santamonica812

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

Comments

Total: 859, showing: 41 – 60
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
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
In reply to:

Mike CH: 83 feet?!?!?

I have trees on my property that are that high!

What are they smoking?

What is WHO smoking? No idea what your point is, since you don't tell us who "they" is/are.

Link | Posted on Mar 24, 2017 at 22:26 UTC
In reply to:

Paul Boddie: "Boggs' attorneys have not said whether he will appeal to a higher court"

One above 83 feet?

Heh.

Link | Posted on Mar 24, 2017 at 22:25 UTC
In reply to:

thx1138: What we see is why the legal system is so expensive. Let's just waste time and money and kick it to a higher court with out even worrying about the merits, assuming you have deep enough pockets of course.

Is your point that the pilot (who claims he was flying above 83 feet, therefore in "free" airspace) is clearly in the right, so the defendant is responsible for dragging this out and running up the costs in our legal system? Or are you arguing that the defendant is clearly right, and so the pilot is the one you are blaming?

When a reader can't tell what your point or your argument is; your post might need a few more details. :-)

Link | Posted on Mar 24, 2017 at 22:23 UTC

I'm a liberal (generally). But for something like this, I'd like to see a 20 year prison sentence. To rape the environment, only because it feels good to behave like a complete @sshole, and to ruin the vista for tens/hundreds of thousands of people, for years to come . . . it makes me see red.

A pity that $5,000 and 6 months is the most they can give.

What a waste of sperm and egg this person is.

Link | Posted on Mar 16, 2017 at 00:54 UTC as 26th comment | 3 replies

When I was a photog student, I always wondered why there was not this sort of resource online. (Of course, there were lots of regular books. But they varied in quality, so a book that was good for portrait lighting was also dreadful on lighting for products.

A site I'll definitely be bookmarking.

Link | Posted on Mar 13, 2017 at 20:14 UTC as 16th comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

Old Cameras: "Settlement" implies it never went to trial, which is unfortunate. Something tells me that no wrong doing was admitted, just a wad of crumpled cash offered up to make it all go away. They needed to be judged and found guilty with a prescription for change.

brn,
"Low" settlements happen all the time. One, the plaintiff might have wanted to make a point and was not interested in hitting the jackpot with a large jury verdict. So, this amount might have been perfectly satisfactory to him.

Or, this plaintiff was particularly risk-averse. "Bird in the hand." and all that.

Or, there might indeed be some missing facts that make this case a closer call, and are what prompted the acceptance of this offer.

Or, her lawyer was the one who was risk-averse, and it was his own lawyer who pressured him into settling.

But, based on the facts that we were given; the plaintiff has a very very strong case. I think that (outsiders') observation is pretty accurate.

Link | Posted on Mar 10, 2017 at 07:41 UTC
In reply to:

santamonica812: Minor quibble: She was not "awarded" anything, as the article makes clear that it was a settlement. She was given, she settled, she agreed upon . . . all of those could be accurate.

An award would be if a jury or judge found in her favor and ordered an amount of money (or equitable relief, etc).

(As I said, minor quibble.) :-)
Especially since this is a photography, and not a legal-interest, site.

My bad. [face-palm].

Do as I say; not as I do. :-)

Link | Posted on Mar 10, 2017 at 07:37 UTC

Minor quibble: She was not "awarded" anything, as the article makes clear that it was a settlement. She was given, she settled, she agreed upon . . . all of those could be accurate.

An award would be if a jury or judge found in her favor and ordered an amount of money (or equitable relief, etc).

(As I said, minor quibble.) :-)
Especially since this is a photography, and not a legal-interest, site.

Link | Posted on Mar 10, 2017 at 00:14 UTC as 30th comment | 12 replies

Lots of very nice ones. A few that seems overly post-processed...at least, to my eye. But overall, a good selection, with animals shots (not surprisingly) being very over-represented in terms of subject matter. Since I like animal images, I had no problem with this. :-)

Link | Posted on Feb 16, 2017 at 19:35 UTC as 5th comment
On article Hands-on with the Canon EOS 77D (450 comments in total)
In reply to:

The Silver Nemesis: Interesting, by a mile: now that the "77" is here, is it a "3" on the way? Don't know about you, but the 3 and 1V were my favourite cameras - and I still have the 3 in perfect working condition - Eye Control AF, gentlemen, Eye Control AF!!!

I still have--and use--my beloved 1v. Took it on 4 trips around the world. 140F in Death Valley. Minus 30 in the South American Andes. Never have had a hiccup or problem, 25 years running. If/when it ever dies, I will be heart-broken.

Link | Posted on Feb 16, 2017 at 00:41 UTC

Ilford HP-5. Not too far off from real life, it was one of my go-to films before discovering T-Max (which was better for my alternative developing . . . Lith printing rules!!!)

Link | Posted on Feb 10, 2017 at 05:58 UTC as 15th comment
On photo DSCF8563-1 in the Your City - Graveyard (B&W) challenge (4 comments in total)

Love the shot. Hate the lazy and meaningless title. . . sloppy and unprofessional (which is at odds with the high quality in the actual image).

Link | Posted on Feb 8, 2017 at 23:47 UTC as 1st comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

LEGACYMOMENTSPHOTOGRAPHY: Its nearly 1984................

"It's" (not its).
In our bleak dystopian future, spelling and grammar will be especially important. :-)

Link | Posted on Jan 23, 2017 at 07:45 UTC

As long as it can identify and locate a fire extinguisher after it explodes.
[edit: okay, lots of other people were already thinking along the same lines]

Link | Posted on Jan 23, 2017 at 07:43 UTC as 3rd comment
Total: 859, showing: 41 – 60
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »