santamonica812

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

Comments

Total: 833, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On article First pictures from the new Nikon 8-15mm fisheye (139 comments in total)
In reply to:

Polacofede: hi, i wonder when you say Patagonia what place are you referring exactly. I mean it can be confusing for people as Patagonia is an extremely big region of Argentina and Chile. It would be like saying US West coast, or the likes... The first one looks like Perito Moreno Glacier, Santa Cruz, Argentina.

For those of us who have been lucky enough to have been to the Perito Moreno Glacier--it's unmistakable.

I'm not sure I see much to recommend this over my 12-24 lens. But since I've never shot with anything this wide, real-life shooting experience might, of course, change that opinion.

Link | Posted on Jun 14, 2017 at 21:41 UTC
In reply to:

oscarc: I don't know what the issue is. We have safe spaces, coloring books and crayons, hot cocoa, and therapy dogs to helps us in these situations. We can also protest, riot, start fires and destroy other things to help relieve these feelings.

I'm sorry; what are you whining about? It's not clear from your post. But, I gather that you're upset about something, yes?

Link | Posted on Jun 2, 2017 at 20:45 UTC
In reply to:

Kaso: Now I've heard of a place called Bergün. Clever PR joke.

Jacques,
It is absolutely okay to have a sense of humor in life. Since pretty much everyone in the universe except you saw this as (1) a PR stunt to get people to know the name of the town, and (2) whimsical and NOT AT ALL to be taken seriously, perhaps you could rethink your first impression?

Going through life bitter and sour, and taking every chance to hold a grudge . . . well, I personally think there are better ways to approach each day.

Your Mileage May Vary, of course. Different strokes . . . :-)

Link | Posted on Jun 2, 2017 at 01:44 UTC

It sounds horrible to me. Which is not the same thing as saying that it will be a bad product. I am a pretty serious photographer. (ie, I have sold a decent amount of work, but it's not my "real" job) I LOVE the fact that I need to look at a scene, compose it, take light readings, factor in what I can do in developing (when shooting B/W film), and so on.

To the extent that this takes the guesswork out of all the above . . . well, then much of the skill disappears as well. For beginners, this sounds wonderful. But the way I learned about photography was to go out and shoot. Make exposure mistakes. Make depth of field mistakes. Make focusing mistakes.

If I were someone who simply wanted to take technically excellent photos with no thought, then this could be a great thing. Automatic Mode, but on steroids. But when you take out a photographer's individual choices, you also take away her/his creativity . . . at least to some extent. And I lament that.

Link | Posted on May 26, 2017 at 02:10 UTC as 93rd comment
On article Canon EOS 77D Review (277 comments in total)

Dual Control Dials is a **HUGE** improvement. I cannot imagine ever using a basic "rookie" camera that had only one control dial, even as a backup to my backup camera.

Link | Posted on May 21, 2017 at 00:09 UTC as 8th comment
On article A Taste of New York is a stunning Big Apple time-lapse (89 comments in total)

I mostly HATED it. Way too many fast-cuts for my taste. I get that this is a 'taste' of a city. But I would have much (much much much) preferred to see 1/3 of the sights, with each 'take' spending 3x as much time. 1-2 seconds per location (with a very few longer ones) was far too visually-jarring to my eyes.

I'd love to see their take on the city, with 4 or 5 seconds at each location, with up to 10 seconds at some of the more visually interesting spots.

Blech; time to take a few aspirin. :-)

Link | Posted on May 20, 2017 at 20:24 UTC as 13th comment

I loved the article, since (as the writer noted) it was not tech/spec-driven. Merely the reflections from a professional photographer, listing the pro's and con's, as well as some sample images.

By the way; the Skagsanden Beach photo was one of the more spectacular ones I have *ever* seen. Just loved it.

Link | Posted on May 8, 2017 at 02:45 UTC as 32nd comment
In reply to:

Certs Mate: This was really an interesting topic and I kind agree with what you have mentioned here!

Who are you writing about? Who is "you" in your comment? :-)

Link | Posted on Apr 18, 2017 at 18:51 UTC
In reply to:

Hugo808: Surely if they really thought there was no copyright issue they wouldn't be asking for the statute of limitations to apply?

No. That is not accurate. If it's possible that the S of L has expired, you always always ALWAYS raise it. (or, should raise it, that is) And one would have to be an idiot to not also raise all other arguments in support of your position.

Typically, if I successfully show that a claim is barred by the St. of Limit, I can win the case early on. Which, of course, is much less expensive than going on to the trial stage, after doing expensive and time-consuming pretrial discovery. A S/L claim is decided by a judge, not a jury, so the decision is not coming from people with no legal background. Way back when; when I did civil litigation, several of my cases turned on this S/L issue. There was a hearing to decide if the case was barred by the S/L. If the defendant won; that was the end of the case. If the defendant did not win this motion; the case quickly settled.

It would be gross legal malpractice to NOT raise the S/L claim in any case where it might apply.

Link | Posted on Apr 18, 2017 at 18:50 UTC
In reply to:

dccdp: Artists centered on lawsuits. This is the end of art. Welcome to the new era of lawyer-approved "creativity".

I get your point. But what is your alternative? If you take a great photo, and a unique photo, is it okay with you if I do a high-resolution scan of it, and start selling "my" version? Or if I photograph your photograph, and start selling that??

(That's rhetorical . . . I assume we all would say some version of, "Of course not. That is outright theft!")

I gave the easiest example. But as many earlier posters have noted, there is a HUGE spectrum, between outright theft and totally fair use, with tons of gray area in the middle. How would you suggest deciding all those cases? I'd love to remove these "gray area" cases from the legal field. Maybe have me (or you) decide them, in a matter of minutes. But the legal field exists in order to give a decision from an impartial judge/jury. I hate the long delays, I hate the huge expense. But again, what is your alternative to this process?

Link | Posted on Apr 18, 2017 at 18:43 UTC
In reply to:

KrisAK: In the future, everyone will be litigious for fifteen minutes.

Heh

Link | Posted on Apr 18, 2017 at 18:30 UTC
In reply to:

Yake: It's funny that the Warhol Foundation is essentially making self-contradictory arguments in this case. First they say that Warhol made so many changes to the photo that his work is profoundly transformative and thus protected by fair use. At the same time, they say the Warhol version is so obviously a copy of Goldsmith's photo that any reasonable person would have immediately noticed the infringement / copying when it was first published in 1984, so it's too late to complain later.

. . . and so on. Making inconsistent arguments is not only commonplace in legal arguments; failing to do so (when such arguments exist) would probably be legal malpractice.

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

Yake: It's funny that the Warhol Foundation is essentially making self-contradictory arguments in this case. First they say that Warhol made so many changes to the photo that his work is profoundly transformative and thus protected by fair use. At the same time, they say the Warhol version is so obviously a copy of Goldsmith's photo that any reasonable person would have immediately noticed the infringement / copying when it was first published in 1984, so it's too late to complain later.

It's not unusual at all for a lawyer, or for anyone with experience in the legal field. A lawyer's job is to raise all colorable arguments. Maybe easier to understand if phrased a bit differently.
a. The St. of Limit. has already run, b/c a reasonable person would have been aware--at the time--that the work had been created.
b. Even if you find that the SoL has not run, my client should win b/c he made legally significant changes to the Goldsmith's photo, and it therefore became a transformative work (ie, an exception to copyright protection).
c. [now making up facts, to show even more possible arguments], my client declared bankrupcy 5 years ago, and even if there was a copyright violation, that claim was legally dismissed as part of the bankruptcy proceeding.
d. My client is an ambassador, and therefore has diplomatic immunity from both criminal and civil liability
e. The plaintiff implicitly (or expressly) authorized my client's use of the photograph by ...

Link | Posted on Apr 18, 2017 at 18:26 UTC
In reply to:

james s. kennedy: Speaking of what's legal, where does street photography become an invasion of privacy?

Generally speaking (and to over-simplify): If a person of average sight could see it in any public area, then it can be photographed. That includes people. I can be photographed, you can be photographed, my young (or pubescent) children can be photographed . . . being out in public = permission to be photographed.

There are some narrow exceptions (some of which vary state-to-state), but the first paragraph covers 99.994% of situations.

Link | Posted on Apr 18, 2017 at 18:14 UTC
In reply to:

KyleSlamchez: The ability to trigger three cameras at once is interesting. I wonder why it's limited to only three, though?

What if one were to mount three identical cameras with identical lenses onto an array, and used the app to make all threes shoot simultaneously? Could one then stitch the images together and end up with a crazy amount of resolution and/or a super-wide image with minimal distortion? Am I a madman?

Kyle,
One situation might be sports/activities. (1) When you know where the action will be [bowling, darts, ping pong, archery, baseball's home plate, etc] you can get 3 different angles at the same time. (2), where you can make educated guesses about where the action will be [in football, around the goal line], you can set up the cameras to cover 3 times as much area.

Other than that; I am struggling to think of many situations where it would be helpful. When I was shooting the sun rising over the dunes in Namibia, I really wanted a bunch of cameras that I could shoot remotely, since you have, literally, 30 seconds to shoot, and then you have to wait 24 hours to try again. But we're really talking about edge cases here.

Link | Posted on Apr 18, 2017 at 05:54 UTC
On article GoPro launches camera trade-up program in the US (25 comments in total)
In reply to:

Lawson Raider: A good deal if you want to upgrade from a Hero HD, Hero 2, or a Hero 3 White. However, Hero 3+ Silvers, blacks, and the Hero 4 line you can sell your camera for more money that the tradeup is offering.

Nicolai,
I think you mean "seller," right? You're the buyer (who will then turn in the cheap--likely broken--old HERO) who wants to gain the advantage of this exchange/upgrade programme.

Link | Posted on Apr 13, 2017 at 21:09 UTC
On article GoPro launches camera trade-up program in the US (25 comments in total)
In reply to:

Lawson Raider: A good deal if you want to upgrade from a Hero HD, Hero 2, or a Hero 3 White. However, Hero 3+ Silvers, blacks, and the Hero 4 line you can sell your camera for more money that the tradeup is offering.

True. I think this programme will be especially attractive to anyone who has a broken camera, of course. (If I wanted one of these new Heros, I'd probably look on eBay for a broken old Hero for 5-10 dollars, in order to qualify for this deal.)

Link | Posted on Apr 11, 2017 at 18:34 UTC

Lots of fun to play with. Many of my best-sellers got 100's. But, on the other hand, my absolute best-seller, which has also won photo competitions, got a score of 0.99%!!!

I'm not sure if that is a failure or a success. :-)

Link | Posted on Apr 8, 2017 at 08:23 UTC as 55th comment

I tend not to love gimmicks. But I loved this series. Very clever idea, and extremely-well executed.

Link | Posted on Mar 30, 2017 at 17:04 UTC as 28th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

Mike CH: 83 feet?!?!?

I have trees on my property that are that high!

What are they smoking?

Ah, got it.

I see your point. But you do agree that there has to be Some standard, right? Your only argument is that it's too low. And, since you have trees that are above that height, your argument is not crazy or in bad faith. Where I live (in the LA area), it's pretty unusual for a private property owner to have trees higher than 80 feet. But, my parents' house does. I'd like to see a higher property height, for two reasons. 1: With increased quality in the lenses in consumer drones, it's easier to really be intrusive. (I don't care if you take a photo of me and/or my girlfriend nude sunbathing if we're just blurry blobs and there is no way to identify us at all). But that's no longer the case. 2. The drones are really pretty noisy. If you are my next door neighbor, I am already unhappy about having to deal with the noise of you flying your drone above your own house. If you're 30 yards above my house, the noise pollution is really bothersome. Maybe 150 feet limit??

Link | Posted on Mar 26, 2017 at 00:53 UTC
Total: 833, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »