pdxtrojan

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

Comments

Total: 82, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

FLruckas: Accident or....
Stolen???....
Make up your mind!!!....
:=)

Just because he doesn't want to out the other photographer doesn't necessarily mean he's trying to protect him/her. Perhaps it was a friend or business associate that did him wrong. "We spoke to Elia this morning and he told us that after a bit of sleuthing..." You don't "sleuth" a legitimate arrangement or transaction. If he really wanted to protect the other photographer, he would say, "I gave him permission to do this" or "I willfully gave up my no exclusive rights to use this in this manner."

Link | Posted on Jan 12, 2018 at 17:55 UTC
In reply to:

FLruckas: Accident or....
Stolen???....
Make up your mind!!!....
:=)

Canon: accident.
Photographer: stolen.

Link | Posted on Jan 11, 2018 at 18:28 UTC
In reply to:

gehairing: Wow. #1 is a very nice picture.
The other are also good...but #1 is exceptional (for me).

I agree with OP. Very cool aerial.

Link | Posted on Jan 10, 2018 at 21:56 UTC
On article Why you should own a 135mm F2 lens (383 comments in total)

I stopped reading after the part where someone I don't know told me I "should" be doing something. Hate these presumptuous kinds of articles and headlines. Please ride off on the same horse you rode in on.

Link | Posted on Jan 3, 2018 at 16:33 UTC as 25th comment
In reply to:

egk4260: Easier to spell than the old term for this behavior, narcissism.

I think that's the psychoanalytical ideal, that narcissists suffer from low self-esteem, but in practice that doesn't pan out. Try it: pander to a narcissist by fluffing up their self-esteem, and I guarantee you you end up with an even more extreme narcissist. No, more to the core of a narcissist is an inflated sense of themselves and complete lack of empathy to others about what how that heightened self-worth affects them.

Link | Posted on Dec 31, 2017 at 23:31 UTC
In reply to:

egk4260: Easier to spell than the old term for this behavior, narcissism.

Except that narcissism doesn't account for that segment of people who lack self esteem (rather than suffer from an excess of it) and do selfies for self- or external validation. But your point is well-taken.

Link | Posted on Dec 31, 2017 at 03:46 UTC
In reply to:

plantdoc: I hope my 6s is included because I have no need to replace the phone other than the battery. The new models don't offer anything that I really need. Call me a Luddite but I think all devices with a battery should have battery that can be replaced with basic tools. Otherwise, how may millions of devices end up in landfills as toxic E waste losing valuable metals. Second option would be a manufacturer recycling program

They do at least have a recycling program:

https://www.apple.com/recycling/

Link | Posted on Dec 29, 2017 at 01:42 UTC
In reply to:

darlot: We had 2 iphone 6, and they were extremely slow after software upgrade to the point that I had to trade in for the iphone X and iphone 8. Even we were perfectly happy with Iphone 6, it was just we couldn't stand their performance.

Now where can I get my money back ;)

Since when when were iOS updates mandated?

Link | Posted on Dec 28, 2017 at 18:25 UTC
In reply to:

sts2: Tragic. One thing is for sure: the guy LIVED. I'm sure he got a huge thrill out of every stunt he did, and so did the people who liked his photos.

There's risk involved and I'm sure he knew about that (and evidently accepted it). Just hope he didn't take anyone with him when he went down.

Bravery? Doing something stupid and attention-seeking is not bravery; it's foolishness. Even if you want to believe that he was trying to raise money for his mother's surgery, it was a poorly thought-out risk/reward ratio and now his mother is left bereft of both the surgery and her son.

And you do not need to be explicitly stating something to effectively be stating something. It's called connotation. Your arguments are as poorly thought-out as this young man's stunt.

I don't feel the need to p!ss on his grave, nor do I feel any need or rationale to laud his supposed "bravery". His situation registers to me mostly as an unfortunate--but not unpredictable--historical footnote.

Link | Posted on Dec 16, 2017 at 23:46 UTC
In reply to:

sts2: Tragic. One thing is for sure: the guy LIVED. I'm sure he got a huge thrill out of every stunt he did, and so did the people who liked his photos.

There's risk involved and I'm sure he knew about that (and evidently accepted it). Just hope he didn't take anyone with him when he went down.

Quit suggesting that only adrenaline junkies truly live. You can make non-asinine decisions and still live a full life. Sheesh.

Link | Posted on Dec 14, 2017 at 21:50 UTC
In reply to:

Tronhar: There is apparently more to this than the article above describes. While Yongning did do stunting, this one had a specific purpose. His mother was in dire need of life-saving surgery and as they did not have the money for this, he decided to take on what was, even for him, a risky stunt.

According to the South China Morning Post:
"A family member was quoted as saying he was participating in a "rooftopping" challenge with 100,000 yuan (£11,300) at stake in prize money, though the nature of the competition and its sponsor was unclear.

"He planned to propose to his girlfriend (the day after the challenge)," the South China Morning Post quoted his step-uncle as saying.

"He needed the money for medical treatment for his ailing mother."

"I became speechless after I found out from news that you were doing all that to pay for your ill mother's hospital treatment. You are one of those people in this world, you will do anything for your loved ones, absolutely anything."

Did the surgery get funded?

Link | Posted on Dec 14, 2017 at 21:48 UTC
In reply to:

gordonpritchard: I hope he didn’t kill anyone when he hit the ground.

He didn't hit the ground. Another source reported he fell about 45 feet, and you can hear the sound of the impact a fraction of a second after he lost his grip. This is pretty disappointing reportage on DPR's part.

Link | Posted on Dec 14, 2017 at 19:32 UTC
In reply to:

Nick Brundle - Photography: Photoshop – that which produces a great photograph from an average photographer.

One of the silliest posts I've read since this morning's 45 tweet.

Link | Posted on Dec 12, 2017 at 18:47 UTC

Awesome. Now I can pixel-peep everywhere, 24/7.

Link | Posted on Nov 21, 2017 at 17:48 UTC as 25th comment
On article Phase One introduces Capture One ambassador program (86 comments in total)
In reply to:

Elemanzer: So at some point in the last decade, companies decided that, where the internet is concerned, people will trust individual reviewers--especially, in this context, competent photographers--much more than websites such as this. And they concluded that the sensible reaction was to buy out all the "independent" youtube/social media reviewers, and to create "ambassador"/"influencer" programmes such as this.

I do wonder how they expect people to react to that move. Because for me, the result is that I can't tell the difference between generally positive reviewers and reviewers who have been paid off. So now I only trust the reviewers who are generally highly critical of the products they cover--Thom Hogan/Lloyd Chambers (barring Zeiss)/etc--and consequently I'm exposed to a generally less-favourable picture of photography products than I would have been if the companies had just not bothered with marketing at all. And I'm sure it's not just me.

The artisan then suggest that "Google is your friend" and that if I'd had half a brain I would have found plenty of DPR and other forum posts of real-world users experiencing 3,000 to 5,000 shots per charge on the a9 with the new battery pack, so we can split the difference and say 4,000 shots. I pointed out that the a7Riii won't be released until November 30, so it'd be hard to find real-world experience with it aside from that of potentially highly-biased artisans with early access to it. Besides which, it seemed again non-equivalent to compare the power consumption of 4,000 shots on the 24MP a9 to 4,000 shots on the a7Riii.

ALWAYS consider the source.

Link | Posted on Nov 8, 2017 at 04:10 UTC
On article Phase One introduces Capture One ambassador program (86 comments in total)
In reply to:

Elemanzer: So at some point in the last decade, companies decided that, where the internet is concerned, people will trust individual reviewers--especially, in this context, competent photographers--much more than websites such as this. And they concluded that the sensible reaction was to buy out all the "independent" youtube/social media reviewers, and to create "ambassador"/"influencer" programmes such as this.

I do wonder how they expect people to react to that move. Because for me, the result is that I can't tell the difference between generally positive reviewers and reviewers who have been paid off. So now I only trust the reviewers who are generally highly critical of the products they cover--Thom Hogan/Lloyd Chambers (barring Zeiss)/etc--and consequently I'm exposed to a generally less-favourable picture of photography products than I would have been if the companies had just not bothered with marketing at all. And I'm sure it's not just me.

I literally had a dialog today with a Sony artisan who was touting the a7Riii + battery grip + 70-200mm combo that he was using. When a friend suggested that that setup offered little savings in terms of weight when compared to the equivalent Nikon D850 setup (adds weight, actually) that is rated for over 1,840 shots on a single charge versus the 1,300 shots rated for his setup, he mocked that he would be happy to compare the weights of both Nikon and Sony setups WITH attached battery grips. I pointed out that that seemed a non-equivalent comparison, since doing so brings up the Nikon's rating to over 5,000 shots. He scoffed that I was just going off of specs and that his real-world experience shooting in the warm climes of Africa yielded 5,000 shots on the Sony setup.

Link | Posted on Nov 8, 2017 at 04:10 UTC
On article Photo story of the week: Fire and Ice (182 comments in total)
In reply to:

PhotoKhan: Superior, Mr. Maron.

Erez, you need an easier-to-spell name, apparently. Like Ken Smith or something. No one can seem to get it right. :/

Link | Posted on Nov 5, 2017 at 16:53 UTC
In reply to:

(unknown member): The last time I went to Yellowstone Park. I only had my iPhone. I do not understand this article. How do they expect me to get a decent picture if I do not get close to the wildlife? I think it's a bit selfish to think everyone can afford a very expensive lens used for spy photography like those big lenses seen in the movies. I now have an iPhone 8 Plus, so it should allow me to get better pictures from the larger megapixels image.

Very effective satire. The fact that I still wouldn't be surprised that it genuinely might not be is what makes it so scary...and sad.

Link | Posted on Oct 17, 2017 at 15:18 UTC
In reply to:

(unknown member): The last time I went to Yellowstone Park. I only had my iPhone. I do not understand this article. How do they expect me to get a decent picture if I do not get close to the wildlife? I think it's a bit selfish to think everyone can afford a very expensive lens used for spy photography like those big lenses seen in the movies. I now have an iPhone 8 Plus, so it should allow me to get better pictures from the larger megapixels image.

And it's amusing you cry elitism; perhaps I should do the same because I don't own a mansion or drive a Lamborghini or fly to my vacation home in the Azores every month? Or because I shoot with a Sony a7RII instead of a Mamiya Leaf Credo 50? Or maybe it's because I don't have a budget that can accommodate such luxuries?

No one denied you the right to earn a high enough living to afford a telephoto lens, any more than I was denied a right to earn a 7-figure salary. I chose something that pays less, and I knew would never have a personal aircraft or yacht. You have every right to photograph these animals from a safe distance, just like everybody else who paid admission has the right. You do NOT have the right to endanger yourself or the animals by getting too close to them. None whatsoever.

Link | Posted on Oct 17, 2017 at 04:10 UTC
In reply to:

(unknown member): The last time I went to Yellowstone Park. I only had my iPhone. I do not understand this article. How do they expect me to get a decent picture if I do not get close to the wildlife? I think it's a bit selfish to think everyone can afford a very expensive lens used for spy photography like those big lenses seen in the movies. I now have an iPhone 8 Plus, so it should allow me to get better pictures from the larger megapixels image.

@pancho_rivera, you either are incredibly entitled, incredibly ignorant, or an immensely talented troll, or perhaps some combination thereof. Review the regulations at Yellowstone; these are the rules that *everyone who paid to gain entrance are obligated to*. I'll save you the trouble:

"These regulations help us protect park resources while also providing you a safe and enjoyable experience. The following activities are prohibited in Yellowstone:

Willfully remaining near or approaching wildlife, including nesting birds, within any distance that disturbs or displaces the animal." (from https://www.nps.gov/yell/planyourvisit/rules.htm)

Nowhere does it state that you do NOT have the right to take photographs. You just have to be intelligent enough to know that the two are not mutually exclusive and choose an action that doesn't run afoul of either.

Link | Posted on Oct 17, 2017 at 04:09 UTC
Total: 82, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »