Lemelisk

Lives in Canada
Works as a Tree planter
Joined on Sep 12, 2017

Comments

Total: 94, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On article Photo competitions you can enter right now (48 comments in total)
In reply to:

Jeff Greenberg: ---
Advice to US competitors:
use your cousin Guido's Italian address,
because there is clear & undeniable
anti-US bias in international judging.
And it won't hurt to add "io" to your names,
e.g., change Frank Johnson to Frankio Johnsonio...

@PostModernBloke
Gosh darnit! Why do garbage photographers like me get discriminated against :(

Unfair, poor photographs matter too!

Link | Posted on Jul 19, 2020 at 19:11 UTC
On photo 2020-03-14 (70) in the A big year - birds 2020 challenge (1 comment in total)

Not 100% sure, but I think that's a black oystercatcher.

Link | Posted on Mar 15, 2020 at 01:22 UTC as 1st comment
In reply to:

Photoman: They look like the would fit up your rear end...maybe sell it as a medical camera :)

Olympus is in trouble methinks

Link | Posted on Mar 11, 2020 at 15:37 UTC
In reply to:

Jon555: I guess I won't get my train fares back tho...

I did assume it would go on, as all the Football matches are still happening.

And the football matches will be younger on average, and standing in one area most of the game. The photo show will have a higher percentage of older people more prone to negative side affects, and will mill about and handle objects/cameras that thousands of other people have handled. The photo show probably would disinfect cameras in between every person, but it still poses a risk.

Link | Posted on Mar 10, 2020 at 17:05 UTC
In reply to:

Rob-in-Alberta: the best camera is the one that’s with you really applies on mars

But.... Curiosity has 17 cameras....

Link | Posted on Mar 10, 2020 at 16:46 UTC
In reply to:

Jay A: Excuse my ignorance here but a number of these shots show 2 images with the same exact camera settings but one being what looks to be over a stop more exposure. Are these RAW vs JPG shots of the same image?

I'm not sure if it's a setting on the forum you need to toggle, but they have text underneath them that state wether they are straight outta camera jpegs, or edited raw. Anyways I scrolled through a bunch of them, and in general, the edited raws are the brighter ones.

Link | Posted on Mar 6, 2020 at 06:29 UTC
In reply to:

Irakly Shanidze: Basically, no matter how you call a subscription model, it is still the subscription model, "make no mistake about it" :D

@TheRealYeats
It's still a "subscription model", it's just less egregious than it's competitors. There are many different forms of subscription models, they do not, by definition need to cut off access to a product after one cancels their subscription - although many software companies choose to do this. Cancelling a subscription to a journal/newspaper doesn't mean they take all of your old newspapers back, it just means you don't get updates, you can still use your old journals/newspapers how you please - this is the subscription model topaz is going with.

For the consumer this is certainly a much better subscription model than Photoshop uses, but it's still a subscription model. Topaz is completely within it's rights to do this, but it is a subscription model.

Link | Posted on Feb 15, 2020 at 20:18 UTC

Canada goose aren't worth it unless you live in the arctic. I don't see any purpose to warm weather jackets like this. Too expensive, can't handle cold weather.

Link | Posted on Feb 14, 2020 at 21:44 UTC as 76th comment
In reply to:

3pgrey: Damn I'm out of popcorn. For all those outraged people who've never put a foot in a busy city you might have a hard time relating. To everyone else, if he wasn't holding a camera and taking photos, would you care? It's not like you don't get this behavior everyday you walk down a street. What about getting cut of in traffic? Queue jumpers? Cyclists? That junky who has to tell you they're not friends with Elvis Presley anymore. I can understand that not everybody everyday wants to have their photo taken, but there's worse. Sh!t you stepped in left by some dog walker. Take your pick

@athensGA

I've stepped in plenty of dog sh!t, wolf sh!t, bear sh!t, moose sh!t, and cow sh!t. Hell, I've even accidentally stuck my hand in moose sh!t a few times - it's annoying, but that moose didn't purposefully do that to annoy me, water and hand wipes deal with it fine. It isn't the end of the world. Now maybe dog crap bothers you more than most, fine. Alot of people do not like having their pictures taken without their consent, especially rudely like this - a picture lasts forever dog crap lasts hours or days on your shoe. One is an accident, on is willful d@#chebagggery. If the neighbor purposefully trained his dog to crap on your porch, then I would equate them.

@3pgrey
Nobody has ever accidentally shoulder checked me on the street without apologizing - if it was unintentional I dont give a flying f@#k. Most people are decent human beings, not rude cu@#s like this dude. If someone intentionally shoulder checks you and runs off, yeah, that's a sh!t move - most don't do that

Link | Posted on Feb 7, 2020 at 22:38 UTC
In reply to:

3pgrey: Damn I'm out of popcorn. For all those outraged people who've never put a foot in a busy city you might have a hard time relating. To everyone else, if he wasn't holding a camera and taking photos, would you care? It's not like you don't get this behavior everyday you walk down a street. What about getting cut of in traffic? Queue jumpers? Cyclists? That junky who has to tell you they're not friends with Elvis Presley anymore. I can understand that not everybody everyday wants to have their photo taken, but there's worse. Sh!t you stepped in left by some dog walker. Take your pick

That dog walker didn't purposefully put that sh!t infront of you. The sh!t will be easily removed from a shoe - no big deal. This guy purposefully gets in peoples faces to rudely take a picture without consent. I view it the same as that guy who finds a snake, decides to pick it up and shove it in peoples faces as a joke. Sure, not everyone hates snakes, it's just a garter snake it's completely harmless - perfectly legal, still a sh!t move. If it doesn't bother you if someone rudely gets in your face takes a picture of you - good on you, but it annoys many people, and that's what matters - some people in this video clearly did not like having their pictures taken in such a manner.

Link | Posted on Feb 7, 2020 at 09:32 UTC
In reply to:

mgblack74: I am guilty of wearing shorts in winter. But from house to car to store I’m never out long enough to get cold. And my legs are good to -5C easily.

Greatest Canadian beer commercial of all time: https://youtu.be/BRI-A3vakVg

In all of highschool I wore shorts every day, never wore pants once (scool had a dress code, and I didn't own khaki pants) and I also had to walk an hour each way. My legs have next to no temperature sensation anymore, and reduced pain sensation - I'm guessing repeated exposure to cold killed nerves or something. To this day I can go out on -20 in shorts and my legs don't get cold at all - the rest of my body does though.

Link | Posted on Jan 21, 2020 at 13:17 UTC

I'm sorry, but that ain't no lumberjack, he's just your run of the mill axe murderer

Link | Posted on Jan 21, 2020 at 13:07 UTC as 8th comment
In reply to:

Tom Schum: Nice, but next year the batteries will be phased out because the design has to change in order to sell more power tools. It's a problem.

I don't think this is the reason. Just as with cameras, any switch between a standard is expensive and risks alienating customers. A switch is only done when the improvements made are worth the risks involved. Camera companies are very hesitant to switch lens mounts for the same reasons. Dewalt still sells its 18v batteries new after they switch to a superior system 9 years ago, and sell an adapter for new batteries to be run on old equipment if you run both. And when they released 60v batteries, they worked on older 20v tools. The 20v introduced a decade ago are vastly superior to the older 18v tools.

Edit: I find it highly unlikely that the battery format will be changed next year, and even if it is, these batteries will continue to be manufactured and sold. - I wouldn't be surprised if the current system lasts another decade or more before being improved

Link | Posted on Jan 18, 2020 at 19:03 UTC
In reply to:

jkenny23: Jeez, why. Tool batteries have pitifully low energy density, are way heavier and bigger than they need to be (to survive drops and impacts typical at a work site) and the chargers are enormous (or slow, your pick). Just use a power bank and USB chargers for your camera batteries.

I think the idea in theory is more so cost efficiency (or rather it would be if this device wasn't $200). I already have 5 dewalt batteries, if I were to go on an extended trip into the wilderness I could easily simply get an adapter, take how many batteries I want, and recharge my camera battery around 55 times if I took all of them. If this device was $40 I would buy one. But at the current price it's better to simply buy $200 of powerbanks as you say.

It is a good idea in theory, but their implementation is flawed based on pricing. I want one, but not at this price.

Link | Posted on Jan 18, 2020 at 18:27 UTC
In reply to:

Ross the Fidller: I noticed Tony Notworthlisteningto has joined the bandwagon of rumour mongers spreading the bad news, but I'm not going there to add to their list of baited clicks though.

+Ross the filler
I realize this, but this is a decent example of how such a rumor can have very real consequences for a company even if they are completely unfounded. I may still buy a camera if a good enough sale appears, otherwise I'll wait till their next quarterly statement with their plans for the future. Such gear is an expensive "investment" that I can't take lightly

Link | Posted on Nov 16, 2019 at 08:10 UTC
In reply to:

Ross the Fidller: I noticed Tony Notworthlisteningto has joined the bandwagon of rumour mongers spreading the bad news, but I'm not going there to add to their list of baited clicks though.

+Mariano Pacifico
False rumors can be a self-fulfilling prophesy. This comes right before the holiday sales period, one of the most important times for a company. If it hurts sales enough that could put more nails in the coffin than would have normally happened. If you thought a company had the potential of pulling out of the market, would you be more hesitant to purchase a product that would not receive support or substantially limited support in such a scenario? Camera's are one of the products where continued firmware updates and lens availability are much more important than other industries. I was intending to upgrade to an em-1 ii from my current em-10 ii if a good enough sale came up - the potential of the company falling made me seriously considering holding off on that. A camera is expensive.

Link | Posted on Nov 16, 2019 at 02:53 UTC
In reply to:

Lemelisk: I strongly dislike the move. They removed likes months ago in canada. I really miss the feedback on how "good" my photos were, likes were more like a metric on my improvement as a photographer. I don't really see what is gained by removing such a feature. The first few weeks of the test I could see likes on my photos, but not the likes on other peoples photos - if you are going to remove likes, why not atleast go with that format or give people the option to turn seeing their own likes on or off?

I do recognize that "likes" are not a perfect representation of quality. However, it does happen that my better photos usually get more likes, so there is a correlation, even if not perfect. My hands down favourite photo that actually kind of spoke to me to date also happens to be the most liked by far (although some photos that I thought were good got next to no likes, so it isn't perfect). Yes, I realize there is some sort of motivation from the childish side of my brain liking "likes", but I do feel like it has some use aside from that. My view may be flawed, but when I take a photo that I'm already super happy with how it turns out, and then I get really positive feedback, that is kind of motivating to me.

As someone pointed out there is still a way to view likes, no matter how flawed "likes" are. I'm fine with the change since I can still see that If I so desire.

Link | Posted on Nov 10, 2019 at 18:11 UTC

I strongly dislike the move. They removed likes months ago in canada. I really miss the feedback on how "good" my photos were, likes were more like a metric on my improvement as a photographer. I don't really see what is gained by removing such a feature. The first few weeks of the test I could see likes on my photos, but not the likes on other peoples photos - if you are going to remove likes, why not atleast go with that format or give people the option to turn seeing their own likes on or off?

Link | Posted on Nov 10, 2019 at 05:20 UTC as 15th comment | 7 replies
In reply to:

Thoughts R Us: When smartphones have taken over most of what's left of the camera market, one company that will still be going strong is Leica. Love 'em or not, they have their niche and are successful at it. Why? Because Leica understands the value of the experience and the emotion of using a camera; Leica understands design and simplicity; Leica understands heritage.

In other words, Leica understands the value of any discretionary product to the consumer. Most people don't buy solely on rational analysis of a product; they buy at least partly on emotion, and in many cases mostly on emotion.

All camera brands should take a lesson from Leica and perhaps focus more on the user experience.

@3pgrey
It most certainly is a selling point. Why would anyone buy a Louis Vuitton handbag if not for the name and the feeling associated with it? Luxury brands hold a certain power in peoples minds.

You are correct that you simply don't price things high and sell on that point. However, after a luxury brand is established, the name means alot and is usually the main selling point. Leica went through a ton of work over decades making fantastic cameras and spending a ton on marketing and building their brand name to get where they are. Luxury brands are often more resilient to market change and recessions.

Link | Posted on Nov 2, 2019 at 17:24 UTC
In reply to:

Thoughts R Us: When smartphones have taken over most of what's left of the camera market, one company that will still be going strong is Leica. Love 'em or not, they have their niche and are successful at it. Why? Because Leica understands the value of the experience and the emotion of using a camera; Leica understands design and simplicity; Leica understands heritage.

In other words, Leica understands the value of any discretionary product to the consumer. Most people don't buy solely on rational analysis of a product; they buy at least partly on emotion, and in many cases mostly on emotion.

All camera brands should take a lesson from Leica and perhaps focus more on the user experience.

I would argue that "user experience" is not why Leica Is thriving. It's the fact that they are a luxury brand. Many people will buy one as a status symbol, not because they are into photography. It's like a Rolex, you don't buy it because it's in any way better than any other watch, rather you buy one as jewellery and to say your somebody.

Now yes, Leicas are nice cameras and many fantastic photographers get great results with then, but in my mind the status symbol is the most important aspect to their target demographic.

Link | Posted on Nov 2, 2019 at 08:30 UTC
Total: 94, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »