LincolnB

Lives in United States Kirkland, WA, United States
Joined on Sep 1, 2010

Comments

Total: 57, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous123Next ›Last »
In reply to:

Artpt: Could someone commented this is compatible with Fugi's. xt2 system?

I have the Godox/Neewer equivalent, the TT560. It works just as well on my Fuji as it does on my Sony, which would be the same as on Canon and Nikon. The Neewer TT560 version is $32, just $4 more.

Link | Posted on Aug 8, 2017 at 22:24 UTC

So... photos are not copyright protected until the registration process is complete WHICH TAKES 6-8 MONTHS.

Well. I guess if you need to use your own photograph in a timely manner, such as for photojournalism, you're screwed.

Link | Posted on Aug 1, 2017 at 22:38 UTC as 38th comment | 6 replies
In reply to:

sirhawkeye64: From what I was told by a lawyer and a police officer (both friends of mine) is that as long as it is in public spot (like someone being pulled over on the side of the road) you can photograph them. However, you may be asked for your SD card if what you photographed, for example, was an accident that occured, or you otherwise had photographs or videos that would be helpful (in general) to law enforcement, but you wouldn't be arrested or ticketed for doing such photography. I think where it crosses the line is if you use, say, an super telephoto lens to capture a pic through a window of someone being arrested inside a building or house. That I believe goes into invasion of privacy (and thus either would be illegal and/or just wrong), but on public streets, sidewalks, etc, you can photograph police, etc. What I think some people forget you CANNOT photograph, are certain government buildings, power stations (such as power plants or distribution sites), and a handful of other places.

The military equipment must be designated, classified, or marked as "top secret" etc.

Humvees and pencils don't qualify. They're not marked "top secret" or "restricted". (Restricted usually refers to areas anyway, not equipment, as in "This area is marked RESTRICTED.") Not all military areas are marked restricted. Not all equipment is designated "secret". Not all paperwork is classified as "confidential".

Link | Posted on Jul 13, 2017 at 16:50 UTC
In reply to:

sirhawkeye64: From what I was told by a lawyer and a police officer (both friends of mine) is that as long as it is in public spot (like someone being pulled over on the side of the road) you can photograph them. However, you may be asked for your SD card if what you photographed, for example, was an accident that occured, or you otherwise had photographs or videos that would be helpful (in general) to law enforcement, but you wouldn't be arrested or ticketed for doing such photography. I think where it crosses the line is if you use, say, an super telephoto lens to capture a pic through a window of someone being arrested inside a building or house. That I believe goes into invasion of privacy (and thus either would be illegal and/or just wrong), but on public streets, sidewalks, etc, you can photograph police, etc. What I think some people forget you CANNOT photograph, are certain government buildings, power stations (such as power plants or distribution sites), and a handful of other places.

... which are now classified, designated, or marked ... as "top secret", "secret", "confidential", or "restricted"

Yeah, keep reading.

Link | Posted on Jul 13, 2017 at 07:45 UTC
In reply to:

sirhawkeye64: From what I was told by a lawyer and a police officer (both friends of mine) is that as long as it is in public spot (like someone being pulled over on the side of the road) you can photograph them. However, you may be asked for your SD card if what you photographed, for example, was an accident that occured, or you otherwise had photographs or videos that would be helpful (in general) to law enforcement, but you wouldn't be arrested or ticketed for doing such photography. I think where it crosses the line is if you use, say, an super telephoto lens to capture a pic through a window of someone being arrested inside a building or house. That I believe goes into invasion of privacy (and thus either would be illegal and/or just wrong), but on public streets, sidewalks, etc, you can photograph police, etc. What I think some people forget you CANNOT photograph, are certain government buildings, power stations (such as power plants or distribution sites), and a handful of other places.

No, read Executive Order 10104 carefully.

The place or thing needs to be "classified, designated, or marked" ... as "top secret, secret, confidential, or restricted". That does NOT cover everything remotely related to the U.S. military.

If it's not marked or if it's not secret, then Executive Order 10104 doesn't apply.

Link | Posted on Jul 13, 2017 at 01:07 UTC
In reply to:

sirhawkeye64: From what I was told by a lawyer and a police officer (both friends of mine) is that as long as it is in public spot (like someone being pulled over on the side of the road) you can photograph them. However, you may be asked for your SD card if what you photographed, for example, was an accident that occured, or you otherwise had photographs or videos that would be helpful (in general) to law enforcement, but you wouldn't be arrested or ticketed for doing such photography. I think where it crosses the line is if you use, say, an super telephoto lens to capture a pic through a window of someone being arrested inside a building or house. That I believe goes into invasion of privacy (and thus either would be illegal and/or just wrong), but on public streets, sidewalks, etc, you can photograph police, etc. What I think some people forget you CANNOT photograph, are certain government buildings, power stations (such as power plants or distribution sites), and a handful of other places.

Not to put too fine a point on this, but just about everyone who has been anywhere near a military base has a photograph somewhere they've taken that could conceivably fit under a broad interpretation of § 795. That broad interpretation suggests that the police could arrest anyone with a camera and seize any camera anywhere near a military base, at any time The courts take a dim view of such broad interpretations that ensnares nearly everyone in the United States. If you've been anywhere under the flight path of a Blue Angels air show, if you've ever been to a military museum, if ever took a photo that had any portion of a military base or harbor in the background (say, for example, anywhere in San Diego County), if you ever attended a boot camp graduation, if you've ever been on the highway when a military convoy drove by, etc. etc.

I have hundreds of such pictures and I'm confidant I've broken no law.

Link | Posted on Jul 12, 2017 at 19:21 UTC
In reply to:

sirhawkeye64: From what I was told by a lawyer and a police officer (both friends of mine) is that as long as it is in public spot (like someone being pulled over on the side of the road) you can photograph them. However, you may be asked for your SD card if what you photographed, for example, was an accident that occured, or you otherwise had photographs or videos that would be helpful (in general) to law enforcement, but you wouldn't be arrested or ticketed for doing such photography. I think where it crosses the line is if you use, say, an super telephoto lens to capture a pic through a window of someone being arrested inside a building or house. That I believe goes into invasion of privacy (and thus either would be illegal and/or just wrong), but on public streets, sidewalks, etc, you can photograph police, etc. What I think some people forget you CANNOT photograph, are certain government buildings, power stations (such as power plants or distribution sites), and a handful of other places.

18 U.S. Code § 795 is notably silent on the issue of public spaces. This is no small detail. The statute is pointedly vague on that point. Without posting this code in relevant public space it would be quite difficult to obtain a conviction. By the same token, posting this code in a public space would require the military taking a measure of control over that public space which makes that space not so public anymore.

Link | Posted on Jul 12, 2017 at 18:44 UTC
On article Video: How to make a DIY 'beauty dish' for $12 (30 comments in total)

I've done similar with a reflective umbrella. A cardboard cutout, some aluminum foil glued on with spray adhesive to cut down on light loss... done. Since the cardboard was essentially free the entire cost was the spray adhesive ($4) and whatever it costs for a few feet of aluminum foil.

Link | Posted on Jul 11, 2017 at 20:28 UTC as 18th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

sirhawkeye64: From what I was told by a lawyer and a police officer (both friends of mine) is that as long as it is in public spot (like someone being pulled over on the side of the road) you can photograph them. However, you may be asked for your SD card if what you photographed, for example, was an accident that occured, or you otherwise had photographs or videos that would be helpful (in general) to law enforcement, but you wouldn't be arrested or ticketed for doing such photography. I think where it crosses the line is if you use, say, an super telephoto lens to capture a pic through a window of someone being arrested inside a building or house. That I believe goes into invasion of privacy (and thus either would be illegal and/or just wrong), but on public streets, sidewalks, etc, you can photograph police, etc. What I think some people forget you CANNOT photograph, are certain government buildings, power stations (such as power plants or distribution sites), and a handful of other places.

https://petapixel.com/2014/12/12/woman-awarded-1-12m-arrested-taking-photos-outside-military-base/

Link | Posted on Jul 11, 2017 at 05:15 UTC
In reply to:

sirhawkeye64: From what I was told by a lawyer and a police officer (both friends of mine) is that as long as it is in public spot (like someone being pulled over on the side of the road) you can photograph them. However, you may be asked for your SD card if what you photographed, for example, was an accident that occured, or you otherwise had photographs or videos that would be helpful (in general) to law enforcement, but you wouldn't be arrested or ticketed for doing such photography. I think where it crosses the line is if you use, say, an super telephoto lens to capture a pic through a window of someone being arrested inside a building or house. That I believe goes into invasion of privacy (and thus either would be illegal and/or just wrong), but on public streets, sidewalks, etc, you can photograph police, etc. What I think some people forget you CANNOT photograph, are certain government buildings, power stations (such as power plants or distribution sites), and a handful of other places.

I lived and worked right next to a military base for years, about a half-mile as the F-18 flies, and never ever heard of such a thing.

I imagine this could be true if you are * IN * a military base, which is not a public space.

Link | Posted on Jul 11, 2017 at 05:04 UTC
In reply to:

sirhawkeye64: From what I was told by a lawyer and a police officer (both friends of mine) is that as long as it is in public spot (like someone being pulled over on the side of the road) you can photograph them. However, you may be asked for your SD card if what you photographed, for example, was an accident that occured, or you otherwise had photographs or videos that would be helpful (in general) to law enforcement, but you wouldn't be arrested or ticketed for doing such photography. I think where it crosses the line is if you use, say, an super telephoto lens to capture a pic through a window of someone being arrested inside a building or house. That I believe goes into invasion of privacy (and thus either would be illegal and/or just wrong), but on public streets, sidewalks, etc, you can photograph police, etc. What I think some people forget you CANNOT photograph, are certain government buildings, power stations (such as power plants or distribution sites), and a handful of other places.

You CAN photograph gov't building, power stations, etc. as long as it's being done from a public location.

Link | Posted on Jul 10, 2017 at 22:47 UTC
In reply to:

cosinaphile: sold for how much ? every penny should be given to the backers who gave money to this crook

I love it when the InterWebs bitches about articles they didn't read.

"'the [outgoing] founders will [...] not profit from this sale, as the money will be used by the insolvency administrator to pay outstanding invoices and other debt first.'"

Link | Posted on Jul 4, 2017 at 21:02 UTC
On article Ask the staff: wedding season weirdness (273 comments in total)

Literally:
My Uncle Bob was a photographer for the Navy and the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute. He was an exceedingly pedestrian and unenthusiastic photographer. His career was unremarkable. His photos from his twin brother's wedding did not turn out.

Link | Posted on Jul 3, 2017 at 18:54 UTC as 20th comment

He's not a small dude.

Link | Posted on Jun 7, 2017 at 17:00 UTC as 29th comment

Nope.

Link | Posted on May 25, 2017 at 19:56 UTC as 41st comment

So it looks like you'll need a multiple images taken from slightly different spots, stereo at a minimum.

Link | Posted on May 18, 2017 at 20:17 UTC as 40th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

DPPMetro: It's funny that DPR is criticizing Cincotta, but never acknowledges the rabid cheating, shilling, arbitrary deletions, backscratching, and irregularities that are now pretty much the modus operandi of the challenge section of DPR.

I entered a few challenges but stopped. In one challenge, every single entry EXCEPT the winner had received at least 1 half-star vote! All of them, including the top finishers. That kind of did it for me. The challenges are fun and I believe entering them improved my photography but I don't get over-excited about the results. It's not nearly as rewarding as winning paying gigs.

Link | Posted on May 2, 2017 at 17:46 UTC
In reply to:

Najinsky: Just how bad is this Journalism. Did anyone reading this story get even the slightest clue about actually what the infringements are supposed to be. Specifically, what IP rights are being disputed?

On the surface Nikon's claims sound strong. As reported, ASML are acknowledging attempts to negotiate a license fee with Nikon, that seems to indicate that ASML acknowledge the need for license rights exist. But with so few relevant facts, trying to interpret the situation seems a crap shoot at best.

Time to search for better informed sites I guess.

I read the story. I get what the infringements are.

Companies often get into licensing agreements over patents that are in dispute. Patent law is complicated and licensing agreements are often cheaper than lawsuits. It sounds like push came to shove on the difference between the strength of the patent claim and the cost of licensing the patent. Anyone who has been following patent law in the news would recognize this problem from the article. There's little wrong with the article. It's news.

Link | Posted on Apr 28, 2017 at 23:22 UTC
On article Flickr reveals its top 25 photos of 2016 (190 comments in total)

Huh.
Nice shots but all of them are outdoor photography. All but one are landscapes. Is that all there is, in photography?

Link | Posted on Dec 17, 2016 at 16:00 UTC as 69th comment

Perfect for my speedlight addiction.

Link | Posted on Nov 23, 2016 at 06:19 UTC as 11th comment
Total: 57, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous123Next ›Last »