brn

Lives in United States AK, United States
Joined on Mar 10, 2003

Comments

Total: 88, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On article Instagram officially launches 'save draft' feature (30 comments in total)
In reply to:

riknash: Save as draft...months of testing...wow! A telling sign Instagram must be run by a government agency.

When rolling out a feature to millions of people, months of testing is warranted.

Why his is DPReview news is something I can't explain.

Link | Posted on Sep 24, 2016 at 14:38 UTC
In reply to:

brn: Help me understand why this is such a big deal. My aging SB800 can have a flash duration as quick as 1/41,600.

I appreciate all the responses. I get that my SB800 has less power, but it's not a studio light. I might have to research a little on power vs duration in the studio environment. I do appreciate the helpfulness of everyone. Thank you all.

Link | Posted on Sep 17, 2016 at 15:07 UTC

Help me understand why this is such a big deal. My aging SB800 can have a flash duration as quick as 1/41,600.

Link | Posted on Sep 17, 2016 at 00:59 UTC as 9th comment | 26 replies
In reply to:

PanoMax: Those who need booze to expound their photography experience are seriously lacking something.

Panomax, you're right. They're missing booze!

No one said "need". Maybe they "enjoy" it. Btw: I've been known to post process my photos while having a couple of beers. It works.

Link | Posted on Aug 27, 2016 at 16:07 UTC
In reply to:

Najinsky: Cool idea. I've always found that when photographers meet up (socially) in real life, they are always much nicer and kinder to each than they are in online social spaces.

If more of these places sprung up perhaps we'd all learn how to be nicer to each other. An ironically sobering thought no?

It's not a photographer thing. Just about everyone is kinder in person than online.

Raintitan, look for a local photography club. You'll likely find them to be very supportive.

Link | Posted on Aug 27, 2016 at 16:02 UTC
In reply to:

Paniko: Same idea.And (maybe) better implemented.
https://youtu.be/XpTHjPUjU4Y

Good demonstration that it's not an original idea (never thought it was). However, more than twice the, already high, price.

Link | Posted on Aug 25, 2016 at 23:50 UTC
In reply to:

AD in KC: Why are we so instantly enamored with photographers who are dead? How many living, breathing artists are out there who can't get a gallery to return their calls?

I'd tell you, but I'd have to kill you.

Link | Posted on Jun 28, 2016 at 23:15 UTC
On photo Feeding the Fledglings in the From Little Things, Big Things Grow challenge (3 comments in total)

I [deservedly] complemented your competition before I saw this. I'm glad I did, as I might not have praised them appropriately.

This is beautiful. Congratulations.

Link | Posted on Jun 25, 2016 at 03:59 UTC as 1st comment
On photo Gymnastics in Havana in the Street Life! challenge (4 comments in total)

Beans better than the Leica shortlist for Oskar Barnack award.
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0030047582/leica-announces-shortlist-for-the-35-000-oskar-barnack-award

I'm being a bit of a wise guy, but this really is better. It has a legitimacy to it that those finalist don't.

Link | Posted on Jun 25, 2016 at 03:57 UTC as 2nd comment
In reply to:

Hugo808: Can we still shoot them down if they fly over private property?

cjcampbell, you'll note I agree about shooting. I'm only willing to swing a garden rake.

As far as my expectation of privacy, you are correct about the street. That's what privacy fences and trees are for. You are incorrect about the air. Airspace doesn't become public until you are 500 feet up. Even then, it's reasonable to expect privacy, because privacy laws often (not always) limit to a "normal" view (from 500 feet or higher). As long as you've a 50mm or wider lens, don't use digital zoom, and don't pixel peep, you're OK. Change that and the view isn't "normal". Same goes for photos from the street.

Link | Posted on Jun 25, 2016 at 00:52 UTC
In reply to:

Hugo808: Can we still shoot them down if they fly over private property?

According to the Fourth Amendment, I have a "reasonable expectation of privacy". It's perfectly reasonable if I'm in my back yard, with no buildings near, and privacy fences (I have all of these things) to expect privacy. Someone photographing my backyard with a drone (or satellite) violates that expectation, hence violates the Fourth Amendment.

Does that justify me shooting the drone (or satellite) down? Probably not. Can the person be charged with violating the Fourth Amendment? Probably.

My claim has always been that if I cant hit it with garden rake, it's going down!

Link | Posted on Jun 23, 2016 at 00:33 UTC
In reply to:

steelhead3: Lots of self aware Euro style pictures...they really need to broaden their cultural outlook

My issue is that they all looked like they could have been taken by the same photographer. The lack of variety in the winners makes me question the judging.

Link | Posted on Jun 17, 2016 at 03:02 UTC
In reply to:

biza43: Two things come out of this:
1. The high quality of the photos and portfolios submitted;
2. The ignorance, envy, and shallowness of some of the commenters.

Most of the comments are positive. Are those the ignorant ones or are you reserving that term for the few that don't happen to share your views?

Link | Posted on Jun 17, 2016 at 02:58 UTC
In reply to:

brn: 100,000X thinner is mathematically impossible.

This is probably why neither the video nor the linked article made such a claim.

100,000x thinner does not equal 1/100,000 the thickness. The only multiplier that can be used with thinner is <1, unless you violate the laws of physics. In this case 0.99999 times thinner would be appropriate.
Also explained here: http://timesless.com/

Please point out where in the video or in the linked (phys.org, not the DPReview) article the term "100,000x thinner" is used. I looked again (I'm wrong sometimes) and couldn't locate it in either.

Link | Posted on Jun 8, 2016 at 23:38 UTC

100,000X thinner is mathematically impossible.

This is probably why neither the video nor the linked article made such a claim.

Link | Posted on Jun 7, 2016 at 23:34 UTC as 15th comment | 3 replies
In reply to:

The Sage Knows: Oh No!
So sorry to hear of his passing.
As much as I disagreed with many of his assertions, I still learned much from the Luminous Landscape website.
It is definitely a higher level photography site.

Agreed. I sometimes thought he was off base, but that didn't sway my respect for the man. His ability to learn and desire share his talents never stopped.

Link | Posted on May 19, 2016 at 23:00 UTC
In reply to:

Mark Banas: You know, Time's #1 gadget of all time also has a camera built in... just sayin' (to quote Mike J.)

Sorry Canon fanboys, but the TI SR-51 was a more influential calculator. It brought computing to the palm of your hand.

Link | Posted on May 8, 2016 at 16:30 UTC
In reply to:

Just Ed: Sounds good to me. The iPhone should be #3 imo.

As someone who's not young, I'm pretty darn tired of calling someone young (or a millennial) , being considered an insult. Does ripping on someone because of their age really make you somehow more mature?

Link | Posted on May 8, 2016 at 16:24 UTC
In reply to:

ebbo: Kodak yes, Polaroid no.
For the man in the street Polaroid was small fuzzy picture on strange boarderd card, mostly used for personal pictures.

Putting a portable darkroom in the hand of a consumer, at an affordable price, is influential. It doesn't matter how fuzzy.

Link | Posted on May 8, 2016 at 16:18 UTC
In reply to:

simpleshot: This is too U.S.-centric.
Ask any Asian, and they will tell you that the Karaoke is the most influential gadget ever.

So the issue is that it's not necessarily Asian centric?

Personally, I'm taken aback that the Sony Trinitron made #2. Sony didn't even know how to build a color TV until RCA showed them.

Link | Posted on May 8, 2016 at 16:08 UTC
Total: 88, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »