dezinerd

dezinerd

Lives in United States North West,, IN, United States
Works as a retired
Joined on Apr 13, 2005
About me:

Nx300, EPl 1, OMDEM5.D70S, D200, D7100, D700 ,D5500

Comments

Total: 5, showing: 1 – 5
On article Throwback Thursday: the Olympus C-2100UZ (126 comments in total)

Was a great camera, I was relentless expecting more than it could give. It was sensitive to IR and the stabilized lens made handheld IR possible but not practical, but it was so new and fun to experiment. The lens is tack sharp, stabilization works well and it really shows its initial purchase price was value based. Used SM cards which were pricey. The lens was reported to be made by Canon? Not sure if that were true. I photographed an outdoor party with it a few years ago and it did a great job. The big zoom allowed great head shots with out being intrusive. Ironically its original AA batteries which I continued to use for powering flashes just gave up the ghost. They are from 2001. So nothing was skimped on by Oly and it is still functional. I thought it to be a perfect web cam in the dial up time period.

Link | Posted on Mar 11, 2017 at 08:59 UTC as 18th comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

h2k: Not sure what the reason was for promoting these snaps.

There seems to be a rush to destroy quality images in Photo journalism. The AGGag laws that can put you in prison for taking a photo of what you can see from a public area! Chicago Sun times lays off the whole photo dept. to be replaced by writers with I phones

A photo journalist ended the VietNam war with a photo of a child running naked after her clothes had been burnt off by Napalm. Our embedded journalist photogs can't provide that kind of image. What is happening in the world today cannot stand the close impersonal examination of a good camera and lens used by a competent photographer. Supposed anarchist at the Trade protest who were later identified as policemen. Subsequent confiscation of images by gov. Crappy images today no images tomorrow. Welcome to 1984.

Link | Posted on Jul 30, 2013 at 04:47 UTC

So it is probably about supression. There are photos that Carlisle Group does not want to be widely shown. Think about that if you took the shot of Oswald being shot the agency might not want to show it if Ruby were one of your other employees or a contractor to a company owned by your corporartion. Just using a hypothetical example. Suppose there is a shot that pins GHB to Dallas on the day he denies and admits he was there. So you can see the Getty pics might be worth much more than your sunset photos.FWIW

Link | Posted on Aug 17, 2012 at 07:15 UTC as 6th comment
In reply to:

Bruce kendall: For that kind of money you could do a lot better from an investment point of you.They must have money to waste?
Glad it aint my money

Just guessing this is not about pretty pictures but about the distrabution of certain photos. There is a multibillion dollar presidential election going on and probably the rightwing prowar interest wish to make sure certain photos are not used.
So what is worth a billion in the photo biz?
Mitts dog on the roof covered in excretment
W walking with a Torah in his hand
Paul Ryan photos
Mitt kicking back in Paris during the Viet Nam war..................
you get the idea it is not about showing photos but making sure they are not shown

Link | Posted on Aug 17, 2012 at 05:58 UTC
Total: 5, showing: 1 – 5