Lee Saxon

Lives in United States New Orleans, LA, United States
Works as a Photography Product Designer
Joined on May 3, 2003

Comments

Total: 50, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous123Next ›Last »
In reply to:

ewelch: The likelihood of this happening is slim. But you can bet Apple will fix it anyway. They have made our privacy their business model. Whereas Google and Amazon are running roughshod over a our privacy.

Speaking of Google, the author neglected to point out this engineer made it clear he did this research on his own time and not while at work.

It already happens. When my iPhone is in use, its "Cellular Data Usage : Current Period" numbers match up with the Verizon "Estimated Data Usage." But when the phone sits idle a few hours (say while I'm sleeping), 10-15mb ticks off the latter which is not reported by the former. I haven't figured out if it's Apple, Verizon, or one of my third-party apps.

Install Snapchat or Instagram, then deny them access to your contacts list, then watch how fast they populate with suggestions to connect with people you know anyway.

Open your Facebook app, log out, then install Tinder (which uses the Facebook account), and when it asks for approval through Facebook see whether you have to enter any login credentials or if the phone remembers them.

Link | Posted on Oct 31, 2017 at 12:25 UTC

I presumed this was the case, I don't know why anyone wouldn't have. When my iPhone is in use, its "Cellular Data Usage : Current Period" numbers match up with the Verizon "Estimated Data Usage." But when the phone sits idle a few hours (say while I'm sleeping, 10-15mb ticks off the latter which is not reported by the former.

I turn on camera/microphone/location/photos/contacts access for apps only briefly and only when absolutely necessary. I'm trying to train myself to add cellular data access itself to that list, but they intentionally make that more of a pain to turn on and off.

Link | Posted on Oct 31, 2017 at 12:19 UTC as 19th comment
In reply to:

Erik Ohlson: "Unique soft-focus rendering......"

Back in the day, we Portrait Photographers referred to that sort of thing as "Using a Dishrag (as a) filter". Required for older, richer clients. :-)

Really, a dishrag? Maybe I'm too young for this reference but I've never seen one that wasn't opaque. I was thinking more like a stocking. You can buy a lot of those for $6500.

Link | Posted on Oct 30, 2017 at 12:14 UTC

So thrown off by how many people thought that, before the invention of content aware fill, photographs told the truth. This is Day 1 stuff in any photography class: no photograph has ever told the truth. Every decision little decision you make projects your viewpoint onto the scene. We're talking about the sophistication of the tools you use to do that, nothing more.

Link | Posted on Oct 23, 2017 at 09:29 UTC as 14th comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

hidden1: At what point does a photograph ceases to be a photograph and becomes a computer generated rendering?

See also: when cinema camera companies show demo reels full of shots from major motion pictures which are like 80% CGI. What do you think I learned about you from a Transformers shot except that you know Michael Bay?

Link | Posted on Oct 23, 2017 at 09:11 UTC

At least they're sort of admitting how often Content Aware Fill is garbage.

Link | Posted on Oct 23, 2017 at 09:05 UTC as 15th comment | 1 reply

I place exactly no faith whatsoever in DXO scores - although I like their charts. So this doesn't really impact me. Still, sounds shady.

Link | Posted on Oct 11, 2017 at 23:22 UTC as 91st comment
In reply to:

hikerdoc: This is getting frustrating. I just sold all my gear to get the top rated D850 and all the recommended lenses. You mean in just days I will need to sell again to get Pentax! I can’t keep doing this every couple months to keep my ego soothed.! I lay awake at night worrying what Sony or Canon might be planning next.

From some of what you read and the incremental leapfrogging in camera specs it's almost like there's a segment of the market that actually does this.

Link | Posted on Oct 11, 2017 at 23:21 UTC
In reply to:

tgchan: "free update " - it is sad that we have to remark it, like it is some kind of a bonus lol

The sticking point, composed, is on the definition of "new"

Link | Posted on Sep 27, 2017 at 21:29 UTC
In reply to:

Lee Saxon: All publicity is good publicity. Despite the tone of this article, you're still helping these people.

Don't get me wrong, reviving old lo-fi lens designs for special effects would be a great idea. If Lensbaby was doing it in plastic barrels for a sixth the price.

Doing it this way is ridiculous. I'd bet anything more of their cost goes into those pretty retro metal barrels than into the simple optics. Total style over substance retro chic - and probably more for young hipsters than anyone who was around closer to these lenses' heyday. Great conversation pieces, but I presume nobody's ever going to photograph with one.

And I'm sure they will be, but as you say - not at that price. I don't care how off-road-capable a brand new $120k Range Rover is, I'm not taking one off road.

Link | Posted on Sep 24, 2017 at 10:44 UTC

All publicity is good publicity. Despite the tone of this article, you're still helping these people.

Don't get me wrong, reviving old lo-fi lens designs for special effects would be a great idea. If Lensbaby was doing it in plastic barrels for a sixth the price.

Doing it this way is ridiculous. I'd bet anything more of their cost goes into those pretty retro metal barrels than into the simple optics. Total style over substance retro chic - and probably more for young hipsters than anyone who was around closer to these lenses' heyday. Great conversation pieces, but I presume nobody's ever going to photograph with one.

Link | Posted on Sep 23, 2017 at 10:01 UTC as 11th comment | 3 replies
In reply to:

Lee Saxon: People who use multiple-piece grid arrangements are stupid anyway. You have to post in threes for the REST OF YOUR LIFE. And which one am I supposed to comment on?! Huh? I can "like" all three parts easily enough but I'm not going to repeat my comment three times?!

My IG feed is mostly sequential; certainly drastically far more than my awful Facebook feed. My complaint, an this also goes for Facebook too, *who* they chose to show me or not.

I don't know who these people are who have time to make so many social media "friends" that an un-algorithmed feed would be impossible to keep up with, but I wish Facebook would introduce a system whereby I could send them a picture of me outside interacting with real humans to prove that I am not such a person and get a straight-ahead feed.

Link | Posted on Sep 20, 2017 at 03:22 UTC
In reply to:

Sdaniella: adapt !!!

newcomers could care less for 3 or 4, every mosaic beyond 2 is extra work no matter what

if they include multi-size rectangle frames in whole number ratios (1:1, 2:1, 3:1, and 4:1), no need to use square only pics

CIASpook, not even really though. It's a pain to post anything that isn't 1:1, it makes wider images really small resolution, it chops the top and bottom off your tall images if you don't make them *just* the right aspect ratio. All to make sure the idiots and tweens they're targeting don't have to learn *anything*. I hate social media and wish it was no longer required for business.

Link | Posted on Sep 20, 2017 at 00:25 UTC

People who use multiple-piece grid arrangements are stupid anyway. You have to post in threes for the REST OF YOUR LIFE. And which one am I supposed to comment on?! Huh? I can "like" all three parts easily enough but I'm not going to repeat my comment three times?!

Link | Posted on Sep 20, 2017 at 00:23 UTC as 33rd comment | 3 replies
In reply to:

ShaiKhulud: >Nikon customer base is very broad, from novice to enthusiasts to prosumer to professional, that’s Nikon’s advantage. Olympus, Sony and Fujifilm can only cover a small part of that. So far there is no professional using their products.

Sorry, what? A7s is an industry standard in video production by now. Either this is some sort of cringe marketing bravery, or they are this clueless. If latter then Big N is in deep S.

"Nikon's attitude is simple: Pro is someone with a press-card. And this is utterly broken attitude, "

Exactly true. It sounds like they're still making money from that system or we wouldn't still see releases timed for the Olympics and whatnot, but I think all that is on the way out faster than Canikon will acknowledge. And even if I'm wrong there's volume in these markets they're ignoring.

Link | Posted on Sep 18, 2017 at 08:35 UTC
In reply to:

ShaiKhulud: >Nikon customer base is very broad, from novice to enthusiasts to prosumer to professional, that’s Nikon’s advantage. Olympus, Sony and Fujifilm can only cover a small part of that. So far there is no professional using their products.

Sorry, what? A7s is an industry standard in video production by now. Either this is some sort of cringe marketing bravery, or they are this clueless. If latter then Big N is in deep S.

Nikon's intentionally not wading into that market though, so I suppose that's tangential for them.

Link | Posted on Sep 18, 2017 at 00:15 UTC
In reply to:

mxx: In such cases I always wonder how the people who bought at the original price must feel now. And what about the resale value of their cameras.

I don't understand your points. This seems like pretty straightforward math to me.

As Kodachrome and I both said, you put a certain capital expenditure into cameras expecting to amortize that over a certain period of time (and bonus if you can also resell it). You do so expecting that expenditure to increase your income by X.

This now-$15k camera was $26k a year and a half ago (new with warranty; again, we'll ignore resale/used). What I'm saying is that in order for one not to wish they'd waited that year and a half, at least from a balance-sheet perspective, X has to be *really* high.

Yes, I'm aware the photographers who paid that didn't *know* how fast it would drop. But that's my point. No manufacturer which can be relied upon and is not in serious trouble allows a drop like that to happen. For precisely the reason I'm stating: people will start refusing to pay the initial asking price.

Link | Posted on Sep 12, 2017 at 03:14 UTC
In reply to:

justmeMN: "from an original price of $25,995" -DPR

The one person who bought the camera at that price is upset. :-)

That pro photographers are charging a lot for their work doesn't mean they wouldn't care about a massive price difference in their equipment. That doesn't make much sense. Even if they were making enough money after spending $26k on a camera, they'd be doing *better* if they'd spent $15k on it.

In fact, we're to a point now where anyone who paid $26k has to be asking whether they're getting paid enough more for the higher quality images that it wouldn't have made more sense to keep their old camera a few more years.

Any camera company which wants to keep selling their equipment at launch prices strives to not ever present a situation where a pro photographer asks himself that question.

Link | Posted on Sep 11, 2017 at 22:54 UTC

Still too much of a premium over the X1D. I get it has a mechanical shutter and the assembly is probably much less automated and requires a lot more adjustments of prism alignment and whanot. But that only justifies so much. And at a certain point the consumer has to ask "even if it costs X much more to make, and the price is therefore fair, is the camera actually worth X much more to me?"

Link | Posted on Sep 11, 2017 at 22:46 UTC as 52nd comment
In reply to:

PhotoUniverse: Is this camera really worth $26,000 + Tax? If you drop the price that much within 3-4 months, what does that mean to your customers?

Why would one pay $26,000 if he/she can pay $6,500 for Fuji or even ~$3,000 for Sony, Canon or Nikon for FF cameras?

IR1234, the $6500 from Fuji would qualify for that. That's the GFX which uses the exact same sensor (well, Fuji claims tweaks) as the H6D-50.

Link | Posted on Sep 11, 2017 at 22:40 UTC
Total: 50, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous123Next ›Last »