wetsleet

Joined on May 4, 2004

Comments

Total: 704, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

XEddieX: After my Note4 finally died last week I just couldn't fathom buying and eye watering $800-1k phone. They are just getting so expensive now. I know they have some nice features, but I just don't see the value anymore. I stuck with with the Samsung S7 Edge. Plenty fast still, good size battery, great feeling materials and still takes great pictures. Oh and it still has a 3.5 audio jack (and yes I use it plenty of times per week). Guess spec wars are just not that appealing to me anymore.

I made the same reckoning as you, so when my Note 4 died I got it fixed. Even though it was over 2 years old and I love a decent excuse to buy a new shiny toy, I just could not muster the excitement. (Samsung did the decent thing and fixed it for free, after a bit of prodding).

Link | Posted on Nov 3, 2017 at 17:28 UTC

A "large 6-inch display"? Is that bigger than a regular 6-inch display?

Link | Posted on Nov 3, 2017 at 17:24 UTC as 7th comment | 3 replies
In reply to:

filmrescue: When I'm photographing women, I'm hyper conscious of and respectful of her space. If going to touch her at all to move her into a pose, I ask and let her know what I'm trying to achieve and I touch nowhere "out of bounds" or even near to that. Why are people defending this clown here. Not only do models need to be treat with respect simply from the standpoint of decency, Richardson only makes all of our jobs more difficult when gaining the trust of a model. Terry Richardson is amongst the worst of humanity. To hell with him.

@ptox you misunderstand me. I was agreeing that claims need to be proved. If someone claims women made up a story of sexual assault against them, then that needs proof. Likewise if a woman makes a claim of sexial assault against her, that also needs proof. You can't have an asymmetry of standards. Seems obvious, but there is so much commentry about how "the victim should be believed", when the "victim" is what needs to be proved.

Link | Posted on Oct 28, 2017 at 07:00 UTC
In reply to:

filmrescue: When I'm photographing women, I'm hyper conscious of and respectful of her space. If going to touch her at all to move her into a pose, I ask and let her know what I'm trying to achieve and I touch nowhere "out of bounds" or even near to that. Why are people defending this clown here. Not only do models need to be treat with respect simply from the standpoint of decency, Richardson only makes all of our jobs more difficult when gaining the trust of a model. Terry Richardson is amongst the worst of humanity. To hell with him.

@ptox
"prove it"
Cuts both ways.

Link | Posted on Oct 27, 2017 at 23:28 UTC
In reply to:

NDT0001: What a joke this is. His entire career is based upon on this type of conduct. And now all of a sudden the fashion industry is running for cover to avoid guilt by association? He never made any attempts to hide his methods and results yet he’s been hired by these publications for years. In a lot of ways I applauded him for at least being transparent about his position. On the other hand you have The magazines and blogs who feed off his perversity and now wish to take the moral high ground only because it may affect their readership. No prospective model can ever claim that they didn’t know what kind of material he produces and the methods he uses to achieve it no matter how young or naive.

@fatdeeman
"If you do a google image search for "Terry Richardson" you will not see much in the way of pornography in the results. Go try it now."

Uh, I just did what you advised. Maybe your threshold is higher than mine, but what I saw was definitely pornographic. Fluids, organs, the whole 9 yards. OK, I used Duckduckgo. And yeah, you have to remove "safesearch", obviously.

"It doesn't really matter how famous his sexual photos are, it doesn't make it ok to sexually exploit people!"

I'm guessing now, but I'm assuming these photos ARE the sexual exploitation.

Link | Posted on Oct 27, 2017 at 23:20 UTC
In reply to:

filmrescue: When I'm photographing women, I'm hyper conscious of and respectful of her space. If going to touch her at all to move her into a pose, I ask and let her know what I'm trying to achieve and I touch nowhere "out of bounds" or even near to that. Why are people defending this clown here. Not only do models need to be treat with respect simply from the standpoint of decency, Richardson only makes all of our jobs more difficult when gaining the trust of a model. Terry Richardson is amongst the worst of humanity. To hell with him.

What exactly is he accused of? Details seem to be long on implication and short on detail. All I have read is that he "has been dogged for years by allegations of sexual exploitation of models". But what is this "exploitation"? Is is him taking sexual liberties with the models, exploiting the photographic scene beyond the requirements of the images? Is it him pushing the envelope of the image beyond what they signed up for, and then publishing regardless? Or what?

Link | Posted on Oct 27, 2017 at 22:34 UTC
On article Nikon's official D850 lens recommendation list (310 comments in total)
In reply to:

beavertown: Why no mention of any Sigma and Tamron at all. Totally biased recommendation.

"Did you just create another 2 accounts? Try harder!"

Well, s/he didn't create my account, and I upvoted. Beavertown is absolutely correct, the list is totally biassed. That such is to be expected of a manufacturer does not detract from the truth of the fact. Should we overlook, accept or condone the obvious and expected bias just because it is so - well - obvious and expected?

Link | Posted on Oct 12, 2017 at 18:57 UTC
In reply to:

BrightTiger: "unlimited" - not "unending".
If you are shocked or reacting negatively, let's wise up.
Storage and throughput are still huge issues for electronics and communications industries. There are no magic pills for consumers or businesses.
At best, you can score deals and features to mitigate the short term.
Caveat emptor, folks. And to that, Buyer Have Reasonable Expectations.

"unlimited" er, but "time limited". There, fixed it for you.

Nothing wrong in what you say about magic pills, etc. Nothing wrong in providers acknowledging those truths either. But "unlimited" is fast catching up with "free" as the most abused word in the marketing lexicon.

Link | Posted on Oct 10, 2017 at 18:32 UTC
In reply to:

Julio Sánchez: I think that there are a quality loss. Anybody agree?

Yes. Not only is the video footage smoother, so is the tarmac.

Link | Posted on Oct 6, 2017 at 20:05 UTC
On article The Nikon D850 could be the only DSLR you’ll ever need (1100 comments in total)
In reply to:

Island Golfer: But, I already have the only camera I'll ever need. Isn't that what I was told when I bought the D810?

sure, still true, so you don't need a D850. Nothing contradictory in there being more than one camera each of which could be the only one you'd ever need.

Link | Posted on Sep 26, 2017 at 21:03 UTC
In reply to:

Franglais91: A NAS is a shoebox attached that you stick in a corner somewhere attached to your home/office network that you use to hold your files fairly securely i.e. if a disk goes down then you don't lose your files because there's another disk that has a copy of the data.
- It's like the Cloud except that access speeds and volumes are much greater/faster than the Cloud
- Like the Cloud it's NOT a backup solution. If you delete a file by mistake it's gone

I have one SYNOLOGY NAS for my precious data and another one to backup the first NAS. Plus I also have a second backup of the NAS on external hard drives stored in a facility 50km away which I refresh every 3 months (I live next to an air base with helicopters overflying every day)

Totally missed nothing. The OP is categorical (through use of CAPITALS) that a NAS is NOT a backup solution, and yet merrily goes on to show that it can precisely be a backup solution. Clearly a NAS is what you make of it, and stating categorically that it is NOT what you choose to use it for is comical.

Link | Posted on Sep 23, 2017 at 14:06 UTC
In reply to:

Franglais91: A NAS is a shoebox attached that you stick in a corner somewhere attached to your home/office network that you use to hold your files fairly securely i.e. if a disk goes down then you don't lose your files because there's another disk that has a copy of the data.
- It's like the Cloud except that access speeds and volumes are much greater/faster than the Cloud
- Like the Cloud it's NOT a backup solution. If you delete a file by mistake it's gone

I have one SYNOLOGY NAS for my precious data and another one to backup the first NAS. Plus I also have a second backup of the NAS on external hard drives stored in a facility 50km away which I refresh every 3 months (I live next to an air base with helicopters overflying every day)

"... [NAS is] NOT a backup solution...

I have [another] SYNOLOGY NAS ... to backup..."

Nothing like contradicting yourself right off the bat.

Link | Posted on Sep 22, 2017 at 20:39 UTC
In reply to:

AbrasiveReducer: Still big and heavy but I love the concept. Tamron built a business around super zooms and they weren't even sharp, so obviously there is a market for an all-in-one lens you never have to change.

Imagine packing for a trip with just one good camera, batteries and done. And remember most camera buyers are are not pros, they're people on vacation. First, the airlines crack down on what they can carry. Then, they're part of a tour group and don't have time to change lenses. Not to mention, they woudn't be carrying anything close to 600mm, anyway.

To Marty who asked why somebody would spend this much and carry this much just to avoid changing lenses, I would say: dust, wind, water, speed of operation, no need to mess with multiple filter sizes, less stuff to carry, etc. I'm curious to see if they can squeeze any more out of that sensor.

@SELES you missed footnote number 12:
"Not guaranteed to be 100% dust and moisture proof."
Pumping that volume of air, sooner or later dust is going to get in. I just didn't find anything that says how you can then deal with it. Does it have a sensor shake dust removal, or something? Remember, with dust, anything less than 100% does matter - one spec is probably only 0.000whatever%, but stuck to your sensor with no means of removal it is a right pain.

Link | Posted on Sep 13, 2017 at 20:04 UTC
In reply to:

AbrasiveReducer: Still big and heavy but I love the concept. Tamron built a business around super zooms and they weren't even sharp, so obviously there is a market for an all-in-one lens you never have to change.

Imagine packing for a trip with just one good camera, batteries and done. And remember most camera buyers are are not pros, they're people on vacation. First, the airlines crack down on what they can carry. Then, they're part of a tour group and don't have time to change lenses. Not to mention, they woudn't be carrying anything close to 600mm, anyway.

To Marty who asked why somebody would spend this much and carry this much just to avoid changing lenses, I would say: dust, wind, water, speed of operation, no need to mess with multiple filter sizes, less stuff to carry, etc. I'm curious to see if they can squeeze any more out of that sensor.

Well, yes, except for the dust bit. That lens barrel is going to pump the dust bigly. And no way to remove it once it settles. Or is there? Are there any effective dust defences?

Link | Posted on Sep 12, 2017 at 18:04 UTC

he wasn't using a Zenit Photosniper was he?

Link | Posted on Sep 6, 2017 at 19:12 UTC as 50th comment
In reply to:

jhinkey: Good that they were charged and even better if they face some stiff penalties.

Now for the comments from those that think that what they did was acceptable in some way . . .

Taking their gear was probably to prevent them from reaping any benefit from their recklessness. Once the pictures would be on the web, they would get the kudos they wanted for their stunt, and would doubtless inspire other equally impressionable and immature minds to similar heights of stupidity.

Link | Posted on Aug 31, 2017 at 20:09 UTC
In reply to:

David Bo: It don't make sense to choose such a heavy camera for space. It's expensive to lift it up in space and cost extra fuel and other payloads.

@JK
No gravity in space? Um, I suppose they use a long string to keep everything in orbit up there?

Link | Posted on Aug 27, 2017 at 08:12 UTC
In reply to:

Michiel953: Looking at the number of comments here it is abundantly clear the death of the DSLR is imminent.

you know, there is an 'edit' button!

Link | Posted on Jul 27, 2017 at 08:08 UTC
In reply to:

RubberDials: 'If genuine'. LOL.

For the people who haven't quite got it. DPreview isn't reproducing rumours here, they're telling you without telling you. See the 'wishlist'...

Well, DPR are usually up to their necks in NDAs for any advanced hard info.

So either it is just rumour-mongering click-bait (can DPR really have fallen that low?), or it's like you say, and DPR are being used to soften up the public, or test the waters for Nikon - shall we/shan't we delete the flash?

Link | Posted on Jul 27, 2017 at 08:03 UTC
In reply to:

Photoman: It doesn't look mirrorless :(

"pull a rabbit out of the hate"
Nice Freudian slip, in this era of mirror/less antagonism!

Link | Posted on Jul 27, 2017 at 07:57 UTC
Total: 704, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »