GaryJP

GaryJP

Lives in Hong Kong Hong Kong
Works as a TV Production, Directing, Shooting, Editing
Joined on Mar 11, 2006

Comments

Total: 1379, showing: 61 – 80
« First‹ Previous23456Next ›Last »
On article Why Capture One can't replace Adobe Lightroom (68 comments in total)
In reply to:

Reilly Diefenbach: Capture One 11 can't replace CC or DXO photolab or even CNX-D for my D850 because it can't do fine detail as well.

Really?

Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear.

Link | Posted on Dec 2, 2017 at 02:59 UTC
On article Why Capture One can't replace Adobe Lightroom (68 comments in total)
In reply to:

Reilly Diefenbach: Capture One 11 can't replace CC or DXO photolab or even CNX-D for my D850 because it can't do fine detail as well.

LOL.

Now there's a recommendation from a minor "Fargo" character.

And, as ever, an Adobe supporter resorts to personal insults. Nice try.

Link | Posted on Dec 2, 2017 at 01:30 UTC
On article Why Capture One can't replace Adobe Lightroom (68 comments in total)
In reply to:

Reilly Diefenbach: Capture One 11 can't replace CC or DXO photolab or even CNX-D for my D850 because it can't do fine detail as well.

Then you have not learned to properly use those programs, which is not surprising considering the amount of proselytising you do on behalf of Adobe here.

Link | Posted on Dec 2, 2017 at 00:18 UTC
In reply to:

xPhoenix: Bottom line for me is, LR has a better starting point for my tastes. Their camera calibrations match up closely to Nikon's picture controls. I like starting from 'neutral' or 'portrait.' C1, on the other hand, seems a bit overcooked right out of the box.

For Sony cameras in particular Lightroom is WAY behind Capture One.

Link | Posted on Dec 2, 2017 at 00:16 UTC
In reply to:

Sannaborjeson: Hell! This trial destroyed my v10 library :-(((

Well my installation did NOT update my library without asking for my permission first. i wonder why yours did. Nor did it overwrite the old version. So I still had the option of exporting an old library.

Link | Posted on Dec 1, 2017 at 02:17 UTC
In reply to:

ewelch: That's some pretty poor competitive pricing. You can get Photoshop and Lightroom (both versions) for $9.99 a month.

Now, if you pay $300, you can get out from under that price difference in 15 months by buying the perpetual license. How often will users have to pay for upgrades after that?

Seems a bit flim flamy to me price-wise. You don't out-price the leader if you want to compete.

Stuff Adobe. I'd rather buy upgrades of a better product than rent from a dishonest landlord.

Link | Posted on Dec 1, 2017 at 02:11 UTC
In reply to:

Weerterbos: I could be wrong, but it looks like he sits in the back of a car. So it's more streetphotography then a portrait made at a show where he did preform. Does that make a difference in needing a model release before one could use it commercially? (left alone that it's a little kid in the picture)

Edit, did a google, came up with https://www.clickinmoms.com/blog/street-photography-and-the-law-7-things-you-need-to-know/
#7 says something about it.

There isa a section here on US laws regarding celebrity rights. But it's not only celebrities who have them. Look even at Louis Theroux's documentaries and you see he has had to blur certain people in the background out.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personality_rights

Good article here too.

https://artlawjournal.com/is-street-photography-legal/

Link | Posted on Dec 1, 2017 at 00:28 UTC
In reply to:

Weerterbos: I could be wrong, but it looks like he sits in the back of a car. So it's more streetphotography then a portrait made at a show where he did preform. Does that make a difference in needing a model release before one could use it commercially? (left alone that it's a little kid in the picture)

Edit, did a google, came up with https://www.clickinmoms.com/blog/street-photography-and-the-law-7-things-you-need-to-know/
#7 says something about it.

Not if you are claiming damages for a photo you can't otherwise sell. In many states, all of us, but particularly celebrities, have rights to control use of images of us. It's further complicated by the fact that even paparazzi these days have to be careful about images of minors.

Link | Posted on Nov 30, 2017 at 05:03 UTC
In reply to:

GaryJP: How much did DPR review pay her to run the photo?

Not sure that "I'm just linking to copyrightable material" is a very strong legal defence. If it were the torrent sites would all still be up.

I'm not accusing anyone. I am just genuinely intrigued about the ramifications here. Personally I think he's a lousy artist anyway so I have no horse in this race.

Link | Posted on Nov 30, 2017 at 04:59 UTC

How much did DPR review pay her to run the photo?

Link | Posted on Nov 29, 2017 at 23:32 UTC as 22nd comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

GaryJP: As she can't make commercial use of that image without a model release I am wondering just how much cash she can legitimately claim he has deprived her of. Nor can one easily estimate how much cash anyone gains from an Instagram post.

Taking it in public is no defence. That's why even documentaries need to blank out some faces. There is a legal recognition of a celebrity right to his or her own image

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personality_rights

And these days even paparazzi can't print images of minors without permission.

Link | Posted on Nov 29, 2017 at 12:20 UTC

As she can't make commercial use of that image without a model release I am wondering just how much cash she can legitimately claim he has deprived her of. Nor can one easily estimate how much cash anyone gains from an Instagram post.

Link | Posted on Nov 28, 2017 at 23:12 UTC as 56th comment | 7 replies
In reply to:

itsme35: i dont know what to do, i have a D750 and i would love the D850 at the same time im looking at the Sony 7R3. now im lost in what would be a good move. if nikon would do a 7R3 version the anwser would be simple. i feel like nikon is going to be another quality product maker that is going to go down.

My advice, as one who has done it, is do not buy a Sony without taking it for a test drive first. I went there, and I went back to Canon.

Link | Posted on Nov 28, 2017 at 09:32 UTC
On article Sony a7R Mark III review (1234 comments in total)
In reply to:

sjprg: With all of Sony's great video cameras, what in the H* are they spending so much time and effort into putting video in the R3. Give us a STILL camera with all of the goodies to make a truly fantastic still camera. leave the D* video OUT!. If I need a video camera I'll buy a true video camera.

Because there's a market for it. I have shot entire documentaries on the A7SII and the Canon 5D cameras. Dedicated video cameras with full frame sensors are generally in a much more expensive prize range.

Link | Posted on Nov 28, 2017 at 00:42 UTC
On article Sony a7R Mark III review (1234 comments in total)
In reply to:

RTSIMON: What really scares Nikon / Canon is that Sony is large enough to buy them out when the time comes.

Dumb comment.

Link | Posted on Nov 28, 2017 at 00:37 UTC
In reply to:

giorgionerd: Without discussing the jpeg that came straight from the camera, the post processed pictures are really ugly. I've rarely seen such a bad job: the red is always oversaturated, and the skin color in most of the cases has become "pig pink".

Again a wilful misreading. Never mind. Keep worshipping at the altar.

Link | Posted on Nov 25, 2017 at 16:39 UTC
In reply to:

giorgionerd: Without discussing the jpeg that came straight from the camera, the post processed pictures are really ugly. I've rarely seen such a bad job: the red is always oversaturated, and the skin color in most of the cases has become "pig pink".

Point to where I said that. I mentioned Canon 5Ds as a plural of Canon 5D. And it was the Canon 5D that really let DSLR video making take off. Really, It's not a religion you know. Done wasting time with you.

Link | Posted on Nov 25, 2017 at 16:25 UTC
In reply to:

giorgionerd: Without discussing the jpeg that came straight from the camera, the post processed pictures are really ugly. I've rarely seen such a bad job: the red is always oversaturated, and the skin color in most of the cases has become "pig pink".

Once again you are deliberately not understanding what I write, so why bother to have the conversation? In my experience few pros define themselves as much by brands as do enthusiasts.

Link | Posted on Nov 25, 2017 at 16:07 UTC
In reply to:

giorgionerd: Without discussing the jpeg that came straight from the camera, the post processed pictures are really ugly. I've rarely seen such a bad job: the red is always oversaturated, and the skin color in most of the cases has become "pig pink".

Sony, Panasonic, and even Hitachi focused more on TV cameras (including studio cameras) for a long time. Sony introduced the DV format cameras, which got adopted by many programmes, but the Canon XL1 beat them out for a while. The Canon 5Ds changed the whole game again, and there were regular fights in my TV station over who could use the 5Ds for their programme. I shot one series of interview shows on three 5D MkIIIs. At the moment I shoot on Panasonic GH5, Sony A7SII and AX100 and 5D MkIV (although the Mark IV's 4K is a bit crippled). Sony has a new cheapish AX700 out. Canon have an even better (60fps) couple of cameras (XF400) out. The 5Ds really were game changers for some TV shows. I am so amazed to see even now so many BBC programmes still being shot on DV cameras. I have seen a couple of breathtakingly beautiful documentaries shot on Sony though including this one

https://vimeo.com/114078110

Shot on a Sony F55 (XAVC, SLOG2), mostly on a Cabrio 19-90mm lens.

Link | Posted on Nov 25, 2017 at 05:10 UTC
In reply to:

giorgionerd: Without discussing the jpeg that came straight from the camera, the post processed pictures are really ugly. I've rarely seen such a bad job: the red is always oversaturated, and the skin color in most of the cases has become "pig pink".

I agree with that.

Link | Posted on Nov 25, 2017 at 04:54 UTC
Total: 1379, showing: 61 – 80
« First‹ Previous23456Next ›Last »