BobORama

BobORama

Lives in United States Allentown USA, Earth, United States
Works as a kernel application developer
Has a website at blog.trafficshaper.com
Joined on Jun 20, 2006
About me:

Find someone with a better plan, hit them over the head, steal their plan.

Comments

Total: 74, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous1234Next ›Last »
In reply to:

Michael McCulley: I volunteer at a 34,000 acre County Operated park in AZ, that includes close to 100 miles of trails, less than 10 miles of road ways, multiple campgrounds for RVs, Tents, along with scores of picnic areas. Elevations changes range up to 1800 feet. Often there are many thousands of people are in the park along with dogs, horses.. Wildlife includes Raptors, Mtn. Lions, along with other wild 4 legged species not to mention the other critters that comes with a desert environment. The park is located more than 30-40 minutes response by emergency vehicles. Drones are NOT ALLOWED. Although privacy issues abound at this park at any given time, the PRIMARY issue with drones is the fact that there are dozens of helicopter rescues we have each year. A large percentage are not announced and 99% of rescues are more than 45 minutes hiking distance away from any road access in addition to drive time getting to the park. Helicopter RESCUE protocols are hard & not negotiable > no DRONES !

I never knew helicopters were so fragile, just wait till the terrorists figure out they can be taken down by 18 ounces of menacing plastic you can buy at Target for $379.

Link | Posted on Mar 26, 2017 at 02:00 UTC

Show me an artist for hire and I will show you someone who compromises their vision.

Link | Posted on Jan 25, 2017 at 19:01 UTC as 6th comment | 4 replies
In reply to:

davesurrey: As someone who appreciates "old" technology and has enjoyed repairing many such devices over the years I greatly admire this gentleman.
However, these are NOT analogue cameras. They are FILM cameras. The opposite of digital may be considered analogue when we speak of computers but it's inappropriate and wrong when we are talking about such cameras.

When we talk of analog(ue) or digital photography we are referring to the primary method of storage of the images. Most, if not all, mass produced digital cameras capture and read out the image as ephemeral analog signals which are then digitized and stored in digital form.

A camera which embedded a mini wet lab and incinerator and negative scanner that scanned the negative and subsequent incinerated them would be a digital camera. A camera which encoded photographic informaton in a digital form on an edison cylinder is still a digital camera.

Then you have film cameras with computer controlled mechanisms. Digital? The exposure program is certainly digital.

While I appreciate the nostalgic approach, the commonly accepted nomenclature is there because people desire to make the distinction. 40 years from now, 2D still photography in general will probably seem like such an anachronism whatever remnants of this discussion will seem entirely laughable.

-- Bob

Link | Posted on Jan 3, 2017 at 22:13 UTC

So ... this was "protected" by a sign?

Link | Posted on Sep 22, 2016 at 03:13 UTC as 18th comment | 16 replies

I would, quite literally, risk a house fire with a defective Samsung product than give another dime to Apple for their uncreative intellectual thievery. I can always charge my samsung on an asbestos pad, the apple will still be just as crappy when its not on fire.

Link | Posted on Sep 14, 2016 at 13:59 UTC as 31st comment | 5 replies
In reply to:

BadScience: 3MP is good enough for a magazine cover?

That really depends upon your definition of what is "good enough". Say a magazine is printed at 150 lpi; then you are going to need at least 300 dpi to resolve the line screen. If the magazine is A4, then with bleed the the image is 2.6k x 3.6k pixels = 9.4 M pixels.

Sure, you can use a third of that, but it will look like mush. Might be "good enough" for the town's local free magazine that's printed on newspaper stock at 60 lpi.

Yeah, but Steve Jobs is God and Apple is Heaven, so whatever they do MUST be trendsetting.

Link | Posted on Sep 14, 2016 at 13:55 UTC

So it pretty much does what Samsung has been doing for 2+ years. Very innovative. Of course I can connect my samsung to a stereo with those old wire things old people use.

Link | Posted on Sep 12, 2016 at 13:53 UTC as 77th comment | 3 replies
In reply to:

mmcfine: Competition is good but honestly I don't understand what makes this lens any better then current available options?
I don't understand why someone will spend money on a lens that keeps "ghosting, color aberration and flare under control". Most of these issue can be corrected in post and the rest are characteristics of a lens and scene which makes photography what it is.

There are HUGE differences when it comes to astrophotography. CA cannot be corrected, as image data is lost since the colors do not share the same focal plane and so are slightly blurred. CA can be concealed. Coma is the more pressing issue. Coma is difficult to correct. The Samyang 14/2.8 has very well controlled coma for the price. If the Irix has similar performance AND accurate infinity focus AND so on, then its worth the price. Lenses which perform well for astro work also work well as general purpose lenses. at $300-something the Samyang is hard to beat. Time will tell...

Link | Posted on Sep 7, 2016 at 01:20 UTC
On article Hasselblad True Zoom Moto Mod hands-on preview (153 comments in total)

April Fools Day comes a bit early, or late, depending.

Link | Posted on Aug 31, 2016 at 19:40 UTC as 71st comment

I have never understood how this is such a popular specimen of his work. If someone were to post this to one of the DPR forums today, as a new work, it would be ripped apart for various compositional defects, blown highlights, and the central position of the moon. If it did not have the provenance of being one of his works, it would be an OK photo.

I like the video, however, its always good to see well respected artists in human form, rather than ethereal beings of pure thought that float around in art history tomes.

Link | Posted on Jun 28, 2016 at 15:28 UTC as 7th comment | 2 replies

With my basically free rig, hand operated and manually focused was good enough to produce 400 MP images of narrow stained glass panels. I have done some up to 4 gigapixels in size using a $300 telescope mounts pano mode to automate things.

Here you can see a hairline crack, 30 feet off the ground. Its not pretty pixel peeping, but its good enough. A $2000 AF 180mm Macro lens would have made this nearly perfect - I didn't have that, however. It took about 30 minutes, same as Google - all without the quadrillion dollar multi-national spy apparatus.

http://goo.gl/ULGtp2

Shift Click to zoom out Click to zoom in, the rest ask a teenager.

Link | Posted on May 19, 2016 at 21:44 UTC as 10th comment | 1 reply

Dear DPR,

On several D810 studio test shot images, I note signs of in-camera sharpening - some of these are visible in your own studio scene. I though this was an artifact some perceptual issue on my part. But on looking at the frequency component of an FFT, you can see something is not quite right. You also see it on fat pixel scaled crops - where the perceptual issues are removed from the equation, and you can see the ringing. These manifest themselves as lighter outlines on dark lines. Its a ringing pattern typical of sharpening algorithms, one that I would not expect to be present in a 100 ISO RAW file.

Thanks.

-- Bob

Link | Posted on May 5, 2016 at 22:02 UTC as 128th comment
On article Polaroid-branded BrightSaber Pro wand packs 298 LEDs (41 comments in total)

LUMENS? WATTAGE? Some measure of luminous flux? The flashlights at WalMart provide more information on their package.

Link | Posted on Mar 5, 2016 at 17:33 UTC as 3rd comment
In reply to:

Nereo: Um... I'm beginning to think we need a new standard other than "ISO" to measure light sensitivity.

ISO came from the sensitivity of coated glass collodian plates (ISO ~1 !) Then came the films, and it was still easy to keep track that ISO 100 was 4x as sensitive as ISO 25. But now we've got cameras with ISO 102,400 and now 4 million?! Quick: how many stops between 1600 and 102,400?

Since camera sensitivities now exceed two orders of magnitude, why not have a sensitivity measurement that matches? e.g. ISO 100 = 1, 200 = 2, 400 = 3, 1600 = 4... each double the previous level in sensitivity.
This new camera exceeds "16" on our sensitivity scale!

Suntan,

In the end you can sugar coat shutter speed, sensitivity, and aperture in whatever way you like and they will still be confusing to people who can't do basic math. There have been many attempts at this simplification over the decades to varying degrees. But magically millions of photographers managed to do this - as evidenced by billions of photos taken prior to automatic exposure.

As for these things being "nerd stuff" that is equine excrement.

That would be like saying that measuring cups and temperature settings on an oven are obstacles to learning how to bake a cake. Or having to know how to use a torque wrench is an affect imposed upon us by the vast right wing mechanics conspiracy.

Why not argue that thermometers are too complicated. Why not just have 3 temperatures: ice, fire, and and tepid - like your argument.

How to make a cake:

Pile up some ingredients, preheat oven to "fire" and bake for some unspecified amount of time - because cakes are magic!

Link | Posted on Jul 30, 2015 at 18:34 UTC

The cartoon is fine - at least it took some talent.

Link | Posted on Jul 15, 2015 at 01:28 UTC as 45th comment | 1 reply
On article Canon warns about dangers of counterfeit camera gear (154 comments in total)

Another victimless crime. Canon charges premium prices for a product made in China. Customers got a "better deal" by saving a few bucks on the counterfeit.

When a thief thieves a thief, God laughs. In this case, twice.

Link | Posted on Jul 3, 2015 at 01:45 UTC as 50th comment | 3 replies
In reply to:

CharlesB58: Well, it's obvious some of the comments posted here are not only made by people who are not working music photographers, but not working photographers at all. The return a photographer gets of a given use of a photo is usually a fraction of what the record label saves with their unlimited use provisions. If you know the industry, you know that labels do all they can to screw their own artists out of money. The greed factor trickles down hill and is often disguised as Intellectual Property Rights.

I've dealt first hand with musicians who loudly protest the idea of of not receiving fair compensation for performances or distribution of recordings then tell me with a smile that they want to use my photos "for credit". I smile back and point out that I am every bit the professional they are. Sometimes we then agree on a usage fee. Other times they resort to using crappy smartphone photos taken by people who are thrilled to get their names on the artist's website.

Many times an artist would like to use my photos, but his/her contract requires approval by his/her label's publicity department. Dealing with those people, who are the ones who come up with the crappy photo contracts, is like undergoing dental work without anesthesia, unless you are already on their approved list.

So please, if you aren't an actual music photographer, consider that your comments don't have much weight in this discussion.

Thanks for what is a truly refreshing level of intellectual honesty!

Link | Posted on Jun 26, 2015 at 19:32 UTC
In reply to:

CharlesB58: Well, it's obvious some of the comments posted here are not only made by people who are not working music photographers, but not working photographers at all. The return a photographer gets of a given use of a photo is usually a fraction of what the record label saves with their unlimited use provisions. If you know the industry, you know that labels do all they can to screw their own artists out of money. The greed factor trickles down hill and is often disguised as Intellectual Property Rights.

I've dealt first hand with musicians who loudly protest the idea of of not receiving fair compensation for performances or distribution of recordings then tell me with a smile that they want to use my photos "for credit". I smile back and point out that I am every bit the professional they are. Sometimes we then agree on a usage fee. Other times they resort to using crappy smartphone photos taken by people who are thrilled to get their names on the artist's website.

Many times an artist would like to use my photos, but his/her contract requires approval by his/her label's publicity department. Dealing with those people, who are the ones who come up with the crappy photo contracts, is like undergoing dental work without anesthesia, unless you are already on their approved list.

So please, if you aren't an actual music photographer, consider that your comments don't have much weight in this discussion.

Perhaps you need your own forum to whine about the deficiencies of your chosen profession's revenue model. If you don't don't like an agreement, don't enter into it. Its that simple. The fact is that "photographers" are a dime a dozen - and so its a buyers market.

To try to convince the unwashed masses you are part of a special / protected class of creative artist who deserves something better - that's clearly not true. Otherwise you could name your terms.

If you are taking pictures for hire, then you are an employee. If you want to be an artist, I recommend being financial independent first. Then you won't have to soil yourself with being beholden to your patrons. Until then, either sign your life away or not.

But the moment you take a dime for your work, its transmutation to a product has begun, and instead of an artists you are a craftsman. And further down the road, a factory worker - liek the rest of us slobs.

Link | Posted on Jun 26, 2015 at 19:28 UTC

Slow news day?

Link | Posted on Jun 25, 2015 at 23:57 UTC as 29th comment
Total: 74, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous1234Next ›Last »