Michael J Davis

Michael J Davis

Lives in United Kingdom Rochdale, United Kingdom
Works as a Retired
Has a website at www.trustsof.co.uk
Joined on Mar 28, 2007

Comments

Total: 102, showing: 81 – 100
« First‹ Previous3456Next ›Last »
On article Breaking the Rules (141 comments in total)
In reply to:

alfredo_tomato: Sit on the floor and look up at the people around you. That is why a kid draws a face with the eyes above the center.

Brilliant observation! :-)

Link | Posted on Nov 12, 2012 at 11:43 UTC
On article Just deployed: New dpreview.com forums system (693 comments in total)

Yesterday the blue didn't change to show what had been read. Then I found yellow scheme, which did.

Today the blue changes, but I can't switch to yellow - which I prefer.

For goodness sakes, can't you get it right?!!

Mike

Link | Posted on Oct 5, 2012 at 10:40 UTC as 111th comment

How can you resist those knobs? :-)

Alas! When a well-respected company produces an up-market product based on image alone, then I fear the end is coming!

Link | Posted on Sep 18, 2012 at 16:13 UTC as 361st comment
On article Compositional Rules (120 comments in total)

Some of the principles outlines are fine. But what matters in composition is how the eyes (or strictly eye-brain) of the observer are led around the composition. I have always (over 50 years anyway) understood that the 'thirds rule' is an approximation of the golden mean. And all that means is that pleasing compositions often - not always - match some of the 'rules'.

What none of this means is that following the rules will generate a 'good' picture. In any case, we photographers try to convey a range of emotions in and through our pictures. often we require tensions between parts of the picture, often the contraposition of elements close together creates a visual conflict.

The so called 'rules' may help for getting chocolate box images, but my advice is ask yourself "B****r the rules; does this picture lead the observer's eyes where I want them to go?"!

I look forward to the article about 'breaking the rules'! ;-)

Mike

Link | Posted on Aug 22, 2012 at 13:01 UTC as 19th comment | 1 reply

I've been using Flickr for nearly 7 years with some 3400 photos on view. At first I enjoyed the friendly interplay between users, but I have been tired of the 'post 1 / award 5' mentality that increasingly seems to be trying to get scores.

I have sold photos from Flickr, and allowed specific Charities to use many others. The problem has been its popularity and the need to be everything to everybody.

But then I'm a *photographer* - who wants or is able to look at photos on an iPhone or smartphone?

And Flickr - with Flickriver and other extensions - IS pretty awsome!

Mike
(Flickr.com/photos/watchman)

Link | Posted on Jul 20, 2012 at 12:07 UTC as 53rd comment
On article User Guide: Getting the most out of the Olympus E-M5 (272 comments in total)
In reply to:

fivetonsflax: Anyone know a combination of settings which will let me wear the camera, turned on, eye sensor enabled, without draining the battery super quick?

Or a way to disable the eye sensor without forcing the EVF to mode 3?

I got my camera on Monday, and it's been a busy week anyway. So I'm just trying to set the thing up. To avoid battery drain I've switched off eye-sensor and use the evf for continual use with a time out of around one-minute. Then to see through it, I've only got to half press the shutter release. When I go into review the screen comes on. I can switch back to evf by pressing the evf button.

I think that will work for me; but what's mode 3?

Link | Posted on May 26, 2012 at 16:33 UTC

Lovely! Wish I could afford one...

With even more increased quality, I wonder if the DoF scale is being adjusted to reflect smaller cocs?

Link | Posted on May 11, 2012 at 10:18 UTC as 35th comment
On article Flickr poised for much-needed interface improvements (81 comments in total)

I suppose the Flickr hang-ons like FlickRiver will still be there for those who dislike the new layout...
M.

Link | Posted on Feb 22, 2012 at 17:11 UTC as 22nd comment
On article Flickr poised for much-needed interface improvements (81 comments in total)
In reply to:

Jim Salvas: I hope they keep it simple. Forgetting the KISS rule is the most common mistake websites make when trying to improve.

For me, the one change I'd like to see is to allow me to choose all photos shown on the first page of my photostream. Last first is not often what I want to show.

Excellent point! I quite agree!

Link | Posted on Feb 22, 2012 at 17:04 UTC
On article Hands-on with the Olympus OM-D E-M5 (207 comments in total)
In reply to:

Optical1: Literally checks every box on my list. Now if only Olympus would make black 12mm and 45mm primes I'd be in 7th heaven!

I've put black insulating tape on my 45mm, just as I did with all my old Leica lenses (before they introduced black variants). Not for show, for invisibility!

Link | Posted on Feb 22, 2012 at 11:59 UTC

It seems to me that there are two principles involved:-

1. The infringement occurs because the photographer *set out* to produce a similar image, i.e. effectively to copy the first. In that the judgement is fair.

2. The judge referred to the similarities quoting Schindler's List as a prior example of spot colour. Now copyright is NOT Patent Law, but in the latter, it is possible to quote 'prior art' as an example to object to a patent. Well, many of us were doing 'spot colour' before Schindler's List; and I would have thought that was a contra-argument against the infringement in this case.

I have to say that I'm in agreement with Jane Lambert in her analysis. And we need to be. Ideas are great and I'm happy to credit those who inspire me for their prior art; but I'm still wanting to follow them until I can produce my own original stuff!

Will there be an appeal, I wonder?

Link | Posted on Jan 26, 2012 at 16:51 UTC as 90th comment | 11 replies
On article King Camera v2.5 - iOS App Review (33 comments in total)

Just curious - what iPad or other device has a focal length able to take the photo of Admiralty Arch from that distance? (And from where, a helicopter?)

Link | Posted on Jan 7, 2012 at 11:31 UTC as 15th comment | 3 replies
On article Introduction to Documentary-style People Photography (67 comments in total)

Nice short article providing an introduction to various aspects of photo reportage. I enjoyed it, thanks.

M.

Link | Posted on Dec 23, 2011 at 22:33 UTC as 43rd comment
On article Buyer's Guide: 10 Home Studio Lighting Kits (97 comments in total)

Strobes on the first three pages have cycle times noted. It would be nice if that continued through the more upmarket units.

[I wanted to know if they would be consistent with say, 3 shots per second bursts.]

Link | Posted on Dec 16, 2011 at 23:01 UTC as 35th comment

I eventually got it from Rapidshare yesterday - out of interest I downloaded it again 10 seconds ago!

It's a brilliant book!

Mike

Link | Posted on Dec 12, 2011 at 10:43 UTC as 92nd comment

Thanks for the alternative site - looks good!

Link | Posted on Dec 11, 2011 at 13:24 UTC as 216th comment
On article The 15 Minute Makeover: Photoshop Beauty Retouching (168 comments in total)

Great article - although I only use Elements 5, everything except channels can be done there (though they can be emulated). Good reminder of various techniques, I learned a few new tricks. (Especially the 'claw', which doesn't appear in any menu.)

To those who don't like the results - remember *every* action done can be *reduced* in effect by reducing transparency on that particular layer.

Link | Posted on Dec 9, 2011 at 12:17 UTC as 54th comment

Yes, I think that's a good review. The 'scattershot' effect I found mostly in the third section - process - where he deals with approaches that I would consider somewhat esoteric (eg simulated cross-processing), while leaving out others.

I guess, however, that's an opening for his next book...!!

Interestingly, I can't find the new cover photo in the previous edition of the book!

Link | Posted on Nov 22, 2011 at 10:43 UTC as 9th comment

I've now read the PR and specs three times, and can find no reference to the lenses (other than independent use)!

No fl or aperture? Does it means they are fixed with digital zoom or what?

Did I miss something?

Mike

Link | Posted on Nov 7, 2011 at 12:46 UTC as 12th comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

Joseph S Wisniewski: I'm not particularly impressed by the "real" images that they used, either. Look at the deconvolution kernels, there's a "dwell", a time where the camera was steady enough to record a sharp image for part of the exposure time, so the movement adds a "ghost" to that, but there's still a sharp component.

Having run hundreds of images through similar algorithms (generally, I'm more interested in the analysis of the motion or of the point spread due to optical flaws, the actual deconvolution generally turns out to be a mess) I can tell you what rarities the images Adobe "cherry picked" for their demo are. If even those 1 in 100 flukes weren't dramatic enough for their demo, necessitating the totally faked image, that's a pretty good assessment of the general uselessness of this sort of thing.

And that's the "KEY point" you can "takeaway".

That's a good point. But, as a technical person - but 'lay' in this area - I've been analysing my camera shake problems for a number of years. (Examining highlight trails of images between 1/50th & 1/4 sec)

Of course, with IS, the pattern changes (I think for the worse), but typical is a dwell on the subject, followed by a rapid move and restabilisation, often at right angles to the shift. That gives a sort of blobby-ended 'L' - I was amazed to see that as the decon. error in the first Adobe example. So I'm surprised that you find it untypical.

If, as I now assume, they pick up the main parameters from a 'dwell' and track the weaker image to another dwell, ISTM, that this should produce the best solution. I guess in this field 'perfection' ain't possible;-)

Mike

Link | Posted on Oct 19, 2011 at 11:13 UTC
Total: 102, showing: 81 – 100
« First‹ Previous3456Next ›Last »