March 02, 2015, 04:03:24 PM

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 - Orangutan

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 59
1
EOS Bodies / Re: The State of the Camera Industry in 2014
« on: February 28, 2015, 10:26:29 AM »
I wonder if that is enough to lead to a pink 5DIV?   ;)

      It doesn't matter whether the cat is black or white, as long as it catches mice.

2
EOS Bodies / Re: The State of the Camera Industry in 2014
« on: February 28, 2015, 09:21:00 AM »
Interesting.  If I'm reading this correctly there seem to be several lessons: (1) Canon did a pretty good job predicting the actual mirrorless market -- strong demand isn't there yet; (2) Future models may be developed with Asia in mind rather than North America or Europe because that's where the potential growth exists;(3)There's potential for a lot of lens demand in Asia if the economic recovery continues;(4) We can expect stronger efforts to separate dedicated cameras (both compact and DSLR/MILC) from phone cameras;(5)We can expect stronger efforts to improve the camera modules in phones.

Competition is good.

3
Photography Technique / Re: Game Ranches for photography
« on: February 27, 2015, 02:01:53 PM »
Personally, I do not think that I have to explain that these chickadees have been baited into a spot where it is possible to take a reasonably close picture of them.....

Nor do you have to apologize for tampering with their natural life cycle because neither the species nor the individuals are in appreciably greater danger, and there are plenty of them in the wild.

4
Photography Technique / Re: Game Ranches for photography
« on: February 27, 2015, 11:32:23 AM »
Game farms have a real use.  I don't want 100s or 1000s of people out in the wilds stressing animals, perhaps causing them to abandon their young.  No picture is worth the animal's life (or yours - but you can control the latter in most cases).

There is a fine line between game farms and animals that are free but are regularly feed/protected or baited.  How do you honestly label the latter?
I agree and unless they are abusing the animals, its gives far more people the opportunity to see/photograph animals than would be possible or responsible to do in the wild.  It's the captioning that is important, at least to me.  I don't think people would think any less of a photo if they knew it was at a game farm upfront, but I think they would be very disappointed if I tried to pass one off as wild and they found out I was lying.

The whole attractant thing is another matter.  If it's a man-made watering hole or a bird feeder that supplements natural food and water sources, I don't think that's a huge deal, but if people use bait, or game calls, that's going too far, IMHO.  It may take animals away from doing activities they need to survive, teach them to become dependent on humans, or in the case of large predators, teach them associate humans with food.  Note, that is humans=food, not humans=creatures who feed us. 

Finally, if it were me, I would caption a photo of a bird, even if the feeder wasn't in the frame, something like "Blue jay visiting my backyard bird feeder".

++Agree

5
Photography Technique / Re: Game Ranches for photography
« on: February 27, 2015, 11:18:56 AM »
If a publisher / forum has rules  about labeling then of course they need to be followed.
Forums which impose strict rules will lose traffic, unless all forums impose these rules.  It's a perverse incentive.

Quote
If they ask, I tell the back story.
Why do you wait for them to ask?

Quote
I don't want 100s or 1000s of people out in the wilds stressing animals, perhaps causing them to abandon their young.  No picture is worth the animal's life (or yours - but you can control the latter in most cases).
Absolutely agree with this statement, but not your conclusion.  My conclusion is that photographers should neither stress wild animals nor fail to label their photographs.  In general, photographers should not value their own photography over the health/safety/well-being of their subjects.  For animals that are stressed by close proximity to humans, close-up photos should be taken by the scientists studying them, not by photographers.

Quote
There is a fine line between game farms and animals that are free but are regularly feed/protected or baited.  How do you honestly label the latter?

Label: "Photo of habituated grizzly bear near xxx river in Alaska."

6
Photography Technique / Re: Does this photo work?
« on: February 27, 2015, 10:13:07 AM »
sanj,

The photo almost works for me.  I don't have time to try right now, but I'd see if adding just a bit more blur would help.  That would make it less realistic and more impressionistic, which (I think) might work well for the color boost.

Just musings, not criticism.

7
Photography Technique / Re: Game Ranches for photography
« on: February 27, 2015, 10:08:50 AM »
Thanks for posting this link.  A year or two ago we had a similar debate here, I believe it centered on the famous "impossible" Peter Lik photo.  There were several people who argued vehemently that a photo stands on its own, that its origin is irrelevant.  They argued that aesthetic value was the only thing that mattered, and that origin, whether it was a composite, fauxtoshopped, etc, were irrelevant unless a person explicitly claimed the photo was a work of journalism or science. Bollocks to that!

Key question in my mind is what is claimed.  If nothing is claimed and the viewer assumes something, then the viewer needs to own their own bias.  One could say that by not labeling the photographer is leaving out critical information but how much labeling is required.

Game farm and zoo / wild park animals are clear.  Their own food source is their handler.  What about habituated animals - wild animals that come to our feeders?  Should they be labeled?

In the end IMO the photographer should not lie but also the viewer should ask if the issue is important to them.  If the picture is "art" or simply illustrative then it probably does not matter.

Quote
viewer needs to own their own bias

It's more important that the photographer own her/his own bias: the photographer has access to information about the construction of the image that's simply not available to the viewer.  While I agree that humans should be skeptical, critical and thoughtful about everything, not just photographs, it's better for the photographic community to label honestly than to expect caveat videtor to rule.  Otherwise we descend into a situation as has happened with Internet forums: you just assume it's all false unless proven otherwise.

An honestly labeled photograph will stand out in today's environment; the days of a presumed tacit agreement between photographer and viewer are going away.
 

8
Software & Accessories / Re: Adobe Lightroom 6 Coming March 9
« on: February 25, 2015, 12:36:18 PM »
I see the combined needs of all photographer users still as a comparatively small subset of the full PS gamut.

How do you figure that?  The only parts of PS that seem truly unrelated to the "photographer" would be the press-related components, e.g. CMYK support.  Even compositing is used (in legitimate ways) by many photographers these days.  Can you provide some examples of features of PS that photographers definitely don't need?

Any image where you start from a blank canvas (instead of photographic capture/s) and all steps involved to create them. Don't ask me what those are in detail, i've never done it. But the graphics experts i know all contend it is quite a bit. :-)

Anything the graphics experts can do to a canvas without a photo, a photographer can do to a canvas with a photo.  It sounds like what you really mean is not so much "needs of all photographers" but what's needed to process a photo (including multi-exposure images) into an end-product that would be called a "photographic work" rather than a "graphic" work.  I guess that could be legitimate, but I think there's a lot of cross-over of photographers who do a wee bit of graphic design, and graphic designers who do a wee bit of photography.

9
Software & Accessories / Re: Adobe Lightroom 6 Coming March 9
« on: February 25, 2015, 12:17:59 PM »
I see the combined needs of all photographer users still as a comparatively small subset of the full PS gamut.

How do you figure that?  The only parts of PS that seem truly unrelated to the "photographer" would be the press-related components, e.g. CMYK support.  Even compositing is used (in legitimate ways) by many photographers these days.  Can you provide some examples of features of PS that photographers definitely don't need?

10
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Nikon Df
« on: February 23, 2015, 11:10:09 AM »
I thought the Nikon Df put this to rest.  When it came out it was hailed by lots of stills purists as the "Right Thing."  Sales were mediocre: it was not a total bust, but not successful either.

DSLR stills-only is not only dead, but its dessicated skull is the muse for a soliloquy.

11
Photography Technique / Re: Game Ranches for photography
« on: February 23, 2015, 10:11:22 AM »
In the local birding community there is a big controversy going on about baiting owls. People will pay a lot to get Snowy Owl pictures, so "photography guides" take them to an area where the local birds have gotten used to handouts from the humans. They wait until the owl notices them, then release a live mouse for the owl to swoop down, capture, and eat.... all within a few feet of the photographers.... and of course, these pictures are passed off as snowy owls in the wild....
Some even use fishing poles and reel a mouse (dead, I hope) across the snow/ice to entice the owl...
I found out how well that works by accident. I was in the back yard playing with the cat... I had a catnip mouse on a fishing line and I would cast it and the cat would chase it. A barred owl took the catnip mouse.

Another scam to watch for: "owl nip" mislabeled as "cat nip!"  Someone alert CNN!

12
Photography Technique / Re: Game Ranches for photography
« on: February 23, 2015, 09:26:39 AM »
As others have said, there are a number of ethical considerations, and each person has to decide how they feel about going to these places.

One thing I don't think should be up for debate is honest captioning of your work.  If it's a captive animal, that should be called out in the caption.  If it's at a open area that attracts animals in some way, e.g., a watering hole in dry area or as they do here in Florida, a gator infested swamp with nice trees, you should label where the photo was taken.

The people that routinely post (on 500px, Flickr) photos of Snow Leopards up close (from Wyoming) or Lynx and Elephants, etc. (from the park in Spain) and don't label their photos as such really irritate me.  It's still a spectacular photo, but the viewer deserves to know it wasn't shot in the Himalaya, high Alps, or Serengeti.

The North American Nature Photography Association (NANPA) requires its members to comply with something they call Truth in Captioning.

+10

Thanks for posting this link.  A year or two ago we had a similar debate here, I believe it centered on the famous "impossible" Peter Lik photo.  There were several people who argued vehemently that a photo stands on its own, that its origin is irrelevant.  They argued that aesthetic value was the only thing that mattered, and that origin, whether it was a composite, fauxtoshopped, etc, were irrelevant unless a person explicitly claimed the photo was a work of journalism or science. Bollocks to that! 

13
Photography Technique / Re: Advice for upcoming "can't-miss" shot: PRACTICE
« on: February 19, 2015, 08:49:32 PM »
See if you can get access to the room a week or more in advance to practice.  If not, see if you can get more detail about the inside of the room, e.g. dimensions, ceiling height, color of walls and ceiling, etc.  Then collect all the advice you can find, write it down as a series of options, and practice, test, practice, test.  Recruit your son or someone else to be your practice model.  There is no substitute for practice in comparable circumstances.

Also, see if you can get your son to wear a tie or stuff a hanky in his pocket that's 18% gray so you can do color correction later.   :)   But seriously, a pure white hanky visible in the scene could give you a base for color balance.  Alternately: before or after the ceremony find an opportunity to sneak up to the presentation position and get a shot of a gray card under the same lighting.

Don't wait, start planning and practicing now.

14
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Sony Doing Glasses
« on: February 18, 2015, 12:04:48 PM »
I think you are being a little bit harsh. Sony has not only created, but also invented, some amazing stuff over the years.

I still love my BETAMAX!
Seriously it was better than vhs but didn't succeed in the market.

If I remember, it didn't succeed because Sony botched the licensing strategy.  Good tech, bad business.

15
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Sony Doing Glasses
« on: February 18, 2015, 11:52:15 AM »
...
"those who have nothing to hide have nothing to fear" :->
...

I'm going to invoke Godwin's Law of the Internet here, but if you said religion is not something to hide I'd show you WWII.

The problem is you don't know what it is that you may be persecuted for at some random point in the future.

+1

No one has "nothing to hide."  Even if we never break laws, there is always something about our lives that would be an embarrassment in certain circumstances: an indiscreet statement in a private conversation, or even something more.  No, as long as we humans are so eminently fallible, our lives should not be recorded without our consent.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 59