Ed Gaillard

Lives in United States New York City, NY, United States
Has a website at http://rumorsofwarblers.net
Joined on Jul 1, 2009

Comments

Total: 23, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »
In reply to:

DukeCC: Since colorizing digitally does not take away from the original, I am fine with it. Why not take advantage of a world where we can have both--faithful, historical examples PLUS digitally enhanced versions that can only add to our experience?

Black and white photographs are "true"; they aren't "complete". Leaving things out when capturing the original scene--whether for technical or artistic reasons--is very different than adding things later

If she had added detailed "photorealist" renderings of things that weren't in the frames of these photos, would that be OK?

Link | Posted on Aug 19, 2013 at 17:59 UTC
In reply to:

Ed Gaillard: Oh, God, this contemptible idiot again? She had her 15 minutes already, last year when she conned Time magazine into using her crappy and historically inaccurate colorizations of some photos of Lincoln. Go away, Dullaway, you have no talent or taste.

Technical skill is not the same as talent. We don't, or shouldn't, speak of the "talent" of the people who do the photoshopping for fashion magazines, for example. And I'm not all that impressed with the skill shown here, either; some of these are garish.

Link | Posted on Aug 19, 2013 at 17:51 UTC
In reply to:

(unknown member): Black and white purists really need to lighten up and open their minds. As long as the color process looks realistic I don't see how any photographer should be upset about these images. The black and white versions are not all of a sudden going to disappear.

It's not a matter of "black-and-white purism", it is a question of what is a historical document and what is a lie promulgated by a tasteless low-rent hack seeking her 15 minutes of fame.

Link | Posted on Aug 19, 2013 at 17:41 UTC
In reply to:

Ed Gaillard: Oh, God, this contemptible idiot again? She had her 15 minutes already, last year when she conned Time magazine into using her crappy and historically inaccurate colorizations of some photos of Lincoln. Go away, Dullaway, you have no talent or taste.

I put in a reply to tkbslc, but then I considered the source.

Link | Posted on Aug 19, 2013 at 17:37 UTC
In reply to:

FredSpain: Black and white photography or movies are things of the past. Photographers and movie-makers used them because they had no other possibility at the time or did not kmow they existed. Technically, Color photography was possible since 1899 and color cinematography since 1926. The use of painted B&W pictures (or movies (most of Melies movies had a colorised version)) was very active in the first half of the XXth century.This artist respect the originals and do not exagerate colors. If you personally do not like it, its is your opinion but think that others have the right to think different.

No, I would say she has no respect at all for the originals.

Link | Posted on Aug 19, 2013 at 17:31 UTC
In reply to:

Leandros S: I disagree Sdaniella. It depends to what extent she used available sources to determine the real colours - if she did not consider this, then yes, it's a lazy fake. I might add that there's nothing particularly difficult about just digitally recolouring a B&W photo.

The last time she stuck her head up, she gave Lincoln blue eyes, ignoring historical accounts that they were grey. My monitor may be off, but it looks like she's trying out brown eyes this time. She is ignorant, sloppy, tasteless, and stupid.

Link | Posted on Aug 19, 2013 at 17:29 UTC
In reply to:

DukeCC: Since colorizing digitally does not take away from the original, I am fine with it. Why not take advantage of a world where we can have both--faithful, historical examples PLUS digitally enhanced versions that can only add to our experience?

Because the colorization is a guess--in Dullaway's case, not a very educated guess--and not a document. It does not add to our experience to have a version of a documentary photo that adds things that that aren't true.

Link | Posted on Aug 19, 2013 at 17:22 UTC

Oh, God, this contemptible idiot again? She had her 15 minutes already, last year when she conned Time magazine into using her crappy and historically inaccurate colorizations of some photos of Lincoln. Go away, Dullaway, you have no talent or taste.

Link | Posted on Aug 19, 2013 at 17:18 UTC as 68th comment | 8 replies
On article Is this the new Leica 'Mini M'? (369 comments in total)
In reply to:

mpetersson: Another re-branded Panasonic? If this is the real camera it looks like a Panasonic with a Leica-like skin pulled over it.

"Theres too much M DNA in that camera for it to be a rebranded panasonic..."

What does that even mean?

Link | Posted on May 30, 2013 at 18:10 UTC
On article Is this the new Leica 'Mini M'? (369 comments in total)
In reply to:

sproketholes: I dont know how this company is still in business.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veblen_good

Link | Posted on May 30, 2013 at 18:08 UTC

Obvious attempt to break the used lens and third-party lens markets. Oh well, it's not like I needed more reasons not to buy Nikon.

Link | Posted on Apr 16, 2013 at 15:06 UTC as 27th comment
On article Hands-on with the Sony Xperia Z tablet (14 comments in total)

The thing I want to know about new tablets, that never gets mentioned, is their color fidelity.

I want a tablet with the iPad's color fidelity (and somewhere close to its resolution) that doesn't lock me into the Apple ecosystem.

AFAIK, nothing like that exists, but it's hard to tell because nobody seems interested in testing color rendition.

Link | Posted on Feb 28, 2013 at 22:16 UTC as 10th comment | 1 reply
On article Interview - Phil Molyneux, President Sony Electronics (127 comments in total)
In reply to:

Scrozzy: Did anyone else play the drinking game where you have to take a shot every time he says "disruptive"?

I'm pretty sure you didn't play it, because you can still type.

Link | Posted on Oct 15, 2012 at 21:38 UTC

"Gimmick"

Link | Posted on Oct 2, 2012 at 14:11 UTC as 30th comment
In reply to:

ppastoris: To DPReview : a suggestion. Could you guys please post equivalent F-numbers (in terms of DOF and light gathering ability) when you post equivalent focal length numbers? E.g. LX7's 4.7-17.7 F1.4-2.3 is the equivalent of 24-90 F7.2-11.7, not of 24-90 F1.4-2.3; similarly for FZ200 it's either 4.5-108 F2.8 or the equivalent of 25-600 F15.6 in 35mm standard.

Being one of the most influential camera review websites on the Internet you could really help your readers to understand what a lens designed for a smaller than 35mm sensor is actually capable of photographically. Clearly posting the equivalent angle of view (by posting an equivalent focal length) is only half of the story.

What I'd really like to see DPReview (and other sites) do is to start quoting angle-of-view along with actual and 35mm-equivalent focal length.

Maybe we can eventually wean people off using the 35mm-equivalent focal length as a proxy for angle of view. Sure, it will take a while, but I think it's worth doing.

Link | Posted on Jul 18, 2012 at 14:26 UTC
On article Just Posted: Olympus OM-D E-M5 review (572 comments in total)
In reply to:

Ed Gaillard: Couple of questions:

Does AEL/AFL remain locked until you hit the button again, or does it unlock if you press the play button, or (worse yet) does it unlock when an exposure is made?

Does the single-shot autofocus have the usual CDAF failure mode of grabbing the background instead of a smallish subject like a bird? (And then "sticking" to the background when you try to refocus.)

I gather from the AEL/AFL mode table that you can't assign AFL to one button and AEL to a different one?

Thanks.

Macx, thanks for the reply about AEL remaining locked.

Vlad S., how long a time? I've had this behavior frequently with my GF-1 and EP-2, and could reproduce it on EPL-2, all with single point AF set to as small an area as they would allow. Maybe the newer sensors do better? I haven't tried out a G3.

Link | Posted on Apr 30, 2012 at 20:54 UTC
On article Just Posted: Olympus OM-D E-M5 review (572 comments in total)

Couple of questions:

Does AEL/AFL remain locked until you hit the button again, or does it unlock if you press the play button, or (worse yet) does it unlock when an exposure is made?

Does the single-shot autofocus have the usual CDAF failure mode of grabbing the background instead of a smallish subject like a bird? (And then "sticking" to the background when you try to refocus.)

I gather from the AEL/AFL mode table that you can't assign AFL to one button and AEL to a different one?

Thanks.

Link | Posted on Apr 30, 2012 at 17:26 UTC as 88th comment | 4 replies
On article Pentax announces K-01 K-mount APS-C mirrorless camera (863 comments in total)

Cheap, but not inexpensive.

Pretty much the size of a K-r, but without a viewfinder or fast focusing.

Very strange.

Link | Posted on Feb 2, 2012 at 15:30 UTC as 279th comment
On article Kodak sells Image Sensor Solutions business (69 comments in total)

Smells like a bust-out--stripping all the valuable assets prior to bankruptcy. Watch the money disappear.

Link | Posted on Nov 8, 2011 at 15:34 UTC as 20th comment
Total: 23, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »