the Mtn Man

Joined on Mar 19, 2013

Comments

Total: 133, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On a photo in the Canon PowerShot G5 X II sample gallery sample gallery (12 comments in total)
In reply to:

tkbslc: I think a recent smartphone would have done just as well here.

All this talk about lenses, exposure, equipment selection... and here I am thinking "That's an attractive woman."

Link | Posted on Aug 8, 2019 at 23:44 UTC

So she's willing to pose nude, but won't send nude photos to the photographer... uh... okay.

Link | Posted on Jul 25, 2019 at 16:23 UTC as 43rd comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

jyw5: 3 years ago, I did an experiment with my Sony a7rii. I took five landscape photos handheld 35mm at f8 during the day on the RAW setting. I exported them to tiff files with DxO optics pro. Then I used another software to upsample the resolution from 42mp to 84mp. Then I aligned and stacked the photos into one 84mp photo. At 100%, the 84mp photo actually showed more detail than any of the 42mp photos. I also downsampled it back to 42mp and it showed more detail than the single photos at 100%.

It works and this idea has been used in a similar but much more complex way for a long time in astrophotography.

Fortunately, for me, there isn't a need for 84mp photos...although, I wonder how a crop of a 84mp photo would compare to one single 42mp photo of the same subject at a closer distance. or better yet, if I did this test with my Sony APSC A5100 (a 24mp camera), how would the processed, upsampled and stacked photo compare with one shot with my a7rii (using the same lens FF lens)?

Unless it's for scientific purposes where the extra detail is needed, the only thing that matters in the end is whether or not you captured a compelling image.

Link | Posted on May 30, 2019 at 18:05 UTC
In reply to:

Svetoslav Popov: Hmm, i'm still using my Photoshop CS6. And i will do it for years to come. At least until i have found a replacement - then i'll be completely Adobe-free.

Gimp

Link | Posted on May 17, 2019 at 22:37 UTC
In reply to:

tvstaff: If someone uses LR 2015 99% of the time, what would be a logical best-step for a non-Adobe product? Here is the type of work I do www.kissmykite com almost 100% edited with LR and some Canon DPP for CR2 color conversation to TIFF then edited in LR

Thank you. Color is soooooooo important :)

Lots of free and and open source photo editing software for Linux like Darktable and Gimp.

Link | Posted on May 17, 2019 at 22:32 UTC

Wow, that looks compact and super convenient and in no way cumbersome!

Link | Posted on Apr 13, 2019 at 17:40 UTC as 16th comment
In reply to:

the Mtn Man: This seems like a common sense ruling. The photographer intended the image to send one message, but the RNC used it along with text and icongraphy to send the exact opposite. Very clever. There's also the fact that the photographer published the image to a platform (Facebook and Twitter) where it is impossible to control who uses it and for what purpose. Unless she's prepared to go after every single person who reposted the image, regardless of their intent, then she really has no cause to go after the RNC. It's like failing to enforce a copyright. You can't ignore everybody who violates it and then arbitrarily sue one party.

Yes, I am familiar with copyright law. Are you familiar with fair use law and the First Amendment? Once that image was associated with Quest's campaign, it became fair game for the RNC to repurpose it as a criticism, which they unambiguously did with the addition of unflattering text that significant changed its original intent. It's like Weird Al rerecording a song note for note but changing the lyrics. And the original photographer only weakened her claim to exclusivity when she posted the image online in a manner that made it impossible to control, nor did she attempt to exercise control until the RNC used it. Did she go after everybody online who repurposed the image in a negative way? No, she only went after the RNC.

Although I am amused by DP's "used with permission" disclaimers, as if it really matters.

Link | Posted on Mar 21, 2019 at 17:24 UTC
In reply to:

LX-D: Mrs Peterman writes "This decision gives any political party (or PAC) the freedom to use artistic or creative photos of political candidates for political criticism under the auspices of fair use."
Unfortunately by not appealing this decision will become legislatory opening up this use without compensation or permission for the creator of the image by political parties and critikasters with political agendas.

It is clear a single person is not able to bear the costs of such an appeal, especially if the appeal will be handled by the same judge who will at that moment not be unprejudiced and thus resulting in a confirmation of the earlier 'judgement'.

Clearly she should be supported here and the best would be by a professional association but maybe crowdfunding can step in. If this doesn't happen, it is clear in the end big money wins, being big corporations and political organisations.

Mrs Peterman writes "This decision gives any political party (or PAC) the freedom to use artistic or creative photos of political candidates for political criticism under the auspices of fair use."

Yep. And there's not a damn thing wrong with that. Want to stop it? Then overturn the First Amendment. Good luck.

Link | Posted on Mar 21, 2019 at 17:03 UTC
In reply to:

Olifaunt: By this logic, if I take the Windows operating system software, slap some logo on it insulting Microsoft, and give it away to everybody for free, that is all fine BECAUSE I am not profiting and BECAUSE it deviates from its intended use and BECAUSE Microsoft already made money from it.

Not even close to being an accurate analogy. Better analogy would be taking the Microsoft logo and repurposing it as something critical of the company.

Link | Posted on Mar 21, 2019 at 17:01 UTC

This seems like a common sense ruling. The photographer intended the image to send one message, but the RNC used it along with text and icongraphy to send the exact opposite. Very clever. There's also the fact that the photographer published the image to a platform (Facebook and Twitter) where it is impossible to control who uses it and for what purpose. Unless she's prepared to go after every single person who reposted the image, regardless of their intent, then she really has no cause to go after the RNC. It's like failing to enforce a copyright. You can't ignore everybody who violates it and then arbitrarily sue one party.

Link | Posted on Mar 21, 2019 at 10:42 UTC as 27th comment | 8 replies
In reply to:

Makingtrax: Now just about every person over the age of 5 has a camera/phone, every photogenic nook and cranny on this planet is being photographed to death. Unique photos are becoming as rare as hens teeth.

And yet a quality image captured by a skilled photographer will still beat a thousand snapshots any day.

Link | Posted on Mar 21, 2019 at 10:25 UTC

Advertisements like this usually have a disclaimer saying something "Results are simulated".

Link | Posted on Dec 7, 2018 at 18:50 UTC as 3rd comment | 1 reply

So good for snapshots.

Link | Posted on Dec 7, 2018 at 18:41 UTC as 47th comment

At that point, why not just buy a real camera?

Link | Posted on Oct 7, 2018 at 13:40 UTC as 9th comment | 1 reply

And they say global warming is a bad thing...

Link | Posted on Jul 26, 2018 at 20:31 UTC as 4th comment
In reply to:

scotthunter: Stop using a phone to take photos and buy a real camera like a Sony RX100 VI

And now starts the debate of what constitutes a "real camera". Ha ha!

Link | Posted on Jul 26, 2018 at 20:25 UTC

This seems obvious and easily implemented by anybody with sufficient technical know-how. In other words, it's exactly the sort of thing that should not be granted a patent and is one example of why the US patent system is such a mess.

Link | Posted on Jul 26, 2018 at 20:16 UTC as 4th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

the Mtn Man: What a stupid idea. Why not just buy a decently spec'd desktop instead?

Everything is priced well compared to a MacBook Pro. Buy PC components and build yourself. You'll get a lot more bang for your buck.

Link | Posted on Jul 26, 2018 at 20:13 UTC

What a stupid idea. Why not just buy a decently spec'd desktop instead?

Link | Posted on Jul 18, 2018 at 19:08 UTC as 5th comment | 3 replies
In reply to:

bobfonte: Interestingly, this article emphatically cites B&H as the beneficiary of non-payment of taxes. One must remember that Amazon with its aggressive business model was set up offering free shipping and non-paying taxes as a differential to the competition. Amazon was the target and the big loser of this Supreme Court decision.

Amazon has been collecting taxes? That's news to me. I've never paid a dime of tax to Amazon for as long as I've bought from them. Of course now that states can force them to collect taxes, it will eliminate one of their primary competitive advantages, but they'll deal with it. Who is really going to be hurt are the "mom and pop" sellers.

Link | Posted on Jun 26, 2018 at 23:33 UTC
Total: 133, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »