ProfHankD

ProfHankD

Lives in United States Lexington, United States
Works as a Professor
Has a website at http://aggregate.org/hankd/
Joined on Mar 27, 2008
About me:

Plan: to change the way people think about and use cameras by taking advantage of cameras as computing systems; engineering camera systems to provide new abilities and improved quality.

Comments

Total: 1080, showing: 81 – 100
« First‹ Previous34567Next ›Last »
In reply to:

SVPhotography: Getty's business is playing the middle man. They license photos from photographers and sub-license them out to other people for a fee.

https://contributors.gettyimages.com/article_public.aspx?article_id=2719

So the big unanswered question is: Did Getty license these photos from a photo stealer or did Getty "find" these photos on their own.

Also she put these photos in the public domain.
http://www.loc.gov/rr/print/res/482_high.html

I am not a lawyer but it will be hard for her to sue for copyright violation after putting all her photos in the public domain.

This is not the first time that stock companies charge for public domain photos.
http://uk.pcmag.com/photo-editing-reviews/45646/opinion/stock-photos-will-drive-photoshop-use-into-the-ground

I'm not a lawyer, but here's how I see this.

It is a common perception that you can do anything you want with things placed in the public domain, but the one thing you can't do is claim rights of authorship or ownership -- which is what charging licensing fees implies Getty did. Hopefully, this will end up being traced to somebody passing the images off as their own to Getty, in which case I guess the issue becomes one of due diligence about verifying the image source. This could get very messy, and not just for Getty.

A lot of documents and software that I put in the public domain has ended-up being sold by for-profit companies, but in theory they were either really charging for the service of making physical copies (printed books or digital media) or they were making derivative works that they can legally own a copyright for. I think it would be difficult for Getty to make either of those arguments for their licensing process....

Link | Posted on Jul 29, 2016 at 04:50 UTC
On article Top tips for composing great landscapes (129 comments in total)
In reply to:

ProfHankD: To me, your white signature on dark background is the dominant (or at least a major) visual component of nearly every one of these images -- it seriously degrades the compositions. If you insist on marking each image, I'd strongly suggest making it a more subtle watermark, using tones more consistent with those of the area upon which you impose it.

I started this thread to make the point that this type of logo marking seriously detracts from the image composition and that there are other, even more effective, anti-theft mechanisms that would be much less visually disruptive. At the same time, I am actually quite empathetic about why the author would feel the need to take drastic theft prevention measures in general.

I don't see anything to be bickering about -- the take home message here is simply that online image theft is a serious problem. The author and I obviously don't agree on the best way to deal with this problem, but us agreeing isn't important; the important thing is that each person should consider their options before posting their photos.

Link | Posted on Jul 26, 2016 at 14:34 UTC
On article Real world test: The Panono is a 108MP spherical camera (156 comments in total)
In reply to:

cits: Wonder if anyone has tried taking 2 cameras with backs taped together, lens that can shoot 180 degrees and use remote shutter release & then stitched together the images...better yet, 4 cameras with their corners touching..LOL

Old as the idea of fisheyes themselves. Personally, I did this with two Nikon 950 + 185 degree FC-E8 fisheyes and two Olympus D340R + 185 degree fisheyes all back in 1999. Of course, back then I had a cluster supercomputer doing the stitching and rendering for the pan+zoom you now see above in your WWW browser. ;-)

Link | Posted on Jul 24, 2016 at 21:46 UTC
On article Top tips for composing great landscapes (129 comments in total)
In reply to:

ProfHankD: To me, your white signature on dark background is the dominant (or at least a major) visual component of nearly every one of these images -- it seriously degrades the compositions. If you insist on marking each image, I'd strongly suggest making it a more subtle watermark, using tones more consistent with those of the area upon which you impose it.

Chris M Williams: Sadly, I can understand that there is a real problem with theft of your images. However, there is quite a bit of technology now that can provide much more robust protection against theft in a far less intrusive way. For example, http://www.fourandsix.com/ has some excellent tools for detecting alteration of images that, combined with subtle shaded logos (which, incidentally are MUCH harder to remove than white ones -- the white logo is easily picked and removed via texture synthesis tools such as gimp's heal selection), should give you much better protection.

Link | Posted on Jul 24, 2016 at 18:37 UTC
On article Top tips for composing great landscapes (129 comments in total)
In reply to:

ProfHankD: To me, your white signature on dark background is the dominant (or at least a major) visual component of nearly every one of these images -- it seriously degrades the compositions. If you insist on marking each image, I'd strongly suggest making it a more subtle watermark, using tones more consistent with those of the area upon which you impose it.

TheDman: You don't seem to get the point that the logo placement DOES NOT follow the author's own guidelines for composition. BTW, he has similarly defaced all the photos on his website. It's more like listening to a copy of The Beatles' Sgt Pepper album where at some random point in every song the music stops for 10 seconds and an announcer states that this song was recorded by the Beatles. ;-)

Link | Posted on Jul 24, 2016 at 16:38 UTC
On article Top tips for composing great landscapes (129 comments in total)
In reply to:

ProfHankD: To me, your white signature on dark background is the dominant (or at least a major) visual component of nearly every one of these images -- it seriously degrades the compositions. If you insist on marking each image, I'd strongly suggest making it a more subtle watermark, using tones more consistent with those of the area upon which you impose it.

PeaceKeeper: Maybe, but it is beyond unfortunate that an article about composition and visual flow gives sample images defaced with logos that directly violate the principles the article is espousing. The lesson in that case is that paranoia can lead an artist to ruin their own art. ;-)

Link | Posted on Jul 23, 2016 at 20:28 UTC
On article Top tips for composing great landscapes (129 comments in total)

To me, your white signature on dark background is the dominant (or at least a major) visual component of nearly every one of these images -- it seriously degrades the compositions. If you insist on marking each image, I'd strongly suggest making it a more subtle watermark, using tones more consistent with those of the area upon which you impose it.

Link | Posted on Jul 23, 2016 at 13:57 UTC as 40th comment | 44 replies
On article Getting up close: Canon EF-M 28mm macro hands-on review (103 comments in total)
In reply to:

Tonkotsu Ramen: I'm surprised and happy to see the EF-M mount getting attention!

Me too. I have an EOS-M, and it doesn't compete well with my Sonys in IQ, but running ML enables some great things. Now if only the folks giving EOS-M attention included more people who work at Canon.... ;-)

Link | Posted on Jul 21, 2016 at 22:58 UTC

You know, I keep feeling better and better about the $150 I spent on my pristine Spiratone 135mm f/1.8.... I'm sure there are people just thrilled about this lens, and the $500 Samyang 135mm f/2 (that this is obviously based on) is probably a tad better than my old Spiratone (although that Spiratone is surprisingly good), but if I were gonna spend serious money on a 135mm, it would be the Sony/Minolta 135mm STF, which is about half the price of this lens.

I'm just not excited about a cine version of a lens they already sell for 1/5 the price....

Link | Posted on Jul 19, 2016 at 03:54 UTC as 8th comment | 1 reply
On article Samyang teases 'summer blockbuster' lens announcements (124 comments in total)
In reply to:

Alphoid: I'm going to bet they'll re-release their existing lenses in autofocus and nice aesthetics. The numbers work out right. I'm going to bet they'll be overpriced too. This won't be a $150 prime, but a $600 prime. I'm going to bet it will be met with a collective 'meh' as it won't save much over Sigma, Tokina, or similar. Unless it's all E-mount.

I think the phrase you were looking for is "unit focusing lenses" -- as opposed to floating element designs. There is some degradation, of course, with floating element designs... however, that degradation is tiny if the focus shift is small. Thus, approximately focusing manually and having the AF tweak that can work great. In general, that's how this works: it perfects an approximate manual focus.

Link | Posted on Jul 16, 2016 at 17:43 UTC
On article Samyang teases 'summer blockbuster' lens announcements (124 comments in total)
In reply to:

Alphoid: I'm going to bet they'll re-release their existing lenses in autofocus and nice aesthetics. The numbers work out right. I'm going to bet they'll be overpriced too. This won't be a $150 prime, but a $600 prime. I'm going to bet it will be met with a collective 'meh' as it won't save much over Sigma, Tokina, or similar. Unless it's all E-mount.

Actually, the real game changer is AF with manual lenses:
http://techartpro.com/product/techart-pro-leica-m-sony-e-autofocus-adapter/

This tech will only get better and more available....

Link | Posted on Jul 16, 2016 at 15:33 UTC
On article Samyang teases 'summer blockbuster' lens announcements (124 comments in total)
In reply to:

Alphoid: I'm going to bet they'll re-release their existing lenses in autofocus and nice aesthetics. The numbers work out right. I'm going to bet they'll be overpriced too. This won't be a $150 prime, but a $600 prime. I'm going to bet it will be met with a collective 'meh' as it won't save much over Sigma, Tokina, or similar. Unless it's all E-mount.

Alphoid, those nifty fifties are NOT new designs, nor are they complex formulas. Many Samyangs are, and they even have some of the best coatings from any manufacturer. The difficulty in supporting AF is largely making it work for various mounts, not just one, which is where the camera-brand lenses actually have a significant advantage in cost. We'll just have to see what Samyang releases and how the market views it....

Link | Posted on Jul 16, 2016 at 14:31 UTC
On article Samyang teases 'summer blockbuster' lens announcements (124 comments in total)
In reply to:

Alphoid: I'm going to bet they'll re-release their existing lenses in autofocus and nice aesthetics. The numbers work out right. I'm going to bet they'll be overpriced too. This won't be a $150 prime, but a $600 prime. I'm going to bet it will be met with a collective 'meh' as it won't save much over Sigma, Tokina, or similar. Unless it's all E-mount.

Too be blunt about it, lenses like the 85mm f/1.4 Samyang has been selling are minor miracles in terms of their pricing. Folks in the industry have told me a $600 price target is pretty hard to hit for a new, state-of-the-art, lens (even one that is just manual focus). I admit that I prefer to buy old lenses for $25 on eBay, and that is actually a very workable approach for us E-mount folks, but $600 is a price even I will happily pay to get an optic that does something I need and can't get from a cheaper old lens.

As for E-mount, well, we have more old manual, and more AF, lenses that work on our bodies than any other mount, so having 5 more lenses available in E-mount (or adapted) doesn't mean much. The real win would be lenses explicitly designed taking advantage of the shorter flange distance in E (and other mirrorless mounts). Unfortunately, the lens-shadow images they've posted don't look like small lenses, so I doubt this unless they are fast zooms or somesuch....

Link | Posted on Jul 16, 2016 at 13:25 UTC

I don't get some of these, especially #4.

Link | Posted on Jul 15, 2016 at 12:18 UTC as 17th comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

ProfHankD: I thought wifi control was pretty common by now? Sony's open HTTP/JSON-based wifi interface, which works on 34 of their camera models, does it for me: https://developer.sony.com/develop/cameras/

Don't other brand cameras have this type of wifi support?

It's an open API for wifi camera control... no PlayMemories stuff needed at all.
It's just JSON sent through an HTTP connection -- about as hard to use as writing your own simple HTML code. I suppose not many folks use this, but Sony has really been pretty good about it.

Link | Posted on Jul 13, 2016 at 04:21 UTC
In reply to:

Saint 112: I don't need a device (yet another one). I need an app that allows me to control my Sony RX10 I with my Android tablet. I would pay for it if it did really work… unlike Sony's idiotic PlayMemories.
Nick

Well, here: https://developer.sony.com/develop/cameras/

Link | Posted on Jul 13, 2016 at 02:06 UTC

I thought wifi control was pretty common by now? Sony's open HTTP/JSON-based wifi interface, which works on 34 of their camera models, does it for me: https://developer.sony.com/develop/cameras/

Don't other brand cameras have this type of wifi support?

Link | Posted on Jul 13, 2016 at 02:03 UTC as 16th comment | 3 replies
In reply to:

ksrk: Go to http://captured.light.co/svalbard and http://captured.light.co/lighting-up-london
they have put preproduction samples
They say that the production quality may be even better.
If so , it may well be a game changer.

I think they're doing a pretty good job of computationally integrating the image content from the cameras, with the only major strangeness showing around the highlights... which are largely blown anyway (this doesn't seem to be getting very good DR). I don't see this as a game changer, but I've been deeply involved in computational photography for some years; put another way, the game changed a while back, but maybe this will help make that fact obvious. ;-)

Link | Posted on Jul 7, 2016 at 21:56 UTC
In reply to:

j12tone: Photographs are not real.

http://www.jeffreysward.com/editorials/pnotreal.htm

https://luminous-landscape.com/abstraction/

It always used to drive me nuts when people would look at one of my photos and say "that's Jim" or somesuch, because in no way was it ever anything more than how I envisioned Jim. A camera is a device for creating a model of scene appearance. The photographer always has control of the scene appearance by manipulating the scene, exposure parameters, and postprocessing.

This (rather shallow) National Geographic article doesn't quite come out and say what it really should: photography can span a broad spectrum from abstract art to evidence, and National Geographic sees itself as not being in the business of publishing art. They are most interested in feature reportage, which is properly nearer the evidence end of that spectrum.

A photographer legitimately can produce images that fall anywhere in the art-to-evidence spectrum -- as long as the work is correctly classified and complies with the rules of the particular publication venue.

Link | Posted on Jul 6, 2016 at 01:23 UTC
On article Photographing fireworks: The basics and then some (66 comments in total)

Excellent little article. One more trick:

Capture a photo WITHOUT any fireworks exploding.

Ok, I don't really have to tell you to do that, because you'll naturally miss every so often... but the cool trick is that you can use a separate exposure (perhaps with very different exposure settings) like that aligned with an image that shows fireworks to fill-in the background to whatever level you wish by combining the exposures in post. Especially if you're using a tripod or other solid mounting for your camera, it's very easy to get a clean exposure of the background -- in fact, you might even want to get that shot before they turn the lights off for the show to start. Fireworks might look more impressive in person with everything else dark, but you really are shooting "skyscapes" and all the rules about foreground, etc., for landscape photography still apply.

Link | Posted on Jul 3, 2016 at 17:58 UTC as 18th comment
Total: 1080, showing: 81 – 100
« First‹ Previous34567Next ›Last »