santamonica812

Lives in United States CA, United States
Has a website at www.pbase.com/santamonica
Joined on Jul 26, 2009

Comments

Total: 863, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

Donald B: now all they need to do is make them silent :-)

I drone making 1/2 the noise (or better) would be a game-changer. One can dream. :-)

Link | Posted on Oct 14, 2017 at 04:44 UTC
In reply to:

Sdaniella: RIP

athlete
died in accidental photoshoot of athletic activity in a non-athletic (unreal) scenario

this is one of many reasons photoshopping was invented for *faking* impossible scenarios (staged scenarios notwithstanding)

I am sorry that you will never experience the joys of scuba diving or sky diving or paragliding, or riding a bicycle on city streets . . . all of which are far more risky than doing this particular stunt.

Link | Posted on Oct 3, 2017 at 17:46 UTC

99% of the time, I find that added music detracts from drone videos. Annoying and distracting. But not here. Good choice of music, not too loud, and fit well with the theme of the shoot.

Link | Posted on Sep 26, 2017 at 10:34 UTC as 40th comment

Disappointing news, as this will make permanent its decision to go subscription.

Ah well, the market has spoken.

Link | Posted on Sep 21, 2017 at 01:43 UTC as 73rd comment | 3 replies
In reply to:

santamonica812: Looks like a nice backup travel camera. Except . . . the lack of wide angle. This would be great for--for example--shooting wildlife on a safari. But terrible for shooting landscapes. A pity.

But at some point, someone will come up with an all-in-one camera that will cover 15-500 mm, shoot RAW, decent low-light ISO quality, decent auto-focus, etc. Just a question of time, for the current technology to make it into consumer cameras.

For now, I'm still stuck bringing my digital and film Canon cameras. At least they share lenses, so I can bring 4 lenses, instead of 8, on long trips. :-)

. . . . . . T3,
Thanks for the heads-up re wide-angle attachments. I think that the RX10 is not a good value for me, right now, given its price at the moment. But it (or a rival) very well may be, down-the-road, exactly the type of thing I need . . . once I stop traveling with both digital and film cameras at the same time.

Link | Posted on Sep 17, 2017 at 09:36 UTC
In reply to:

santamonica812: Looks like a nice backup travel camera. Except . . . the lack of wide angle. This would be great for--for example--shooting wildlife on a safari. But terrible for shooting landscapes. A pity.

But at some point, someone will come up with an all-in-one camera that will cover 15-500 mm, shoot RAW, decent low-light ISO quality, decent auto-focus, etc. Just a question of time, for the current technology to make it into consumer cameras.

For now, I'm still stuck bringing my digital and film Canon cameras. At least they share lenses, so I can bring 4 lenses, instead of 8, on long trips. :-)

Thanks for the thoughtful responses. Of course I agree that stitching digital images makes it easier to create wide-angle images. But wide-angle lenses give a certain perspective. I did not give a ton of details in my OP. But I love wide angle when shooting a lot of older architecture, to give interesting lines. And it lets me get interesting people shots as well, where it would be impossible to photograph a person and then quickly recompose to shoot the nearby building/canoe/whatever . . . and then later stitch together those two images.

As I look at my images that have sold well, or have won competitions, a surprisingly large percentage were taken with my 12-24 (at the wider end) or with my 15-30 (at the wider end).

Arkienkeli,
As a press photographer, I am assuming that you were not shooting a lot of landscapes, right? I would think that 24 mm would be more than wide enough to shoot people, events, and most types of situations. . . . . . .

Link | Posted on Sep 17, 2017 at 09:36 UTC

Looks like a nice backup travel camera. Except . . . the lack of wide angle. This would be great for--for example--shooting wildlife on a safari. But terrible for shooting landscapes. A pity.

But at some point, someone will come up with an all-in-one camera that will cover 15-500 mm, shoot RAW, decent low-light ISO quality, decent auto-focus, etc. Just a question of time, for the current technology to make it into consumer cameras.

For now, I'm still stuck bringing my digital and film Canon cameras. At least they share lenses, so I can bring 4 lenses, instead of 8, on long trips. :-)

Link | Posted on Sep 16, 2017 at 23:50 UTC as 51st comment | 7 replies

Interesting. Almost none of the images really captured my attention. Usually, when I see the winners in a photo competition, I say "Great shot." about most of them.

The least impressive bunch of entries I've ever seen in a compilation of winners.

[Note: I did not enter this competition, nor did any of my fellow photographer friends, so I have no bone to pick or axe to grind here.]

Link | Posted on Sep 16, 2017 at 22:53 UTC as 59th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

panther fan: If you already have a macro lens, shouldn't it be possible to reach the same magnification with extension tubes and get similar quality results? (At least for 2:1 magnification)

I think so, but that would not address the lighting issue. (Of course, you could adopt the technique he used in the video to save some money.)

The video, though, is not aimed at people who already have the macro lens and the extension tubes. It's aimed at people who do Not have these, and still would like to play around with macro photography. But at an investment of <$300, rather than >$1,000 bucks.

One of the things I love about many types of photography is the clever ways people invent to address different shooting situations.

As such, I really enjoyed this video/article. Macro is not something I've done in the past. But, I can still appreciate the clever work-arounds that were done.

Link | Posted on Sep 13, 2017 at 18:12 UTC

I few observations, from a skilled PS user who--I am ashamed to admit--had never heard of this product before today.
a. After watching this, I still have no idea what this product does (or what changes this new version has). Okay, I get that it does HDR. But so do a million other programmes.
b. It did have a sense of humor. I did smile with the snow-dogs vs snowmobiles analogy, since I think it was clear that he did this intentionally . . . to come up with a metaphor that, really, makes no sense.
c. I was a big fan of DPR. I still come back occasionally. But this site is a pale shadow of what it was. Alas.

Link | Posted on Sep 12, 2017 at 18:00 UTC as 19th comment | 2 replies

Bizarrely, the Lily does not include a remote controller. (but you can buy one, separately, for more money).

For me, that makes this an automatic "no." Not sure why not having a remote included leaves such a bitter taste in my mouth.

My best guess is that they did a bunch of market research, and found out that people who want complete packages would already all be going to Phantom, Mavic, Spark, etc. So, Lily wanted to cut out the extra $15 the controller would cost to make and focus on very casual hobby fliers/photographers, who would be flying strictly with smartphones.

Link | Posted on Sep 9, 2017 at 07:31 UTC as 1st comment
In reply to:

Mohammad Hisham: Without cataloging (Lightroom feature) this app will be another photoshop style. That will make most of photoghrahgers uninterested into to it.

Huh??? I'm not understanding.

Link | Posted on Sep 6, 2017 at 20:19 UTC
In reply to:

santamonica812: He lost me when he pronounced it gif (ie, hard-G) instead of "jif" . . . the way the developer himself pronounces it.

And yeah; I get that the "G" stands for 'graphics.' But nonetheless . . . :-)

Giklab,
My working theory is: If you invent the damn word, then you get to decide how it's pronounced! :-)

If you invent an amazing computer gadget and you call it "Cathy" and pronounce it SAT-ee, then that's how I'll also pronounce it. And when other people insist on calling it "Kath-ee," then I'll be defending you and pointing out that Giklab, the inventor, calls it Sat-ee.

Reasonable minds, of course, are free to disagree with my "first-one-there-equals-correct-pronunciation" philosophy. :-)

Link | Posted on Sep 4, 2017 at 09:38 UTC

Given the high price, I'd be surprised if almost everyone didn't go for the Spark (or, for a few hundred more, the Much better Mavic.)

[Now that there's a new Mavic in town; I would not be shocked to see a small price reduction for the original, either in the Fall, or sometime around the pre-Christmas buying season.]

Link | Posted on Sep 1, 2017 at 19:36 UTC as 14th comment | 2 replies

He lost me when he pronounced it gif (ie, hard-G) instead of "jif" . . . the way the developer himself pronounces it.

And yeah; I get that the "G" stands for 'graphics.' But nonetheless . . . :-)

Link | Posted on Sep 1, 2017 at 05:12 UTC as 10th comment | 6 replies
In reply to:

ttran88: Did Charlottesville influence their decision?

No. The decision to settle was WAY way way before Charlottesville. Legal settlements tend to take weeks (at a minimum, for complex cases, involving dollar amounts like here), if not months.

The timing is mere coincidence. Not surprising, since the issues at Charlottesville are almost completely unrelated to the issue of workplace discrimination.

Link | Posted on Aug 17, 2017 at 00:19 UTC

We get a lot of stories from expert photographers, so it's nice to also see real-life stories from beginner photographers. While it's hard for me to imagine using Program mode for my own shots; your writing makes it clear that it is a great fallback option for those who struggle with correct exposure and/or who have difficulty understanding the zone system.

A great lesson in: finding a method that works for you, and sticking with it.

It sounds like a great trip, aside from the photography aspect. Getting memorable images is a wonderful bonus. Nicely done, and thanks for sharing this story.

Link | Posted on Aug 12, 2017 at 18:22 UTC as 88th comment | 1 reply

Thanks for posting. I loved shooting the Himba, but did almost all with my film Canon 1v. (I'm old enough to remember, and love, wet darkrooms and hand-made prints.) :-)

Your image was a nice reminder of a memorable trip for me.

Link | Posted on Aug 12, 2017 at 18:16 UTC as 18th comment
In reply to:

brycesteiner: It seems the news media should have been sued for defamation since they are the ones that took it and ran with it.

h2k,
It is standard practice to reach out to the other party (the photographer, in this case) to get a reaction. We do not know if this did or did not happen. If not; it's a real breach of journalistic standards. Not enough to come close to making a media outlet legally liable (looks like they truthfully reported what had been told . . . it was that awful couple who lied and deliberately tried to sabotage the photog's career).

My vague recollection is that, for this couple to appeal, they will have to put down a bond to cover the entire amount plus interest. (At least; that used to be the rule in California, I think.)

It's always nice to read that justice prevailed . . . even if it took some time.

Link | Posted on Aug 1, 2017 at 20:09 UTC
In reply to:

thx1138: But the DR is only 3-4 stops and it only shoots 1fpm, might as well burn it and buy a Sony.

Heh

Link | Posted on Jul 31, 2017 at 00:48 UTC
Total: 863, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »