guyfawkes

guyfawkes

Lives in Birmingham, UK
Works as a Retired.
Joined on Feb 20, 2012

Comments

Total: 679, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

C.Eaton: Hilarious that this is still rumbling on, makes a total farce of the law and everyone involved.

Is it a typo, did you intend "intolerance"? Here, there is widespread concern over gmo and hormones being used in animal husbandry and artificial colours are being phased out. More recently in the news is a post-Brexit trade deal with the US and there is grave concern any deal could include hormone injected US beef and chlorine-washed chicken. Why does chicken need to be washed in chlorine before it is considered fit for human consumption?
For clarity, I'm by no means anti-US, it's just that I do care about what I eat. And it isn't that the EU Food Regulations are 100%. It is still permitted to inject pigs, for example, with water to increase their bulk. Then look at the gooey stuff that comes out when a pork chop or bacon is fried. Not nice to look at and it can be scooped out, at least it's not a chemical.

Link | Posted on Apr 23, 2018 at 08:27 UTC
In reply to:

Steve NYC: Either the horizontal lens in the lead photo is flopped left-to-right, or Meike is offering a special edition with all the lettering reversed. Very innovative.

Well spotted. But if the lenses were in the same frame at the same time, being flipped left-to-right does not explain why the lettering on the lens hood is right way round. So it could be a composite with the horizontal lens only flipped in the process.

Link | Posted on Apr 22, 2018 at 20:49 UTC
In reply to:

zeratulmrye: Their Chinese website says "for Sony mirrorless" but the English version is "for Sony APS-C". They should probably consider hire a new translator...

@steelhead3. Granted, the mount is the same, and both are used on mirrorless bodies, but unless the lens is designed from the outset for FF, it won't cover the image circle needed if it is APS-C specific. This is a very important point and zeratulmrye is right to point this out.

Link | Posted on Apr 22, 2018 at 20:35 UTC
In reply to:

C.Eaton: Hilarious that this is still rumbling on, makes a total farce of the law and everyone involved.

I believe the difference between the US and UK legal systems is quite pronounced in one major respect: in the UK the Judiciary is separate from the State and Judges are not political appointees. Legal precedent, at least as perceived in the UK, is not a weapon to be used by the State, which does seem to be the issue you are concerned with, but a valid means to ensure justice is carried out equally for all across the nation. It is not designed to prevent individuals getting their dues in Court, nor is it a vehicle for the State to push a political agenda.. You may find this interesting:

www.judiciary.gov.uk/about-the-judiciary/the-judiciary-the-government-and-the-constitution/jud-acc-ind/principles-jud-acc/

Link | Posted on Apr 21, 2018 at 19:30 UTC
In reply to:

Bill Buchanan: Once again we have heard from the fruit cakes in the 9th. Circus Court in California.

A "fruitcake" in UK slang doesn't necessarlly extend to mean only insanity (which is a recognised medical condition) although some may use it this way, just as we don't actually mean it when we may say to someone's face "You're insane". More likely it is used when we mean "weired". This can relate to ideas or behaviour, not insanity

Link | Posted on Apr 20, 2018 at 11:21 UTC
In reply to:

BobORama: If you are a PeTA member, some portion of your dues are going to destroy a photographers life, one who has done more to engender sympathy and empathy for this particular animal with a single picture than all of PeTA put together. PeTA should be treating Slater "ethically" and be forced to fully compensate Slater for this outrageous abuse the courts by a corporate entity. Its bleeping outrageous.

So suppose PeTA were to win... where does it end? Are caterpillars people too? What about an earwigs? Or a microbe?

"They settled only to avoid embarrassment and a legal loss." To which I would add to avoid setting a legal precedent (assuming they will eventually lose this action) and which will curtail their ability to pursue future equally frivolous actions. I'm sure US Courts have more deserving cases and claimants to deal with.

Link | Posted on Apr 20, 2018 at 11:03 UTC
In reply to:

C.Eaton: Hilarious that this is still rumbling on, makes a total farce of the law and everyone involved.

@Cosinaphile. I think you are confusing two distinct issues here. This action is not about animal rights per se, which most people would rightly relate to inhumane treatment of them, but a farcical notion that a monkey can sue for copyright and based on some quite bizarre notions concocted by PETA.

Link | Posted on Apr 20, 2018 at 10:56 UTC
In reply to:

Albert Valentino: No matter what happens, the laywers always do okay.

PETA is essentially a group of people that do not really love animals as much as they hate humans!

@Sion H. Examples, please. But do you want your beef stuffed with growth hormones and your chicken chlorine washed? If the health/welfare standard in the US is so good, you have to ask yourself why is it necessary to wash chicken in chlorine before one can eat it? I'd like to see a good Anglo-US trade deal but not at the expense of being forced to accept animal products that don't reach our own standards.

There are no doubt US producers who do try and work to better and more ethical/humane practices, but it does look as though they are a significant minority.

Link | Posted on Apr 20, 2018 at 10:18 UTC
In reply to:

Spectro: PETA overall is a good organization, their idea and concept. I think they went overboard on this case, lost some common sense. Somebody up top there, got over zealous on what is animal rights.

@Fotowitt.

I suspect he will still get his due compensation. This latest move by the Court is to prevent PETA abusing the legal process and thereby leaving the door open for any number of future fanciful law suits they may wish to bring. In this dismissal, the court is NOT dismissing the photographer's claim, just the abuse of legal process that PETA is trying to hold the US legal system too. This is what the Court is addressing. Natural justice should see PETA lose, and then this will provide a powerful precedent.

Link | Posted on Apr 18, 2018 at 13:13 UTC

When I first read the headline my heart sank and I thought, no, not again, another stupid ruling by a US Court. But, no. At last we see some sense in this matter and the Court is seriously looking at the antics of PETA not only for bringing the action in the first instance, but to ensure a ruling that stops ALL future attempts by them, and by the same token any others who may wish to bring similarly stupid law suites.

In case you missed it:

"The Ninth Circuit further narrows down the thought process behind continuing the lawsuit, stating in the order:

As one of our colleagues once warned in a similar context, “courts must be particularly wary of abetting ‘strategic behavior’ on the part of institutional litigants whose continuing interest in the development in the law may transcend their immediate interest in the outcome of a particular case." "

Link | Posted on Apr 18, 2018 at 08:06 UTC as 23rd comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

guyfawkes: Disappointed that dpr continues to spout the myth that changing focal length "compresses" the image plane. It does not. As long as the camera to subject distance, and subject to background distance remains unchanged, changing focal length has no effect on perspective. Shoot with, say, a 35mm lens, and then with 50, 135, and then crop the 35mm image to the same field of view of the longer focal length lenses, and you will notice no difference between the cropped FoV and that of the original lens' images. That is, there is no compression of the image plane at all.

However, alter just one of these distances and perspective will change. It is very clear that the 3x image has been re-composed and the camera to cycle distance has been increased, thus giving a different cycle to mountain perspective. This had nothing to do with the new focal length, but everything to do with the photographer altering the image perspective.

Roger, dpr changed perspective by moving their shooting position back before taking the re-framed image. This is VERY obvious. Why isn't the cycle 3x the size in their second shot? This is exactly what perspective control by the photogrpher is all about. It is a matter of perspective control. If not, what do you understand perspective control to be?

Link | Posted on Apr 10, 2018 at 12:35 UTC
In reply to:

guyfawkes: Disappointed that dpr continues to spout the myth that changing focal length "compresses" the image plane. It does not. As long as the camera to subject distance, and subject to background distance remains unchanged, changing focal length has no effect on perspective. Shoot with, say, a 35mm lens, and then with 50, 135, and then crop the 35mm image to the same field of view of the longer focal length lenses, and you will notice no difference between the cropped FoV and that of the original lens' images. That is, there is no compression of the image plane at all.

However, alter just one of these distances and perspective will change. It is very clear that the 3x image has been re-composed and the camera to cycle distance has been increased, thus giving a different cycle to mountain perspective. This had nothing to do with the new focal length, but everything to do with the photographer altering the image perspective.

The foreshortening or "compression" effect you see is not an inherent property of the telephoto lens. I'm not arguing the effect you see, but it has nothing to do with the fact that it is the lens alone that produces such results. I often shot using 90mm lenses because I liked this very effect. As I said above, providing the camera to subject distance and subject to background distance remain unaltered it can be proven that perspective remains identical when shooting with wide angle, standard, or tele lenses. This is easily proven for those who wish to try it out; all you need to do is equalise the FoV for the shorter focal lengths to that all three images reflect what the tele lens saw. The "compression" effect seen will be the same in all three images.

And I repeat that in the dpr example, they did NOT mention that they changed their shooting position, and therefore perspective, just that the effect was due to the change in focal length. This is wrong.

Link | Posted on Apr 10, 2018 at 12:28 UTC
In reply to:

dgumshu: But, but they're using iPhones for making movies these days... :-)

Nice lens for the professional, but pricy.

But true.

Link | Posted on Apr 7, 2018 at 08:59 UTC
In reply to:

Terry Breedlove: Won’t find this on your Sony cam. Damn Canon you rocked it.

Terry, Not a zoom, but check out the first camera here. That black dot on the end is a Hasselblad. And, sadly, it won't fit your Sony either. :D)

www.popphoto.com/gallery/9-unbelievable-camera-lenses-actually-exist

Link | Posted on Apr 7, 2018 at 08:16 UTC
In reply to:

dgumshu: But, but they're using iPhones for making movies these days... :-)

Nice lens for the professional, but pricy.

You're not British? That makes your comment even more moronic, especially as it has absolutely nothing to do with this post which is about a lens, or hadn't you realised this? You're just trying to be a clever dick, and succeeded admirably. For this alone, you score an A+.

Link | Posted on Apr 7, 2018 at 07:54 UTC
In reply to:

dgumshu: But, but they're using iPhones for making movies these days... :-)

Nice lens for the professional, but pricy.

And of course you never ever watch any of the BBC TV programs, not even the ones they make for morons, nor listen to any of their radio stations?

Link | Posted on Apr 6, 2018 at 16:57 UTC
In reply to:

guyfawkes: Disappointed that dpr continues to spout the myth that changing focal length "compresses" the image plane. It does not. As long as the camera to subject distance, and subject to background distance remains unchanged, changing focal length has no effect on perspective. Shoot with, say, a 35mm lens, and then with 50, 135, and then crop the 35mm image to the same field of view of the longer focal length lenses, and you will notice no difference between the cropped FoV and that of the original lens' images. That is, there is no compression of the image plane at all.

However, alter just one of these distances and perspective will change. It is very clear that the 3x image has been re-composed and the camera to cycle distance has been increased, thus giving a different cycle to mountain perspective. This had nothing to do with the new focal length, but everything to do with the photographer altering the image perspective.

Hello, Richard. The trouble is, and the reason I felt it necessary to point this out, is those only having a basic understanding of photographic principles, or even none at all, will take as gospel what they read on more informative sites. So it is necessary, IMHO, to point out basic errors which these sites do make from time to time so that they are not perpetuated.

Out of interest, there was a heated debate on another well publicised blog where the site owner was adamant that focal length alone produced flattening or compression effects. I pointed out the error, which he didn't accept, and a number of posters agreed with him and some supported my post. It took a couple of practical working examples to "prove" the point, and even quotes from books written by well known photographers of the past, Feininger amongst them, who wrote an extensive chapter on perspective.

Yes, I know it was an error, but there are clearly many out there that wouldn't. Sadly, ignorance isn't bliss.

Link | Posted on Apr 5, 2018 at 17:51 UTC

Disappointed that dpr continues to spout the myth that changing focal length "compresses" the image plane. It does not. As long as the camera to subject distance, and subject to background distance remains unchanged, changing focal length has no effect on perspective. Shoot with, say, a 35mm lens, and then with 50, 135, and then crop the 35mm image to the same field of view of the longer focal length lenses, and you will notice no difference between the cropped FoV and that of the original lens' images. That is, there is no compression of the image plane at all.

However, alter just one of these distances and perspective will change. It is very clear that the 3x image has been re-composed and the camera to cycle distance has been increased, thus giving a different cycle to mountain perspective. This had nothing to do with the new focal length, but everything to do with the photographer altering the image perspective.

Link | Posted on Apr 5, 2018 at 09:52 UTC as 17th comment | 6 replies

Utterly crazy! But no doubt great fun, too.

Link | Posted on Mar 16, 2018 at 12:15 UTC as 14th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

Pangasinan2: I sold my (little used) Mamiya 645 system (wide standard zoom telephoto) two v/finders, sekonic meter and pistol grip for £700 to buy the Canon G5. Great little camera. Only problem was the cost of good alkaline AA batteries. Rechargeables did not work too well as they would not hold a charge.
Eventually changed to Canon S3 IS for the upgrade to 6 Mpixels. Currently have Lumix G1.

But this is a post about the G5.

Link | Posted on Mar 15, 2018 at 17:04 UTC
Total: 679, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »