idahodoc

Joined on Apr 8, 2012

Comments

Total: 6, showing: 1 – 6
In reply to:

Thuravi Kumaaran: Yes, i won’t care.
They name it Apple, but they give us a bitten apple.
So it is a false advertisement.
If they are true, give us Apple – not a bitten apple.
Cultured people won’t give/sell bitten apple to others.
This bitten apple negative symbol of humanity, may go with today’s ignorance.
But, i won’t buy/sell a bitten apple.
Thanks to GOD, for other better options.

There are many accounts of why the bitten apple was chosen as the icon for the company, but mainly, in the old days when screen resolution was very poor, and before desktop publishing, the original experimental Apple logo was unbitten (there are images of it out there).

But, with the aforementioned limitations, Apple realized that the Apple logo without the bite was unrecognizable. With the bite it has become an icon. There are certainly potential negative connotations in your culture, as well as in mine. But I cannot base my buying decisions on these matters. I do not agree with the majority of the ethics of the majority of companies. Certainly this is a MAJOR issue in India now, is it not? And the latest Samsung explodes!

So, while you are certainly free to avoid Apple for its symbolism, there is no escape from generally poor corporate behavior of the vast majority of vendors! Which is the worse vice--the image or the behavior?

Link | Posted on Sep 10, 2016 at 10:53 UTC
In reply to:

Saleen1999: "Adding Raw capture to the iPhone gives photographers a lot more creative freedom" I doubt that pro photographers use an iPhone to shoot weddings but I might be wrong.

No, but RAW will allow a talented photographer to rescue a marginal but essential iPhone shot! And will introduce the masses to the power of RAW.

And--believe it or not--that will probably help drive sales of serious (not P&S) cameras. There is no downside.

I certainly will be very glad for it!

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

goloby: Isn't it ironic that cameras like the one praised in this article will put this site out of business

That is silly. More people making more photos will mean more people wanting better gear. My teenager daughter is a case in point. She has learned a ton about color, composition and experimentation from shooting thousands of iPhone shots with and of her friends. Now she wants...(drumroll!)...a DSLR!

It is called growing the market. That has to be good!

The real losses are in the point and shoot camp. I cannot justify a marginally better P&S when my phone is close and more available...and charged!

Link | Posted on Sep 10, 2016 at 10:40 UTC
In reply to:

sillen: As the smartphone cameras (not only Iphone) improve their photographic capabilties, sensors and lenes, they are eroding the added value of M43 sensor based cameras. Such small sensors simply dont deliver enough added quality above the smartphone cameras.

cosinaphile, too bad you are so down on these. Not only are these "decent" cameras, they are there when needed...

Case in point, as a serious shooter over 35 years, I have been encouraging my children. But no one really picked up the bug--until the iPhone. My teenage daughter has been shooting 1000s of photos. She now wants serious gear, and will be working with a local pro. Might even become a career for her given interest in art. Were it not for the "camera you have," and the ability to experiment freely when the Spirit moves, she would never have developed her interest.

Sure it's a noisy sensor. Do you think she or her friends care? They are into composition, special effects, special moments, and exploration. In the moment. Rather than whine, appreciate that Apple's clout has everyone talking about photography. It is growing the field, and like my daughter, that will mean eventually greater sales and better gear for all of us!

Link | Posted on Sep 10, 2016 at 10:24 UTC
In reply to:

CopCarSS: It never ceases to amaze me how many grumps hang around DPR. Personally, I think it's an amazing project and that the kid has some very engaging portraits. I'm proud to be one of the backers of the project and look forward to the book if it meets its goal.

Agreed. The photos actually are quirky and nice, and unless he is being heavily coached, he already has a good sense of composition and interest in the subject. Most young kids to whom I have given a camera shoot without any real thought at all, one rarely can even identify a subject to the image, and they rarely get anything even 10% as good as what I am seeing here! All of these pictures are close enough to subject to be meaningful. And given the camera used, it is VERY close!

For the whiners, I would argue for his father to go ahead and publish. And through this publication I hope that other parents become inspired to expose their kids to photography. With digital, there is instant gratification and quick learning feedback. Fun is the path to interest and proficiency.

Game on, quit whining and put a camera in your kids' hands--if you have the courage!

Link | Posted on Oct 19, 2015 at 01:58 UTC
In reply to:

Bernd M: I don't understand why I'll have to pay US$ 5.700 for a Zeiss 135mm F2.1 when I could buy a Zeiss Sonnar T 135mm F1.8 for US$ 1.800. What makes the Cine Lens so much more expensiv? Can anybody tell me?

As others have said, the manufacture, color accuracy and durability are all important.

But probably a little bit less so as the world has moved to digital. They may be looking at either a shrinking high end pro market, or a rising lower end market, where a few thousand bucks might actually make a difference.

The issues with color balance and T-stop were much more important in the film era when a screwed up shot would be very expensive. Digital is better that way, seeing what's "in the can" in real time. But subtle color corrections are still a hassle and costly of data processing, but not deal breakers.

Link | Posted on Apr 8, 2012 at 18:32 UTC
Total: 6, showing: 1 – 6