santamonica812

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

Comments

Total: 955, showing: 61 – 80
« First‹ Previous23456Next ›Last »
In reply to:

santamonica812: How does a polarizing filter work in an environment (here, on a drone) where it's not possible to turn the filter to get the desired result? On my SLRs and DSLRs, of course, I just turn the filter while looking through the viewfinder, until I get a result that I like. I'm not understanding how it would possibly work on a drone. (For the prices quoted, it would impossible to imagine that the filter is complex enough so that it receives a wireless signal and has a built-in motor, to revolve the filter via the user's remote control device.)

Thanks for the comments, guys. You're right; I was automatically thinking of a circular polarizer. That's all I've ever used for my SLR cameras. But I guess if there is a circular polarizer, then it stands to reason that there are also non-turnings ones (as TravelFor suggested). I'm not sure how these non-turning ones work. But there must be a use for them, since they--apparently--are indeed sold.

[update: Google tells me that the 'other' is a linear polarizer and might work well on a drone...assuming the drone's camera system is sophisticated enough to adjust for the 1.5-2 stops of lost exposure.]

https://luminous-landscape.com/polarizers/

Link | Posted on Feb 3, 2018 at 21:27 UTC

How does a polarizing filter work in an environment (here, on a drone) where it's not possible to turn the filter to get the desired result? On my SLRs and DSLRs, of course, I just turn the filter while looking through the viewfinder, until I get a result that I like. I'm not understanding how it would possibly work on a drone. (For the prices quoted, it would impossible to imagine that the filter is complex enough so that it receives a wireless signal and has a built-in motor, to revolve the filter via the user's remote control device.)

Link | Posted on Jan 31, 2018 at 22:40 UTC as 1st comment | 5 replies
On article Canon patents fingerprint reader for cameras and lenses (191 comments in total)
In reply to:

Richard Murdey: Having to unlock your camera to use it is unnecessary and inconvenient, a bad idea for more-or-less the same set of reasons as why putting biometric locks on firearms is a bad idea.

Sop,
Answer: Zero.

Bresson never shot a single photograph from bed, when just waking up. Every single one of his photographs was taken when he was up and about. In other words, LONG after he would have unlocked all his camera equipment for the day. :-)

Link | Posted on Jan 30, 2018 at 04:44 UTC
On article Canon patents fingerprint reader for cameras and lenses (191 comments in total)
In reply to:

brycesteiner: would the monkey not be able to take his own picture now?

Thread-winner

Link | Posted on Jan 30, 2018 at 03:34 UTC
On article Canon patents fingerprint reader for cameras and lenses (191 comments in total)
In reply to:

Richard Murdey: Having to unlock your camera to use it is unnecessary and inconvenient, a bad idea for more-or-less the same set of reasons as why putting biometric locks on firearms is a bad idea.

Well, it seems like a great idea on any firearm not used for personal protection. No rush at all with a hunting rifle, target pistol, etc. YMMV.

But I don't see the analogy. Most people are talking about needing to "unlock" the camera and/or lens(es) once a day, right? You wake up on a day you're going to go shooting, you unlock your cameras and lenses that you'll be using, and you're done for the day. About a million miles from 'inconvenient,' from my perspective.

(My objections are much more along the line of: What happens when this malfunctions while I'm in Easter Island, or Antarctica, or on an African safari? Is there a way for me to bypass this security if there is this malfunction? And if there is, then won't thieves just use that bypass?)

Link | Posted on Jan 30, 2018 at 03:33 UTC
In reply to:

photoMEETING: Hopefully photos in RAW.

Can't believe the article forgot to mention this critical fact.

Link | Posted on Jan 22, 2018 at 21:46 UTC
On article This is the world's first variable graduated ND filter (150 comments in total)
In reply to:

munn1: I'll stick with Lightroom grad in post.. One reason is you can brush out the effect where you don't want it. You can also adjust white balance, contrast etc to specific parts of the image. This is only my thought on it and not necessarily the best way, but I'm already paying for it.

Lightroom (and PhotoShop, et al) can do a great job, IF, the detail info is in the file. If the sky is too blown out, then all the post-processing in the world won't work...you can't manipulate information that is simply not there. That's the main reason (in my experience) to use these types of filters. When the dynamic range is just too great in a scene, filtering "calms" the highlights and allows the sensor/film to get it all (or, at least, much more than w/o the filter). If we have all the data, we can work our post-processing magic, play with exposure times and filtering if printing in a wet darkroom, etc.

Link | Posted on Jan 19, 2018 at 22:49 UTC

Looks like a nice phone. I'd be willing to pay 200-300 for one. The idea of paying 800 sounds crazy to me. (But then, I'm old enough to want my phone to make calls, receive calls, check my email, and take a decent photo. Cannot imagine paying more for a smartphone than for an very nice mid-level DSLR)

Link | Posted on Jan 17, 2018 at 00:04 UTC as 48th comment

The announcement (and this article) forgot to mention if this will shoot RAW.

For serious photographers (and videographers??), this is a critical point. Is it just that we don't have the info yet? Or is it possible that the company itself forgot to give this hugely important detail in the announcement???

Link | Posted on Jan 11, 2018 at 22:00 UTC as 27th comment | 3 replies

Some of the images were really lovely. But some of them seemed downright mediocre. I usually can get inside the heads of contest judges, but not for a few of the images . . .

My 2 cents worth only, of course. :-)

Link | Posted on Jan 11, 2018 at 03:44 UTC as 15th comment
On article Review: Rylo is a 360º camera done right (81 comments in total)

With a good underwater housing, I sort of drool at the idea of being able to scuba dive in areas where there are fish all around you, and only later making the editorial decisions.

Link | Posted on Jan 5, 2018 at 02:19 UTC as 22nd comment
In reply to:

santamonica812: I think it sucks. Or, at least, it's unworkable for beginners. I could not figure out how to even import images into the program. Easy to navigate around and select my main photo folder. But hitting "open" did nothing.

For experts, maybe this program works great. Or maybe it works well enough. But for me, it failed the most basic of tests: Can I intuitively get my images into the program, to see how well the other part of DarkTable work?

Nope. Back to my reliable old Lightroom for me.

Not that it matters: I have PS CS5, not CS4. (edit button was not working well for me, today. :-(

Link | Posted on Dec 29, 2017 at 19:02 UTC
In reply to:

santamonica812: I think it sucks. Or, at least, it's unworkable for beginners. I could not figure out how to even import images into the program. Easy to navigate around and select my main photo folder. But hitting "open" did nothing.

For experts, maybe this program works great. Or maybe it works well enough. But for me, it failed the most basic of tests: Can I intuitively get my images into the program, to see how well the other part of DarkTable work?

Nope. Back to my reliable old Lightroom for me.

. . .
. . . so, if Darktable ends up not working for me at all, it is no big deal. I love the idea of not being subject to Adobe's new ransomware, so I am happy to see freeware alternatives.

And, if enough people support this, I am confident that things will improve and that it will not be a frustrating/miserable experience for at least some of us Windows users.

We're Beta testers, in essence, and poor performance is probably par for the course, at this early stage of development. It's good that I gave my experience. (Beta testing is worthless without honest feedback) And I look forward to future improved versions. That's sort of how technology works, yes? :-)

Link | Posted on Dec 29, 2017 at 18:33 UTC
In reply to:

santamonica812: I think it sucks. Or, at least, it's unworkable for beginners. I could not figure out how to even import images into the program. Easy to navigate around and select my main photo folder. But hitting "open" did nothing.

For experts, maybe this program works great. Or maybe it works well enough. But for me, it failed the most basic of tests: Can I intuitively get my images into the program, to see how well the other part of DarkTable work?

Nope. Back to my reliable old Lightroom for me.

HowAbout,
I am trying to import cr2 files (ie, from my ancient but wonderful Canon 20D), TIFF files, and a few PSD files that I have not yet changed over to TIFF. So, nothing approaching "new" or exotic. :-)

I'll note that, not only did my efforts not succeed yesterday, but the program gobbled up so much of my RAM (32 GB on my Windows 10 desktop), that every other program slowed to a crawl. I had attempted to type out this response last night, but the keystrokes lagged about 7-15 seconds behind, and I eventually gave up.

I have PS CS4, which has been working just fine for me. And I also bought Lightroom 4.4, which also is okay (LR was always more buggy and temperamental than PS).

So, I was and am happy to play around with Darktable. Especially when I take my next big trip, which will mean I finally do my major upgrade to my digital camera--some version of the 7D or the 5D, I expect . . . and will then need programs that can handle those newer RAW formats.
. . . . . . . . .

Link | Posted on Dec 29, 2017 at 18:30 UTC
In reply to:

santamonica812: I think it sucks. Or, at least, it's unworkable for beginners. I could not figure out how to even import images into the program. Easy to navigate around and select my main photo folder. But hitting "open" did nothing.

For experts, maybe this program works great. Or maybe it works well enough. But for me, it failed the most basic of tests: Can I intuitively get my images into the program, to see how well the other part of DarkTable work?

Nope. Back to my reliable old Lightroom for me.

1. Selected Import
2. Clicked on "Folder" (upper left of screen). Navigated to main folder (ie, the one that holds all my photography digital files. Highlighted that folder.
3. Clicked on "Open" (lower right of screen)
4. Waited. For a hour or two. Nothing.

hurumph :-(

Link | Posted on Dec 29, 2017 at 06:24 UTC

I think it sucks. Or, at least, it's unworkable for beginners. I could not figure out how to even import images into the program. Easy to navigate around and select my main photo folder. But hitting "open" did nothing.

For experts, maybe this program works great. Or maybe it works well enough. But for me, it failed the most basic of tests: Can I intuitively get my images into the program, to see how well the other part of DarkTable work?

Nope. Back to my reliable old Lightroom for me.

Link | Posted on Dec 29, 2017 at 00:12 UTC as 27th comment | 10 replies
In reply to:

ZeBebito: With all due respect, what's the point sharing content from other people/platforms? This video was posted by Kai 2 weeks ago. Old news already.

ZB,
God, I hope people don't limit themselves to DPR for their photography news. Since my photography passion (and my main photography-based source of income) is fine are Lith printing in a darkroom, DPR obviously has little relevance to most of my own work.

Thomartin,
I (respectfully) disagree with you. I think DPR is to write news about photography AND to aggregate news from other sources. If it does its job well, then they get lots of eyeballs. For the original articles and ALSO for compiling a list of articles, reviews, etc that its core audience finds appealing.

I, personally, think it's great that DPR acts as sort of a clearinghouse for articles. And the other 5-10 photography websites I regularly visit do the same thing. Some do it more successfully than others, some less successfully. Some are free, some are behind a paywall, and some are a mix of the two.

Vive la difference! :-)

Link | Posted on Dec 27, 2017 at 01:22 UTC
In reply to:

ZeBebito: With all due respect, what's the point sharing content from other people/platforms? This video was posted by Kai 2 weeks ago. Old news already.

Um, this is a photography website, so it shares news relating to photography and to photography-related equipment. Many people may not have heard of the original story. (Me, for instance!) Now, I don't *care* about this particular story, as it happens.

But for you to whine about a site sharing stories from other sites seems misplaced. Unless a site makes the claim that "All our stories are original.", I fail to see the problem. If a story shows up that does not interest you, then ignore it. If you see a story that you've seen elsewhere, then ignore it.

DPR has gone way downhill, IMO; so I'm not reflexively defending it. Just this particular situation. :-)

Link | Posted on Dec 26, 2017 at 22:02 UTC
In reply to:

Eleson: "No photo shoots" is far away from photography ban.
I think those who wrote the sign knew the difference.
Does the writer of this article know the difference?

Yes, the article makes it crystal-clear that the writer understood the difference. Many in the viewing public, however, seem to have conflated the two, (As did many who get most of their news from social media, which is 100% expected, alas.)

Link | Posted on Dec 25, 2017 at 05:37 UTC
In reply to:

The Name is Bond: Surely he could get reprints done in a sensible time-frame (ie, after a few weeks of no show). Then he should have billed them for that and related costs. After all, he knew he had been turned down.

Of course, they should have been upfront. But 75k for prints??!?! hmmm.

It all seems quite unbusinesslike on both sides. The Court's ruling appears, at face value, disproportionate. Maybe there are some details missing from this story. Were they daguerreotypes?

Even discounting his unwillingness to reprint, he should only have been given compensation for loss of earnings within a sensible time-frame (on a rental basis) and reprint costs. I can't imagine that would come to 75K.

2.
. . . Of course, I do see the merits of your argument. If, for example, a thumbdrive with digital images had been lost, and there were backup digital copies--it would be crazy to have to pay more than the cost of the thumb drive.

But for actual prints??? I dunno....

Link | Posted on Dec 21, 2017 at 00:14 UTC
Total: 955, showing: 61 – 80
« First‹ Previous23456Next ›Last »