doctor digi

Lives in United States CA, United States
Works as a Photographer / Club Owner
Joined on Jun 26, 2001


Total: 141, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On article RIP Canon's Chuck Westfall, 1952-2018 (67 comments in total)

That's sad - and he wasn't even that old. Another photography community famous name leaves the stage.

Link | Posted on Mar 23, 2018 at 00:32 UTC as 4th comment

"Green's takeaway". Really? He's set up a takeaway restaurant?

Link | Posted on Mar 13, 2018 at 00:22 UTC as 48th comment
In reply to:

dash2k8: The problem is that Yongnuo and Godox and other third party brands have produced equally powerful flashes for a fraction of the price. Anyone who knows how to use a flash will save tons of money (you could buy two flagship Yongnuo's for the price of one Canon top-tier flash) by buying third party. There simply isn't an advantage to using Canon flashes anymore.

Anyone that claims racism for criticising the production of equipment in another country immediately loses any credibility. I wouldn't have bothered apologising @dash2k8 - there was nothing to apologise for. As for Yongnuo - their flashguns are excellent. I have several (and also the wireless flash triggers) and use them a lot. I've not had a gun fail yet in over 2 years of heavy use (one trigger failed - one out of 12 bits of Yongnuo equipment, so not a bad score).

Link | Posted on Feb 28, 2018 at 18:33 UTC

What next for the sheer lazy? A camera that takes a picture when you blink looking through the viewfinder so you don't have to exert yourself pressing the shutter button?

Link | Posted on Feb 27, 2018 at 19:22 UTC as 32nd comment | 2 replies

Just remember: "There is no rose".

Link | Posted on Feb 20, 2018 at 23:41 UTC as 11th comment | 5 replies
In reply to:

Quantum Scientist: The goal of the system is to keep making more and more things illegal until we can't do anything without breaking the law. The goal is not justice but wealth extraction and redistribution.

Well, no. They shouldn't be abolished. However, the copyright period (in both Europe and the US) is now way beyond what it should be. 90 years / 70 years after the death of the author? Ridiculous. Copyright should be 25 years from date of publication. Period. That's plenty of time for authors and artists to profit from their work. And it's about time that damn mouse was out of copyright too - no more Disney extensions!

Link | Posted on Feb 19, 2018 at 00:37 UTC
In reply to:

Tommi K1: Very interesting decision really.

As IMHO if the copyright owner goes and shares the image via public share service, then it should be clear that it is allowed to be shared when mentioning the copyright owner and in the same condition how copyright owner allowed it.

Twitter etc ain't a private deals like that you make with example postcard manufacturer or with newspaper for advertise.

This is now like a case where someone would get sued because newspaper shows a image in someones else video or image (at background, foreground on table etc). Like a newspaper itself would use their collected newspapers in their own service advertising in "January 2018 headlines" collection.

If you don't want your work to be publically shared, you must not use a public service to do that!

The thing is totally different if someone takes your work from a closed share service and then place it to public share service, copying your work from different distributor to other.

And thus it is the person who posted it originally, and without permission, who should be sued. This really is rather simple.

Link | Posted on Feb 16, 2018 at 16:57 UTC

Instead of this nonsense why don't they provide an API for uploading from an app and also allow posting from a browser on a desktop... (yes, you can do it from Chrome via Developer Tools, but that's only by mimicking a mobile device). But no, Instagram is still stuck with their arrogance of deciding what the user can and can't do.

Link | Posted on Feb 12, 2018 at 16:57 UTC as 2nd comment
On article Apple iPhone X review (379 comments in total)
In reply to:

SarahTerra: Going out on a limb here, but any good camera is probably not made in a glass case.

Just sayin.

The glass back replacement is about as expensive as some mid-range smartphones. Apple really know how to milk their "customers".

Link | Posted on Feb 7, 2018 at 15:29 UTC
On article Apple iPhone X review (379 comments in total)
In reply to:

Azathothh: A $1200+ point and shoot camera ? Oh my...

Yes. It's a phone. A $1200+ point and shoot phone. Oh my...

Link | Posted on Feb 7, 2018 at 15:27 UTC
In reply to:

DrSL: Really, do you expect encryption from camera makers?
Just look at the menus, they are still in the 20th century.

The Japanese never have been very good at user interface design.

Link | Posted on Feb 7, 2018 at 15:25 UTC
In reply to:

Decooler: I dont want it at all, and millions stand behind me . A TINY, really TINY group of people imagine they are more IMPORTANT than the vast majority of camera manufacturer's customers, which is fine, we all have our own ego problems, but the best thing they need do is PAY EXTRA for encryption in THEIR OWN machines. I type this on an iMac that is encrypted, but what possible use, and indeed HOW would I encrypt my memory cards USEFULLY in-camera, so that the police and customs could not examine them at all? I cannot do this as refusal to disclose contents could equally lead me to be jailed, tortured, and even attempting to keep content secret could also lead me to be banned from entry or exit across borders.

All states have the right to search expel, jail you if they fancy, life's just like that. Getting your stuff out? Drones? Use film instead, Satellite connections, give your stuff to the pilot, etcetera. Like POST your memory cards home!

"millions stand behind me". Could you please give your source for this statistic? As for your all caps - it makes you sound like you're ranting. What for? Nobody would be forcing you to use encryption as it would just be another feature. Besides, what is your problem with encryption anyway? You aren't one of the "TINY (sic) group of people", so what's it to you what they do?

Link | Posted on Feb 7, 2018 at 15:17 UTC

Need this for the Pitch Drop Experiment.

Link | Posted on Feb 3, 2018 at 00:52 UTC as 8th comment
In reply to:

doctor digi: I'm amazed this video hasn't been removed. It objectifies women - including all the shots women have taken of themselves.

Except it is.

Link | Posted on Feb 3, 2018 at 00:49 UTC

I'm amazed this video hasn't been removed. It objectifies women - including all the shots women have taken of themselves.

Link | Posted on Feb 2, 2018 at 10:11 UTC as 25th comment | 5 replies

Does it blend?

Link | Posted on Feb 2, 2018 at 00:30 UTC as 35th comment | 1 reply

Subscription models are awful. They're only justifiable when new content is being added (like a magazine or an app that has info constantly added to it). I resent paying over and over again for something that should just have a one-off price.

Link | Posted on Jan 30, 2018 at 00:57 UTC as 4th comment
In reply to:

doctor digi: They cut the battery replacement cost from $79 to $29. It just goes to show how much profit they are making on replacements. While other companies may make profits from replacements, it's not as much as this. Once again we see what a nasty, arrogant company Apple is. It's "customers" are just cashcows, and boy do Apple take advantage. Remember folks, you never own your i-devices; you just lease them from Apple!

MikeRan: I'm not naive. Of course companies make money from replacements, so please don't "duh" me thank you. It is the scale of the drop I am pointing out - and you can bet Crapple is still making a tidy sum even at the "low" $29 mark. The batteries probably cost them 5 bucks a piece - maybe less. Before you go mouthing off about being naive why don't you go and do a little research first - such as comparing replacement parts prices from Crapple versus any other large company making the same types of products. I think you'll find most are far cheaper. And please don't give me any BS about Crapple's parts being better quality. A lot of this stuff is made by third parties and is used by various manufacturers.

Link | Posted on Jan 22, 2018 at 17:55 UTC
In reply to:

doctor digi: I can tell you now, Unsplash is most definitely not the future.

People don't take an artist seriously if they sell below the normal market rate. They'll value you even less if you give things away for free. Giving me "credit" or "exposure" if I give you images for free so you can make money off them? Well *I* expect those things for "free" if you use my images. And *I* expect *you* to pay me for using them. Not the other way around.

The sooner this clever clever idea that social media somehow totally drives the world, images are valueless, and we all don't have to work because some dumbo will give things to us for nothing , dies the better. The Y Generation have an awful lot to learn and I'm getting the popcorn ready for when this bubble bursts.

Just imagine the money you'd be making if you didn't debase your work on Unsplash. As I said, the "me me me" Y Generation are in for a nasty shock. The world doesn't revolve around freebies - unless you happen to be one of the owners of these "free" sites who will later cash in when they sell the site and screw their users. You'll learn :-)

BTW, I don't make my living from photography. I'm just an interested observer, not someone with an axe to grind because my work is being "stolen".

Link | Posted on Jan 22, 2018 at 14:15 UTC
In reply to:

mastix: Mr Zeller: your marketing campaign for Unsplash and Ello could have gone unnoticed as a bait a few years ago. Fortunatelly now, people don't fall that easy to those traps anymore.......

Mr Zeller, of course you haven't received a dollar from Unsplash. They give away your photos for free, so why shouldn't your marketing for them also be free! LOL

Link | Posted on Jan 22, 2018 at 01:25 UTC
Total: 141, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »