Baba Ganoush

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

Comments

Total: 42, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous123Next ›Last »
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
In reply to:

NikonD2X: I don’t know if every real Nikon-Fan knows these wonderful two Nikon-videos. It is in Japanese language but no reason not to lean back and enjoy. The videos bring good vibes, better mood. It’s really worth to look!

https://youtu.be/oXuwCZm6w8Y

https://youtu.be/t4uLQmxK33s

Enthralling, even without subtitles. Thanks for posting the links.

Link | Posted on Jan 12, 2017 at 06:31 UTC
In reply to:

juvx: The amount is just a negotiation tactic, they will settle out of court for 200-300k One mil, tops.

Her lawyer is being a jerk. Normally in a situation like this the plaintiff would file for unspecified damages and the court, if it sided with her in the absence of an out-of-court settlement, would award a reasonable compensation figure plus cover her legal costs.

Link | Posted on Jan 10, 2017 at 07:29 UTC
On article Apple revamps MacBook Pro lineup, adds 'Touch Bar' (871 comments in total)
In reply to:

sirhawkeye64: I feel that Apple is slowly killing itself. It's lost its visionary (Jobs) and really only has a matter of time left before their marketshare falls below double digits. I really seriously wonder if Apple listens to customer input when designing new products. It seems to me that Apple has lost in the business market (unless you're business is media or art), so why don't they just focus on those sectors of the market and design something that nobody else has done, for the photographer or videographer, animation studio, etc. They obviously won't win in the corporate office in many industries (ie. CAD, accounting, etc). It used to be that using Apple computers was like an elite thing or a status symbol but that's slowly dying as people are becoming more fed up with Apple as the years roll on.

"Did you know you needed a smart phone before Apple made one, how about a iPod or the iPad."

I don't need or own any of those three, but I do need a new, upgraded Mac Pro (mine's the perversely designed desktop Trash Can 2013). I will wait patiently to see if Apple deigns to give us new desktop hardware in the next year or two, possibly with a new file system and OS that actually works instead of breaking bundled apps like Safari and Mail, but I have to say the MS machines are beginning to look good to me.

As for the complaint that Apple doesn't listen to its customers, I don't buy that. Its most profitable products are aimed squarely at its most prolific target market, 13 year old girls.

Link | Posted on Oct 29, 2016 at 02:09 UTC

One of the fall-outs from the concerns with Li-ion batteries is that Amazon will not air-ship certain third-party batteries to places like Hawaii, and they post warning statements on the Web pages for those products. However, their shipping restrictions seem to be applied inconsistently. Sometimes they will refuse to air-ship batteries offered by one vendor but will agree to ship nearly identical batteries that are offered by another vendor. And often the same batteries Amazon refuses to air-ship can be purchased readily from other reputable on-line merchants. Here, for example, is the warning statement Amazon supplies for the Wasabi batteries I recently tried to purchase for a Lumix camera:

"Special Shipping Information: Due to federal and international regulations, this product can only be shipped within the continental United States."

I was able to buy and have air-shipped to me the same batteries from another well known on-line camera dealer.

Link | Posted on Oct 21, 2016 at 18:49 UTC as 16th comment | 1 reply
On article BenQ announces 32" 4K high dynamic range monitor (84 comments in total)
In reply to:

Henry Alekna Photography: If you take off the cost of a monitor like this from the price, the 4K iMac seems like quite a good deal!

@matthew saville: $3K? Heck, with all the bells and whistles (including 20TB of SSD storage in multiple Thunderbolt RAID enclosures), my Mac Pro cost about $10K. And my monitor is an ASUS, just as garygech mentioned. Note his point that Apple no longer sells monitors because a third-party company like ASUS can do it cheaper. But what it really says about Apple, I think, is that the luster of the Apple brand has become tarnished, and people no longer see any reason to be loyal to The Fruit Company. If Apple were as innovative as they used to be, they'd find a way to produce monitors that offer something different people would pay extra for, instead of buying brand X strictly because of a lower price. When it comes to computers, Apple has lost its focus. It is no longer innovating in a way that creates loyalty among its customer base.

Link | Posted on Oct 12, 2016 at 05:54 UTC
On article BenQ announces 32" 4K high dynamic range monitor (84 comments in total)
In reply to:

Henry Alekna Photography: If you take off the cost of a monitor like this from the price, the 4K iMac seems like quite a good deal!

@ScanSpeak: The comment by garygech below the article you linked at TechRadar should be sobering for all Mac users. I think his comment about the future of the Mac line is quite insightful. Like him, I'm now seriously thinking about the MS Surface Pro line as an eventual replacement for my Mac Pro. I'm not rushing to leave the Mac. However, as Aperture users know from experience, Apple has no compunction about doing unto its users before they do unto Apple.

Link | Posted on Oct 12, 2016 at 03:01 UTC
In reply to:

marc petzold: Nothing & nobody comes close to Ansel Adams...what he had archived over decades was his legacy, outstanding work, although with the techniques of his time.

I really admire his work since my teenage days. I do like especially his El Captain, Bridalveil Fall, The Tetons and the Snake River, Winter Sunrise and many others...to name just a few photographs of him. Just the note that he was developing negatives for 8-12h a day...says a lot of his personality...he was truly obsessed to archive to get the best results, and quality possibly for his very own standards, a perfectionist.

Hmmm, that sounds like hero worship. I think there are a lot of very excellent photographers working today, who may not yet have Adams' exalted reputation, but their work is outstanding and someday future generations of DP Review readers will be praising them as having no equal. Personally, an Ansel Adams photo reminds me of an Ingmar Bergman film. Ingmar Bergman films are depressing.

Link | Posted on Aug 28, 2016 at 03:00 UTC
On photo GoldCoast Australia in the Random Items - Challenge20 challenge (8 comments in total)

A rather awkward crouching stance, I'd say, making it look as if her head was pasted after the fact onto another person's body. All a question of timing, I realize, but if I were taking this shot I'd prefer she were standing up a bit taller on the board for a more eye-pleasing composition. (And yes, I do a fair amount of shooting of surfers myself.)

Link | Posted on Aug 15, 2016 at 21:38 UTC as 2nd comment
In reply to:

howardfuhrman: I am surprised that Ms. Highsmith only asked for $1B, perhaps her damages are far greater. I will be watching this case as it progresses through the courts. I do not suggest she begin planning an early retirement just in case the court reduces her damage award to some minimal amount.

@Alphoid: Third of all, filing a case for a few hundred bucks isn't worth it.

That's why I wrote CLASS ACTION SUIT in my comment. Perhaps you are not familiar with the concept, but if you are you know that's one way multiple parties join together to recoup economic losses that individually are tiny but in the aggregate are huge. There are law firms that specialize in such lawfare. If this photographer wins her law suit, the chances a class action suit might be filed against Getty and would succeed in court are quite a bit better, not worse. If she loses, there is much less chance any other litigation would follow.

Link | Posted on Jul 31, 2016 at 04:54 UTC
In reply to:

howardfuhrman: I am surprised that Ms. Highsmith only asked for $1B, perhaps her damages are far greater. I will be watching this case as it progresses through the courts. I do not suggest she begin planning an early retirement just in case the court reduces her damage award to some minimal amount.

@Roland said: "Personally I think a $10M fine for Getty and $1M to the photographer seems like a fair result. Maybe also some months in jail for the responsible one at Getty."

Fortunately, the courts will likely see it differently. As someone who has written copyrighted material and put it in the public domain so others could use it freely, I hope the courts hit Getty with an enormous award to deter them from engaging in their repeated bad behavior of (allegedly) falsely claiming copyright ownership.

If the photographer receives only a token monetary award, Getty may still not be out of the legal woods. IANAL, but I presume the customers of Getty who may have been misled by its claim to hold the legal copyright could file a class action suit to recover any specific copyright license fees they paid to Getty + the legal cost of their lawsuit + ancillary damages.

PS: this is a (private) civil lawsuit, not a criminal lawsuit, so jail time is not even in the discussion.

Link | Posted on Jul 30, 2016 at 19:15 UTC
In reply to:

Bart2016: Whats it matter. The photographer decided to give her photos for free and someone else is making a dollar of of it. Highsmith is not a good business woman giving it away for free to begin with. All of a sudden someone else is charging for it, Oh well. With as much time on the Earth as you have get over it and admit the error to begin with. If she thought her work had value she would have charged for it even $1 a image.

I guess you'd have no problem if someone stood at the entrance to a PUBLIC park and demanded that YOU pay an entrance fee to use the park that you and other citizens own? Or demanded you pay a fee to drive down a public street or walk down a public lane? The photographer donated her pictures to the Library of Congress, placing them in the public domain for EVERYONE to enjoy FREE OF CHARGE. Getty, it appears, falsely claimed to own the copyright to the pictures and charged others a license fee; that is gross misrepresentation and possibly fraud. The photographer retains the nonexclusive copyright of her work after she donates her work and places it in the public domain. Getty does not own the copyright to the originals for which they were apparently demanding a license fee.

Link | Posted on Jul 29, 2016 at 02:10 UTC

What's amusing is that while Getty is being sued by Ms. Highsmith, Getty is suing Google for "anti-competitive practices" according to the article that's linked via the "g" icon under the Highsmith article posted here. Sue and be sued, that's life in the World Wide Web jungle. May both behemoths lose in court.

Link | Posted on Jul 29, 2016 at 00:09 UTC as 58th comment
On article Apple planning to open imaging research lab in France (43 comments in total)

Grenoble is a high-tech city with lots of research centers, an excellent university (Joseph Fourier), and on top of that it's very livable. The graduates of French universities in the physical sciences are top-notch, among the best in the world.

PS: I have to add that their university students are the politest in all of France. When my wife and I were visiting there and traveling on their light rail (tram) system, they kept standing up to offer us a seat, the young whippersnappers!

Link | Posted on Jul 16, 2016 at 02:48 UTC as 10th comment | 3 replies
In reply to:

marcio_napoli: This is (of course) off topic and way too deep stuff for a comment session somewhere in DP review, but watching this video, it's crystal clear why professional photography is a dying craft.

Look at those techniques, simply wow! That looks like deciphering ancient hieroglyphs which were mixed with alien culture, for the eyes of the younger iphone generation.

BTW, I'm 35 yo, include me in the "younger generation". I would never have become a pro photographer if producing photography was still like that.

What I'm saying is that becoming a photographer today is ridiculously easy compared to those days.

It's so easy that it takes away (at least part of) the merits of the craft.

No wonder you bump into a "photographer" at every corner nowadays.

Guys like AA, not only had to be art geniuses and technical masters, but also inventive explorers, creativity masters and very pacient.

Back those days, to be a photographer was actually a very bold thing to do.

Digital cameras have democratized photography. It may be easier to get into serious photography today than in Ansel Adams' time, but because of that there's also a lot more competition. I think there are a lot of very skilled photographers nowadays. The evidence can be seen in the impressive images people post here at DPR in the forums and in the Challenges. That means to stand out in the crowd you have to be very, very good at your craft. It may be easier to become a photographer these days than it was in Adams' day, as you say, but I think it's probably harder today to become acknowledged as one of the best among your peers.

Link | Posted on Jul 9, 2016 at 21:08 UTC

Just a brief comment here about the great difference between the before and after pictures, which I think should come as no particular surprise. The full Moon is so much brighter than the dark sky, the contrast between the two exceeds both the latitude of film and the dynamic range of current digital cameras. The key to getting an image of a well exposed nearly-full Moon along with a decently illuminated foreground in a single shot (as in the Moonrise picture) is to shoot when the sky is still fairly bright, that is, when the almost-full (99%) Moon has risen above the Eastern horizon before the Sun has set below the Western horizon. That usually takes a bit of advanced planning, but it's easily done.

Link | Posted on Jun 25, 2016 at 22:03 UTC as 36th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

calson: Backfocus in my own experience with Nikon DSLR cameras has been always the result of the camera's autofocus system selecting something behind the subject that provides greater contrast with a harder edge that is aligned so the single axis autofocus sensors can use them to compute when the lens is properly focused. The end result is perfect focus on something behind the primary subject and the new system while maybe easier to use will do nothing to address the key backfocus problems of the past.

A few years ago, when I owned a Nikon D7000, I used the 16-85mm as my walk around lens. It front focused at FL under 28mm (by 4 units) and back focussed at FL above 70mm (also by 4 units). Does that sound like the AF system was grabbing onto something in the far background? Doesn't sound that way to me. Nikon's Rube Goldberg AF contrivance is no solution to such a problem, which occurs quite commonly among zoom lenses. The 16-85mm was no exception. However, once tuned properly, it was a very sharp lens, much like the 16-80mm lens that replaces it.

Link | Posted on Apr 27, 2016 at 00:40 UTC
In reply to:

Baba Ganoush: This new feature is essentially an automated version of horschack's clever Dot-Tune procedure. I'm wondering how sensitive the results are to the shape of the actual fine tuning curve of a given lens. If the curve has the ideal bell shape, the result will probably be very accurate. But not every lens has the ideal shape. The tuning curves of some lenses can be very asymmetric. The tuning curve of my Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8, for example, based on the results of tests I made with both the Focal and FocusTune software on my D800 camera, was nearly flat across a large range of micro adjustment values. In other words, this lens was capable of producing sharp images almost regardless of the tuning value I chose to dial in, which of course is GOOD, not BAD.

@LynniePad: "I've tried Dot-Tune, but it is not very sensitive, and confirms focus over quite a wide range."

I agree with this comment. In fact, the procedure does not work at all for my 80-400mm VR II on my D7200. Thom Hogan, IIRC, reported a similar issue with his 80-400mm lens. And that is why in my earlier post I raised the question of how well Nikon's implementation might work on various lenses. We will soon know the answer as more people get the D500 in their hands and do all sorts of tests.

Link | Posted on Apr 23, 2016 at 07:20 UTC
In reply to:

Frank C.: AF module....mirror.. over complicate cameras.. and are destined for the dust bin, as technology progresses sensors and EVFs will get so good they will provide the answers to everything, just look at how advanced cpus and gpus have gotten over time. So now we have Nikon trying to fix a limitation with what in reality is another limitation, they should try and concentrate on technology instead like Sony is doing

@Eric: "I fully expect to see cameras, and software become less complicated". Indeed. What Nikon has done is technologically akin to adding epicycle upon epicycle in order to avoid having to admit Copernicus was right that the Earth revolves around the Sun instead of vice versa. Nikon and Canon are both "Mirrorless Deniers."

Link | Posted on Apr 23, 2016 at 05:42 UTC
In reply to:

Baba Ganoush: This new feature is essentially an automated version of horschack's clever Dot-Tune procedure. I'm wondering how sensitive the results are to the shape of the actual fine tuning curve of a given lens. If the curve has the ideal bell shape, the result will probably be very accurate. But not every lens has the ideal shape. The tuning curves of some lenses can be very asymmetric. The tuning curve of my Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8, for example, based on the results of tests I made with both the Focal and FocusTune software on my D800 camera, was nearly flat across a large range of micro adjustment values. In other words, this lens was capable of producing sharp images almost regardless of the tuning value I chose to dial in, which of course is GOOD, not BAD.

@Lynniepad: "Did you test you 70-200mm in the field wwith different AF-FT settings?"

Since I do a lot of landscape photography, none of the standard tuning techniques works for me. I need to fine tune the camera to focus "at infinity," not at 5 m or 10 m. To calibrate my lenses I go out in the field and take a series of shots with different micro adjustment values and then I choose the sharpest one of the bunch. Utility poles are useful for that purpose, given all the electrical cables and circuit breakers and insulators and bolts you can find on them. It works for me. Over the years I've examined and evaluated more than a million images; by now I think I can tell, at least to some degree of satisfaction, when an image is in sharp focus and when it is not.

As so many others have posted here, the DSLR autofocus setup is archaic. It's a scheme no engineer worth his salt would design today if he were tasked to create an AF system from scratch.

Link | Posted on Apr 23, 2016 at 05:15 UTC
Total: 42, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous123Next ›Last »