Baba Ganoush

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

Comments

Total: 68, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous1234Next ›Last »
In reply to:

(unknown member): That these psychotic left-wing scumbags could cause a photographer (hardly rich men) to waste their time and likely considerable money on this is a disgrace. The U.S. courts and their judges are laughing-stocks.

@OlyPent: It was professional courtesy on the part of the judges, who made monkeys of themselves by giving PETA standing to sue on a matter of settled law.

Link | Posted on Aug 9, 2017 at 01:52 UTC
In reply to:

Baba Ganoush: I assume anyone who posts an objection here to the idea behind Unsplash also objects to free computer software and would never download freeware from the Internet for their own use, especially if they might use it in a way that was commercially beneficial to them. Amirite?

@Lynn876: That's a pretty shallow view of why people engage either photography or computer programming/coding. For some people it's a job or a profession, but for many others it's a hobby and an undertaking for personal satisfaction. And while the investment in equipment is "A" factor, I'd like to think that in the act of creation of both a picture and computer software, the most important element of all is the inspiration and the time and the hard work of the creator. And if such people wish to give their work away to others for free, just for the satisfaction of sharing, then more power to them.

Link | Posted on Aug 4, 2017 at 23:24 UTC
In reply to:

Baba Ganoush: I assume anyone who posts an objection here to the idea behind Unsplash also objects to free computer software and would never download freeware from the Internet for their own use, especially if they might use it in a way that was commercially beneficial to them. Amirite?

@rufuasrm44: Sorry, your first paragraph makes no sense. You're the one who's mixing apples and oranges. I am not in the least confusing a "user with a giver." Why did you write that? A consumer of photographs and a consumer of software are both "users" in my mind; the person who donates his free photographs to Upsplash (having gotten the satisfaction of creating something that others might find enjoyable) and a person who gives his free software to the community (having gotten the satisfaction of solving a problem and thereby creating something that others might find useful) are both "givers."

Link | Posted on Aug 4, 2017 at 23:21 UTC
In reply to:

Baba Ganoush: I assume anyone who posts an objection here to the idea behind Unsplash also objects to free computer software and would never download freeware from the Internet for their own use, especially if they might use it in a way that was commercially beneficial to them. Amirite?

@Techo: "The point is, how many photographers will get something out of this?"

You miss the point of Upsplash entirely. Read the article. What Mr. Cho said is that for many of the photographers who agree to participate it's the satisfaction they get of having their work viewed by many other people. Strange as it may seem to some people, it's not always all about the money. And the reason you find it "hard to explain," is because it really isn't and you're struggling to present a poor argument to support your opinion. You say the stakes are different? How so? Again, for the photographers who agree with Mr. Cho, it appears their motivations are very different from yours, which doesn't make them wrong and you right...or vice versa.

Link | Posted on Aug 4, 2017 at 23:21 UTC

I assume anyone who posts an objection here to the idea behind Unsplash also objects to free computer software and would never download freeware from the Internet for their own use, especially if they might use it in a way that was commercially beneficial to them. Amirite?

Link | Posted on Aug 4, 2017 at 18:17 UTC as 70th comment | 19 replies
In reply to:

girlperson1: Did the news outlets fact check before running their career ruining stories about the photographer? Were they mentioned in the lawsuit as defendants?

@girlperson1: I did not read anything in that article to indicate they blogged defamatory remarks against the photographer, but without seeing the precise wording of the post they made to their Instagram account it's impossible tell if they did wage a defamatory campaign against her. If they merely reported the facts of the situation, which is possibly subjective and for the court to decide, that would be a valid defense in their favor.

As for contacting the NBC station, in the absence of much more complete details, I don't see anything in the article that would label their action as defamatory:

"The Moldovans contacted NBC 5 in an email on January 12 [2015]. Under the subject line, 'Help us get our wedding photos we paid for,” the couple asked us to investigate why Polito was charging them an additional fee for an album “cover.' "

Link | Posted on Aug 1, 2017 at 22:22 UTC
In reply to:

girlperson1: Did the news outlets fact check before running their career ruining stories about the photographer? Were they mentioned in the lawsuit as defendants?

@girlperson1: The article at the link you provided does present a more complete picture of the controversy and raises some valid questions about whether the alleged defamatory statements against Polito were actually made by the Moldovans or by imposters who highjacked their Internet identities.

Link | Posted on Aug 1, 2017 at 18:04 UTC
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 (538 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 17th 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
Total: 68, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous1234Next ›Last »