AngelicBeaver

Lives in United States San Antonio, United States
Works as a Steel Detailer
Joined on Nov 3, 2004

Comments

Total: 80, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous1234Next ›Last »
In reply to:

Arastoo Vaziri: Please don't overreact: I don't condone what the bloke in the van did in any way, but the photograph of the van (not the one with it being removed) is far more interesting than the rather commonplace one with the creases.
And I wonder whether the towing vehicle tracks weren't even more harmful to the ground. Couldn't they have used an helicopter to remove the van?

It probably would have been cheaper to have someone fix the van and then back it out. Then sell the van.

Link | Posted on Mar 15, 2017 at 13:37 UTC

I read this article title so many times, trying to figure out why I would want my picture taken with a photo editor at NASA. I thought, "Maybe they are the rock-stars of the photography world or something."

Link | Posted on Feb 27, 2017 at 16:51 UTC as 2nd comment
On article Leica Summilux-SL 50mm F1.4 sample gallery (367 comments in total)

More giraffe portraits, please.

Link | Posted on Feb 6, 2017 at 16:06 UTC as 54th comment
On article Leica Summilux-SL 50mm F1.4 sample gallery (367 comments in total)
In reply to:

mxx: Just so everybody knows: I've got nothing to say about this lens.

There, I've said it.

You took the words right out of my mouth.

Link | Posted on Feb 6, 2017 at 16:05 UTC

Haste makes waste.

Link | Posted on Jan 23, 2017 at 18:46 UTC as 26th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

Paul Auclair: should a photograph/photographer really be the principle focus of what transpires at these tragic events.
do we need to see these images in order to believe what takes place?

rev32, I agree that we need journalists to be as impartial and factual as possible, but we see evidence everyday that many of the "journalists" don't do that, or have such a particular perspective that they believe they are being neutral but are, in fact, very biased in their reporting. The subconscious bias is, I think, why the rigid impartiality is so critical, but I've seen so many one-sided articles and cherry-picked photos that I wonder if this impartiality is as widely embraced as it needs to be. Unfortunately, we don't seem to live in a society that is willing to hold bad journalists accountable. In fact, we reward them.

Link | Posted on Dec 21, 2016 at 15:25 UTC
In reply to:

Paul Auclair: should a photograph/photographer really be the principle focus of what transpires at these tragic events.
do we need to see these images in order to believe what takes place?

Timbukto and Paul, you make some really good points. Maybe we are at a point where unedited, high resolution surveillance footage would be better, given the myriad accusations of bias and political agenda that crop up around everything. Less art, more context. It's disheartening.

Link | Posted on Dec 21, 2016 at 13:09 UTC
In reply to:

Paul Auclair: should a photograph/photographer really be the principle focus of what transpires at these tragic events.
do we need to see these images in order to believe what takes place?

Timbukto, I wholeheartedly agree with you. I was responding to the original post for this particular photo. I see deceptive photos all the time. I don't see that applying to this one, unless the ambassador assaulted the guy before being shot. You're getting into a whole new realm of deception, if that's the case. At that point, we're doomed. Hoping for a more literate world is a beautiful dream, but it's certainly not where we're headed. I hope that, at the very least, the literate among us would be more ethical in how they disseminate the news. Too many people make themselves painfully easy to manipulate.

Link | Posted on Dec 20, 2016 at 21:32 UTC
In reply to:

Paul Auclair: should a photograph/photographer really be the principle focus of what transpires at these tragic events.
do we need to see these images in order to believe what takes place?

Also consider the thought that we are living in a "post-truth" era. People purposefully fabricate news stories designed to sound true. News stories, now more than ever, need credibility. Photographic evidence lends weight to words.

Link | Posted on Dec 20, 2016 at 21:21 UTC
In reply to:

Paul Auclair: should a photograph/photographer really be the principle focus of what transpires at these tragic events.
do we need to see these images in order to believe what takes place?

Really? Somebody on a photography website questions the value of a photograph at a decisive moment? Pictures transcend language barriers, communicate ideas and emotion in a heartbeat... they say a picture is worth a thousand words for a reason. A single image of a Syrian child washed up on a beach created a movement. Images are powerful, but we need people who can capture them.

Link | Posted on Dec 20, 2016 at 21:15 UTC
In reply to:

cosinaphile: an excessive amount of pixellation in the rear lcd if fear for a 13000 dollar usd body

an exciting tiny beast , but .....

edit.... as was said elsewhere , these dark uninspired images are a poor offering to judge a first impression .... please team up with a real photographer for these articles
even for a few hours ..... honestly you diminish the glow of this unique new hassy with these dingy poorly composed shots

cheers otherwise and thanks for the well written copy

I think the shots are perfect for judging dynamic range and detail, which is what people are looking for in these. He definitely chose his images as something of a stress test.

Link | Posted on Dec 12, 2016 at 17:04 UTC
On photo I am an Elephant in the An A to Z of Subjects- Week 5, E challenge (25 comments in total)
In reply to:

Midwest: What sandbagging idiot gave this great photo a single star?!

I wouldn't sweat it too much. Some people are just grumpy, or really have a chip on their shoulder against certain subjects or photo processes. When anyone can vote, you're bound to have outliers like that. Ultimately, these contests are just for fun. It's not like anyone has been cheated out of prize money or camera gear, or a photo tour of Europe.

Link | Posted on Dec 7, 2016 at 16:03 UTC
On photo I am an Elephant in the An A to Z of Subjects- Week 5, E challenge (25 comments in total)
In reply to:

Midwest: What sandbagging idiot gave this great photo a single star?!

Probably someone who isn't a fan of the HDR look.

Link | Posted on Dec 5, 2016 at 05:50 UTC
On article Ultimate OM-D: Olympus E-M1 Mark II Review (1358 comments in total)
In reply to:

photo_rb: I have to take DPReview to task on this. A couple of days ago I posted here that I wished they had made the 4/3 sensor a bit larger when it was originally conceived. This was my "opinion" based on my needs and the fact I like the camera.

It still reads that way to me but some prankster on the DPReview staff must have changed it on everyone else's feed to read "Real men don't use a 4/3 sensor." That is the only explanation I can think of for some of the replies. Shame on you DPReview!

Here's what I got: "I wrote some stuff, but people are reading way more into it then I intended, so this is my funny joke about how DPreview must have changed my words after I wrote them."

Link | Posted on Nov 28, 2016 at 17:23 UTC
On article Ultimate OM-D: Olympus E-M1 Mark II Review (1358 comments in total)
In reply to:

nokinonacynos: Looks like an amazing cam. However, I think MFT will continue to struggle. Once the cam is not pocketable, size becomes less of an advantage. People are realizing that a certain size is required for comfort and ergonomics. With a Pro lens, the package is similar to APC. So no advantage. In fact, the 25mm 1.2 is bigger, heavier and much more expensive than a 35mm f/2 for APC let alone a 50mm f/1.8 for FF.

This camera will have to sell on inherent qualities rather than size and weight.

I switched from Canon to Olympus years ago. Lens size was only one of the many reasons. The number one reason for my ultimate switch was Canon's terrible Auto Focus. I owned the 85 f1.8 and it constantly misfocused. I even had it checked out. With Olympus and the 75 f1.8, as long as I put the focus box at the right place, it doesn't misfocus, and the optical quality is top notch, which brings me to the close second reason I switched: Lenses. Olympus and Panasonic offered the best bang for the buck in lenses. They offered the focal lengths I wanted, many with size and weight savings, and they were better than what I could afford with Canon.12-40, 20mm, 75 f1.8. I love these lenses AND all of them stabilized. Whenever people try to make size the end game for micro 4/3, I laugh. Honestly, if size is your only consideration, M4/3 is still your system because they continue to offer other, tiny bodies that you can pair with their tiny lenses.

Link | Posted on Nov 26, 2016 at 20:35 UTC
In reply to:

biza43: Interesting and informative article, thanks. However, normally photographers that worry about these subjects will shoot Raw, not Jpeg, thus allowing more room in highlight and/or shadow recovery during processing.

@biza43 It's frustrating for a non-RAW shooter to get help with JPEG output because it seems every request for a feature or for help gets met with an immediate chorus of "Shoot RAW!" I find the benefits of RAW to be well documented and frequently expounded upon. As such, I get tired of having to battle the RAW shooters to get to the information I want. Shooting RAW is not the only answer, and is unacceptable for me. I know you wrote "normally", but you can certainly hear the chorus in a lot of the comments below. It's like asking how to get somewhere by bicycle and everyone always yells back, "You should use a car and take the highway!"

Link | Posted on Nov 10, 2016 at 13:43 UTC
In reply to:

biza43: Interesting and informative article, thanks. However, normally photographers that worry about these subjects will shoot Raw, not Jpeg, thus allowing more room in highlight and/or shadow recovery during processing.

I like that this article acknowledges that there are some people who don't shoot RAW yet still want the best JPEG possible. That would be me. I can't do a RAW workflow for a variety of reasons and knowing the best way to capture scenes like these is very helpful.

Link | Posted on Nov 9, 2016 at 14:58 UTC
On article DPReview Asks: What was your first camera? (766 comments in total)

Panasonic F-Z20 back in 2004. 12X optical zoom, constant F/2.8 aperture. Nice macro. I learned a lot with that camera.

Link | Posted on Nov 4, 2016 at 12:50 UTC as 622nd comment
On article Hands-on with the Sony Cyber-shot RX100 V (235 comments in total)

I owned this camera for several years. I enjoyed it so much that I built a time machine and invited seven other users to go back to the moment of its introduction so we could let you all know what a lovely camera it has been. Oh, and just in case you're worried, the United States is still here, but I won't spoil who won the election.

Link | Posted on Oct 11, 2016 at 03:48 UTC as 10th comment | 1 reply
On article iPhone 7 real-world sample gallery (49 comments in total)
In reply to:

nicolaiecostel: Looks more like an Apple advert to me. I have never seen tack sharp images of people eating ice cream, taken at 1/30 th of a second. Ok, the camera stabilizer will prevent shake at 1/30 but where they instructed to freeze so that daddy can take a sharp picture ? That little guy eating icecream must have been drooling big time while the smartphonephotographer tried to compose the shot.

Other than that, the pics in good light look great, but why would you wash a chicken ?

I absolutely HATE the NR trend. I think it's because reviewers have been so focused on "noisy" images that the manufacturers have responded by smoothing it away, since they can't manufacture perfectly clean sensors. The frustrating thing is I don't hear reviewers complaining about the loss of detail or the terrible plastickness. Just praise that the noise is gone. The fact that Apple would do this just shows how widespread this philosophy is. Ugh.

Link | Posted on Oct 7, 2016 at 23:59 UTC
Total: 80, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous1234Next ›Last »