October 26, 2014, 05:47:46 AM

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Meh

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 47
16
Photography Technique / Re: Am I the only one this has happened to?
« on: April 21, 2014, 09:37:19 AM »
Rights are superseded by social responsibility.

I get your point, but you're overstating it.  Rights can not be superseded... otherwise it wouldn't be a right.  But there are limits to certain rights... you have the right to free speech but that does not include inciting a riot by falsely screaming fire.  It also doesn't include harassing people.   Similarly, taking photos of people in public is not prohibited (and this has been held up in court cases I believe) but following someone around taking photos of them day after day could cross a line into harassment.

17
Photography Technique / Re: Am I the only one this has happened to?
« on: April 21, 2014, 09:28:36 AM »
Definitely a good idea to speak to the coach and/or other parents before hanging around a ball field or hockey arena taking photos of kids.   Even better, if you're just looking to practice sports photography shoot a men's league and still let them know who you are... they might even buy some photos :D

18
Photography Technique / Re: Am I the only one this has happened to?
« on: April 21, 2014, 09:10:24 AM »
Also, if a photographer is "free" to take photos in public places, people in the area are equally "free" to express, even in very strong terms, their disapproval of his public photography.  Having a camera in hand does not exempt a person from being the recipient of someone else's "free speech."

Absolutely correct and this is why I said in my previous post that the best response is to just politely respond such as "thanks for the advice" or "I'll keep that in mind".   There is no law prohibiting others from speaking to us, what is in our control is how we respond and react.  Getting angry and/or escalating the situation is what is going to ruin your day.  We live in a society.  There are other people and  we are going to "bump into them from time to time" whether that is in a verbal interaction, a disagreement, a difference of opinion, or even physically bumping into someone.  I just read in the news some kid got shot in the foot because some other kid thought he was cutting into line to buy shoes.  In the words of Chris Rock... "if someone scuffs your Puma, let it slide".

19
Photography Technique / Re: Am I the only one this has happened to?
« on: April 21, 2014, 07:27:35 AM »
People have the right to take pictures in any public place

There's a distinction to be made between what's within your legal rights and what's polite or ethical.  In the U.S., you have the right to go around like Wowbagger the Infinitely Prolonged and insult everyone you meet, so long as you don't do it in a way that amounts to fighting words.  It is, however, extremely uncivil to do so.  Regardless of your rights, it's uncivil to take photos of people who don't want to be photographed.  The world is not your modeling agency, and its people are not your hired "talent."  Don't treat people as mere scenery in the theater performance that is your life.

That's true also, but different from what I was trying to get at.  When someone comes up to a photographer and demands that you do not take pictures of them, their kids, their dog, etc. and/or demands to see your photos they are acting as though it's their right not to be photographed when in fact the opposite is true.  Legally, the photographer is not prohibited from taking pictures in public.   Harassing someone though by interfering with them, cursing at them, threatening, assaulting, damaging their gear (e.g. hollywood celebs) is in fact prohibited.  The point is people tend to think they have rights they don't actually have and then get irate when they think you're violating those perceived rights.

Social norms are a different matter.  People do feel uncomfortable being photographed and if I noticed someone specifically photographing me whether with a long lens or a smartphone I would feel uncomfortable.  If they kept it up I might ask them to stop but would more likely just walk away.  If they followed me and continued photographing me specifically now they might be crossing a legal line in the sense of harassing me.

So, yes I get your point but I was specifically talking about rights and the law, not social norms.

20
Photography Technique / Re: Am I the only one this has happened to?
« on: April 20, 2014, 10:25:45 PM »
Funny story! 

I was in Colorado last winter skiing with my wife and another couple.  We are completely normal looking young adults from the midwest.  We were at Copper Mountain Resort after a full day of skiing having a nice dinner at a slope side restaurant (still in our ski gear).  I had my 5d2 and 50 1.4 (hardly a obtrusive setup) and i was taking a few pics of our friends and the ambiance (typical vacation stuff).  It was busy and I was not doing anything to attract attention other than taking a few harmless photos in a busy public place. 

Then, some guy comes up to me and asks to see my camera (he didn't say it in a nice way).  I asked why, and he said he wanted to see if I had taken pictures of his kids.  He then accused me of taking photos of children in the restaurant and called me a sicko (and something else worse but I don't remember).  My wife and friends were as shocked as me and I basically told him to go f**k himself.  Plus me and my friend are big guys and this guy was maybe 5'5" so there wasn't much he could do.  However, it ruined my night as it left me pissed off the whole time. 

Because I drove 800 miles and spent thousand of dollars so I could take pictures of random kids in a restaurant in Colorado?  What am I going to do with these pictures?  Some people are just paranoid...  Fun world we live in, huh???

In this case, the guy was completely out of line.  He was accusing you of something and demanding to see your pictures.  People have the right to take pictures in any public place and, technically, that includes taking pictures of kids, dogs, etc.  There's just so little social tolerance these days.... everyone feels their rights trump everyone else's rights and half the time they don't even have the rights they are claiming such as "you can't photograph me without my permission".  Such a self-centred society we live in and it's getting worse.

Regardless though, getting angry or telling someone off just makes it worse.  In such situations I try to see it from their perspective and respond politely.  If they push it though, then I might respond more firmly.   There's a fine there I suppose.

21
Photography Technique / Re: Am I the only one this has happened to?
« on: April 20, 2014, 09:47:10 PM »
Here's the thing... as much as you have the right to take photographs, people have the right to speak to you.  How you react is your own responsibility.  Getting furious, having your day spoiled, feeling like smashing him with you monopod, provoking him by taking his photo, etc. are all overreactions to someone who decided to speak to you. 

From what you describe, he wasn't rude about it.  So... instead of feeling angry the above advice about telling anyone who asks that you're taking pictures of the dogs and showing them the pictures is the probably the best choice.

The fact is there are plenty of people out there who are trolling around taking pictures of people's kids and maybe it's not so bad that people in the community are watching out for it.

More and more, we seem to be living in a society where everyone is taking the attitude that they should be able to do what they want, when they want, and how they want without question or concern.  But as I said above, if that's what you believe then you also have to accept that others have the same right and that includes speaking their mind.  So instead of having "how dare you question me or speak to me" mentality why not just say "thanks for the advice" and not let your own angry response ruin your day.

If you would always ask permission to photograph a person in shooting street photography then perhaps shooting at the dog park could be the same... introduce yourself to the folks and let them know you'd like to take pictures of the dogs.  Maybe even give them a card with your website if you have one and tell them you'll post a few photos if you get any good shots.

Just my two cents.

22
Yes they do. Once you come up with some ideas for its use it really does work well. I have had other remotes inside buildings and fired them from outside with a hand aimed 600 and the tripod mounted camera in the street. The RT system really is a great system.

P.S. There is a caveat, if you have AF on and the camera can't aquire focus it won't take an image, but that is consistent with other remotes too.

Cool :)

23
Speedlites, Printers, Accessories / Re: PocketWizard, Yongnuo, or Phottix?
« on: November 03, 2013, 10:14:26 PM »
I know i'm right on this

And yet so wrong...  ;)

24
EOS Bodies / Re: Wait for the Canon 5D Mark IV or get the Mark III?
« on: October 11, 2013, 11:13:51 PM »
It's the 5D Mark 7 you really want to wait for... I wouldn't shoot anything until you can get a hold of that one.

Ha!

25
I agree with Mt. Spokane... get a color calibration tool and any decent monitor will do fine.  However, that doesn't answer your question, does it.

What makes one monitor better than another is the usual set of features... resolution, contrast, color accuracy, color gamut, etc.  Plus one more... consistency at varied viewing angles.  Almost all monitors boast something like 170+ degree viewing angle BUT at angles off the center viewing axis the color and contrast is poor.   So... you want an IPS panel that does not suffer so much at off angles.  And most IPS panels, given they are the higher end models, have good feature sets and wide color gamuts.

IMHO, the Dell Ultransharp series are the best value here and the U2412 (which is still being sold has been succeeded by the U2413) is really good and only $289 at the moment.  They increased the color gamut on the U2413 but, and this is where Mt Spokane hits the nail on the head, you don't need that for anything but high end publishing.  Short of that, your images are being viewed on screen or regular prints and those can't reproduce that wide of a color gamut anyway.

These Dell 24" displays are not ultra high resolution... they are only 1920 x 1200... an iPad has more pixels... but can the human eye see the difference at the typical viewing distance of a desktop monitor... probably not.


26
I doubt Canon's leading edge video sensor will be restricted to 1080p.

You doubt it?  Even in the face of the clear fact that this particular sensor is in fact a "Full HD" (1920x1080) video sensor?

This sensor, as they state, is being developed to optimize low light video... as stated Canon "is looking to such future applications for the new sensor as astronomical and natural observation, support for medical research, and use in surveillance and security equipment."

Whatever new technologies they develop for reduced noise readout electronics could potentially be used in future higher resolution video and still sensors, but that's not what this sensor is about.

27
Noooooooooooooooooo, don't ask such questions 'round these parts... the APS-H boys will pounce!!!

28
Lenses / Re: AF questions
« on: August 23, 2013, 10:37:21 PM »
Well, there is either 1) something wrong with the lens, 2) something wrong with the body, or 3) something wrong with the particular combination of body + lens.  Or you are just being punished by camera fairies for some offense you have caused them.

29
Lenses / Re: AF questions
« on: August 23, 2013, 06:14:19 PM »
The camera very likely attempts to confirm focus once the lens' focusing element is moved to the predicted focus position.  If, when it attempts to confirm focus, the image is not in focus it will try again.  You can imagine that if the lens was damaged or otherwise not working properly such that it simply can not focus within the acceptable tolerance of the PDAF system, it will hunt.  This is not the iterative process of contrast detect, it is a failure of the lens to achieve focus.

30
and fails to provide any explanation that is meaningful as to why they refuse to perform their obligation.

Except that they did provide an explanation, they inspected and determined that the camera had been damaged by the user.   I'm not saying that they are right or wrong in their assessment, but they did tell you why they are denying the warranty claim.

If they took anyone at their word that a product wasn't dropped or otherwise damaged by the owner, it wouldn't be just $100 as you stated, it would be millions because everyone who dropped their camera would send it back and claim "it just suddenly stopped working".

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 47