitations of their equipment. They could not shoot fast. It seems to me that to slavishly continue to copy that distortion with modern equipment is an assault on the eye. It is like taking a buggy whip to your automobile to make it go faster. It has reached such universal acceptance that I have begun to wonder nonsensically if most people have defective vision. Water does not look like that on this planet.

So way shutter speed captures moving water as it appears to the naked eye? 1/250? 1/80? 1/4? 2 seconds? I've personally never seen nor made a photo that accomplishes that because, you know, water moves and photos don't. So I make *artistic* decisions with my stills camera and leave it up to the viewer to decide if they like it or not. I think if I really wanted to translate tit for tat wash at moving water looks like, I'd become a videographer instead...

Link | Posted on Aug 1, 2016 at 20:24 UTC
On article Quick Look: Parallelism in Landscape Photography (112 comments in total)
In reply to:

CanonKen: Love it. Maybe we would all get along better if we spent more time talking about actually TAKING pictures!

Yeah, shame on DPReview. After reading the article, mywallet was missing $5! Don't know what I bought, but obviously I don't possess the free will or wherewithal to resist being targeted by an ad. Shady, shady, shady...

Link | Posted on Mar 13, 2016 at 00:10 UTC
On article Readers' Showcase: Rob Kearney (76 comments in total)
In reply to:

Akpinxit: ..and once again - works of another prodigy .
It is not like it is bad , it's just ordinary .
I think that any less then this : http://www.dpreview.com/files/p/articles/1562025276/BTP_PotN_0_-_final_image.jpeg , should not be posted on front page .

Thank you, O great arbiter of taste. Unless you're an editor, how about you let the rest of us in the audience decide if we like something or not?

Link | Posted on Dec 13, 2015 at 17:07 UTC
Total: 25, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »