Baba Ganoush

Lives in United States baba.ganoush01 AT yahoo.com, United States
Joined on Dec 1, 2010

Comments

Total: 61, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous1234Next ›Last »
In reply to:

drummercam: Mitch McConnell does not want protest against his "health" bill reported. The cost to the Capitol Police or Senate of losing a claim against lost property or livelihood is a calculated "negligible" against what stands to be perpetrated with the Republican "health" bill. I photographed a protest outside on the Capitol lawn this morning and was left alone, but outside events are not monitored closely.

Yes, McConnell should have done what Harry Reid did to get the original Obamacare health law passed: collaborate with insurance company lobbyists to create the law in secret, use a parliamentary trick to gut a totally different bill and replace it with the language of the Obamacare law (done in order to avoid the requirement that by law the bill for the health law should have started in the House, not the Senate), and then vote on it in the middle of the night on Christmas eve (December 24, 2009).

Link | Posted on Jul 27, 2017 at 18:16 UTC
On article Nikon announces development of D850 (526 comments in total)

No one seems to have considered the possibility that Nikon may have originally planned to announce the D850 yesterday to mark its 100th anniversary, but then either run into problems concerning production issues or else discovered serious problems during field testing of its pre-production models of the camera, and thus were forced to quietly delay the full announcement it may have originally intended.

Link | Posted on Jul 26, 2017 at 18:11 UTC as 15th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

Ergognome: Can people claim copyright if they set the camera to auto mode, since again they do not press the shutter?

On every camera I own, compact or otherwise, AUTO mode sets the aperture, shutter speed, and ISO. Like PASM, AUTO does not trigger an exposure unless the drive mode is set to Timed Release.

Link | Posted on Jul 15, 2017 at 00:57 UTC
In reply to:

A Rychard Hicks: In my opinion, pretty simple and straight forward: 1) monkey took picture so the photographer cannot claim copyright since he is not the author or creator of the work; 2) copyrights can only be held by humans, so in this case, the original "monkey selfie" has no copyright holder and cannot.

But, just to stir the pot, what if the original image (that can't be copyrighted) was a RAW file. Then the photographer heavily edited and post-processed this RAW file to create his "vision" and "artistic interpetation" of the non-copyrighted work? Could he then lay claim to copyright the resulting revised artwork? :)

"For instance, in the film industry the cameraman filming the actors on screen, despite being the “author” of the recording, does not own the copyright of the film. It comes down to who provided the creative effort or significant arrangements."

So, by your logic and contrary to IP law, it's the cameraman who owns the copyright to a film. I'd say Slater's creative effort puts him in the same position as, say, a film director and thus the legal owner of the copyright to the photo, while the role of the animal is akin to that of a film cameraman.

Link | Posted on Jul 14, 2017 at 18:35 UTC
In reply to:

wakaba: Seriously? Beachwalk and ferrytrip made the author buy this thing?

Here on Hawaii we have a very aggressive climate. All those cheap "water- and dustproof" cams die very very quickly. The seals are purposedly underengineered.

No problem with DSLR. Just need to be a little careful. Small trashbags are perfect protection.

The old Gopros were very decent, a Hero5 black in the double case is state of the art waterproofing and finally usability is very high.

If cameras are used beyond the manufacturer's specification range, as you seem to have done, it should come as no surprise they might leak.

Link | Posted on Jul 10, 2017 at 05:53 UTC
In reply to:

wakaba: Seriously? Beachwalk and ferrytrip made the author buy this thing?

Here on Hawaii we have a very aggressive climate. All those cheap "water- and dustproof" cams die very very quickly. The seals are purposedly underengineered.

No problem with DSLR. Just need to be a little careful. Small trashbags are perfect protection.

The old Gopros were very decent, a Hero5 black in the double case is state of the art waterproofing and finally usability is very high.

" All those cheap "water- and dustproof" cams die very very quickly."

Not true. I live in Hawaii, snorkel extensively, and have done a lot of underwater photography both here and elsewhere in the Pacific. My wife has used the Canon D-10 and the Panasonic TS-3, 4, 5, and 6 cameras. None of them ever leaked water and none of them "died" on her. I use the Nikon 1 AW 1 and a Sony RX100 Mk3 with a Nauticam underwater housing. The 1" sensor in both cameras helps to keep the noise down at base ISO. For me, shutter speed mode is essential, and to get the White Balance setting right, RAW shooting is essential.

Link | Posted on Jul 8, 2017 at 22:36 UTC
On article Updated: Sony a9 samples with Raw support (450 comments in total)
In reply to:

Baba Ganoush: This issue with Sony colors is something I've seen with every Sony camera I have owned, the RX10, the RX100Mk1 and Mk3, the A6000, and the A6300. Sony's blue, for example, is over saturated and has excess magenta. The effect is readily seen in photographs that include late swaths of the sky or ocean. When I read my images into Lightroom, I apply a custom preset to adjust for the in-camera bias in hue and saturation.

BTW, I travel a lot throughout the South Pacific, and I like to take my Sony cameras on my trips. Unfortunately, when it comes to matching the skin colors of Pacific Islanders (Polynesians in particular), the Sonys have a very difficult time of it. The colors of the OOC images have far too much a reddish or even sometimes (jaundiced) yellowish hue. Again, that's something I find it necessary to correct in PP in LR.

Link | Posted on May 8, 2017 at 06:46 UTC
On article Updated: Sony a9 samples with Raw support (450 comments in total)

This issue with Sony colors is something I've seen with every Sony camera I have owned, the RX10, the RX100Mk1 and Mk3, the A6000, and the A6300. Sony's blue, for example, is over saturated and has excess magenta. The effect is readily seen in photographs that include late swaths of the sky or ocean. When I read my images into Lightroom, I apply a custom preset to adjust for the in-camera bias in hue and saturation.

Link | Posted on May 8, 2017 at 04:14 UTC as 39th comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

Toni Salmonelli: One question: Since when do words, that have been adopted by other languages, have to be pronounced correct in the new language? ;-)

The Oxford English Dictionary gives for 'bokeh' the same pronunciation as for 'ok'

Not according to Mr. Nagase, at least as I heard the audio track. The O in the word okay is a long-O. But as Mr. Nagase pronounced it, the O in the word bokeh is a short-O, as in the word boss.

Link | Posted on Mar 31, 2017 at 05:52 UTC
In reply to:

Marty4650: The important question is... does this new iPad have a headphone port?

Yes, it does, according to the Tech Specs listed for the new "iPad" on Apple's Web page.

Link | Posted on Mar 22, 2017 at 02:09 UTC
In reply to:

trungtran: When will manufacturers make budget telephoto primes. Simpler than zooms to build and better IQ and they can even charge the same price.

@Dragonrider: I'd say the main reason they don't make them is because of physics. A relatively fast telephoto lens requires large diameter curved glass elements, which are expensive to make. The Nikon 300mm f/4 takes a 77mm filter, which is a reasonable size. The front glass elements of a 600mm f/4, however, have to be at least 150mm in diameter. In turn, to build a relatively light weight telephoto requires the use of special materials that are also expensive, like fluorite lenses and magnesium bodies. I don't know how many people would be willing to spend as much as $3K for, say, a light(er) weight f/6.3 500mm lens, perhaps not many, but I would be willing, even if I used the lens only a few times a month. But $10K for the existing Nikon 500mm f/4, which weighs 3 kg, is way out of my comfort zone for an infrequently used lens when photography is my hobby, not my profession.

Link | Posted on Mar 4, 2017 at 22:04 UTC
In reply to:

trungtran: When will manufacturers make budget telephoto primes. Simpler than zooms to build and better IQ and they can even charge the same price.

@Richard Murdey: But in a sense both Tamron and Sigma have! Tamron sells a 150-600mm zoom for $1400 and Sigma a 150-600mm for $980. Both lenses are very heavy, more than 1900 g. So why don't they design and sell a 600mm prime that's significantly lighter in weight or even a bit optically better and/or faster for around the same or modestly higher price? That's the question @trungtran asked, and I agree with him: why can't we buy a light weight, maybe even fast 600mm prime lens for $2-3K?

Link | Posted on Mar 4, 2017 at 06:15 UTC
In reply to:

trungtran: When will manufacturers make budget telephoto primes. Simpler than zooms to build and better IQ and they can even charge the same price.

@Richard Murdey: I'd be willing to spend $2-2.5K for an optically decent Nikkor 400mm f/4 or 500mm f/4 when the only options Nikon offers these days cost more than $10K. Nikon sells a 300mm f/4 FX prime lens for $1500 and another version for $2K. Why not build out the offerings of primes to 400mm and 500mm for the birders among us? Nikon probably already has a portfolio of engineering designs and maybe even an optical bench-tested prototype or two that might suit the purpose. Why not bring them to market? Those products would not directly undercut the market for the expensive pro lenses that few of us can afford.

Link | Posted on Mar 4, 2017 at 03:00 UTC
In reply to:

Arn: Oh, wow.... How is it even possible for a company like Nikon to make such an amateur mistake and miscalculate development costs? This is pretty much unheard of and I'm sure there is more to the story. More like there was a grave design error that was found too late and was too costly and time consuming to fix. Anyway, this is going to cost Nikon a lot as bad PR.

Such a shame. I have not waited for a camera so eagerly as for the DL series in ages. We would have finally seen some actual competition for the Sony RX-cameras, which have grown to be horribly over priced and frankly boring.

I think there was a power struggle within the company, and the cost cutters won out over the management contingent who supported innovation and new product lines like the DL. The fear of failure won out. But for how long will cost cutting keep Nikon afloat? A couple of new releases like the D5, D810, and D500 should do wonders for the Nikon bottom line over the next few years, but unless there is some forward-thinking, new-concept product already in the R&D pipeline, Nikon as a company will be back in financial crisis 5-10 years from today, if not sooner. Based on recent market shares, Canon has its corporate boot on Nikon's neck. That's got to be mighty uncomfortable for the bosses at Nikon HQ.

Link | Posted on Feb 13, 2017 at 18:24 UTC

I bought quite a number of sets of the XUME rings when they first came out and thought they were very convenient. However, it turned out the adapter rings were made of a different metal than my camera lenses and so they expanded and contracted at a different rate as a function of the ambient temperature. Eventually the adapter rings became so tightly stuck on my lenses, they could not be unthreaded. In one particular case, out of desperation for a solution I put the entire lens in the refrigerator for 20 minutes to cool it down so I could unscrew the adapter and get it off my lens. At that point I put all my XUME rings away and have not used them since. The concept is excellent, but in practice, because of the threading/dethreading issue, they were more trouble to me than they were worth.

Link | Posted on Feb 7, 2017 at 21:10 UTC as 26th comment | 3 replies
In reply to:

Rick Knepper: I assume I am taking a risk every time I strike out on a hike. The NPS sets boundaries for a variety of reasons many of which benefit NPS and their budget.

I don't find the image with the tripod compelling enough to agree with the boundary set by whatever agency did it on the basis of safety. What would be a more compelling deterrent for me is the quality of the composition from that angle. Moving closer would probably set off alarms that I am not going to get anything really useful vs. the risk that I couldn't get back behind the boundary with a long zoom.

There are hidden dangers that can arise if you hike across the lava field of an active eruption (which I have done multiple times, once with Observatory personnel). Apart from the obvious danger of having a bench along the ocean, like the one in the video, collapsing underfoot, there is also the possibility of stepping on a weakened lava tube and having it collapse under your weight. Perhaps all you'd get is a minor scratch or two. But if the tube is large enough, you could fall through its collapsed roof and get seriously hurt, even burned if the interior of the tube is hot. You may be aware of such dangers and willing to chance them, but for many others it's an unfamiliar environment, and for that reason it makes sense for the NPS park rangers to err (if at all) on the side of caution.

Link | Posted on Feb 4, 2017 at 22:00 UTC
In reply to:

Autriche78: I understand that people have always, and will always, build residences in areas that are inherently more risky than others for a variety of reasons, one of which certainly can be lack of a safer alternative.

What I do not understand is building a business/plant that produces a product requiring very precise technical calibrations in an area that is known to be prone to earthquakes. Even if the building could be made perfectly safe for human workers, which should be the first priority, I would imagine that proofing the assembly process against violent shocks would be prohibitively expensive and likely impossible.

Why not build the plant someplace where there is less likelihood of devastating earthquakes, or at least have more than one plant in operation in diverse locations to have some degree of redundancy?

I am clearly not a businessperson, and realize that maybe the economics of such a solution don't work. It seems to me that adding the cost of such damage and the rebuilding process over repeated instances must certainly be far more costly than the cost of a relocated or second plant...

"Why to live in the US if you have Trump?"

Because he will make America Great Again. Deal with it.

Link | Posted on Jan 29, 2017 at 00:58 UTC
In reply to:

justmeMN: Put all (or most) of your "sensor manufacturing eggs" in one basket, then place that basket in the world's most earthquake-prone area. Great business strategy.

Remember the Japanese idea of "Just In Time Inventory" system, where your company carried a barebones inventory of goods in order to minimize inventory capital costs and instead depended on your suppliers to deliver you stuff just in the nick of time when you absolutely needed to have it? For a while it was the newest way to do business, a bit of a fad...until it turned out that in the real world outside of Japan it didn't work so well.

Link | Posted on Jan 29, 2017 at 00:50 UTC
In reply to:

CQui: For me a time-lapse is good when it accelerate a slow movement, on this one, flames are only taken at random moment and that kills the effect of time-lapse.

It might have been of interest if we actually saw the lava flowing but the angle necessary for that kind of picture was probably not possible or too dangerous, Real time film or a series of stills would have been probably better for many of the sequences.

You get a better orientation of the flow from a boat on one of the lava boat tours, which is an indication this is not really a "somewhat rare" event. One of the many impressive things about Kilauea volcano on the Big Island is the persistence and consistency of its activity over many decades. Trust me, it's way more thrilling to see it live instead of on video.

Link | Posted on Jan 25, 2017 at 19:05 UTC
In reply to:

CameraCarl: I sure hope Pete makes a book of his photos.

I believe the photos belong to the government. IIRC, he is not allowed to delete or edit any of his images. All of them go from the camera to a staff that curates them, eventually for the National Archives. A good portion of them will probably be loaned out for exhibit in the Obama Library in Chicago after it has been constructed.

There's not much artistry in his photos, but his job as WH photographer is to record history, to do it quietly and unobtrusively. As the official photographer, he is a visual witness to history but not part of that history. That's probably not always so easy to do.

Personally, I think way too much is made of the entire ritual of recording the daily goings-on of high government officials. These are the ultimate selfies. Let them do their jobs. Period. A few pictures every once in a while when the White House hosts an important foreign dignitary is enough for posterity.

Link | Posted on Jan 22, 2017 at 06:11 UTC
Total: 61, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous1234Next ›Last »