Free Opinions. No Refunds.
Jul 2011
Out of Hand
12/07/2011 Filed in: Photography
The Strobist retweeted a link today to A Photo Editor, who had an opinion piece on the Some Kind of Bloop controversy a few weeks ago.
For those of you who didn’t hear about it, here’s the backstory, in a nutshell.
Andy Baio had a music project where he basically reproduced a Miles Davis work, Some Kind of Blue, as a chiptune tribute. He had a friend recreate the original album cover by hand as an eight-bit style reproduction. Baio made a point of securing all the music rights for the project, but forgot to get permission for the album cover. Jay Maisel, the photographer behind the original image, sued. Baio settled, and subsequently blogged about the experience.
Then things turned ugly.
What you might not know, is that Andy Baio could be considered one of the “cool kids” on the Internet. He is a popular web personality along the lines of Jason Kottke, John Gruber and Merlin Mann, with a sizable following.
Jay Maisel, for his part, is a well known, respected photographer. And if you follow any photography sites like I do, you’ll realize that professional photographers are near rabid (and rightly so) about their intellectual property rights.
What erupted was an ugly war of words, with major web personalities like Gruber and Thomas Hawk unfurling a series of posts siding with Baio. It is also notable that Hawk has since deleted his series of strongly worded commentary.
On the other side, you had the outraged photographers railing against “freetards” like Andy Baio. Many major online photographers have had their work copied, transformed or reposted without their permission, so it’s easy to understand how this topic could elicit some raw feelings.
While I think this whole affair could have been handled differently, Jay Maisel was completely within his rights to go after Andy Baio. He was also completely within his rights to be, in Gruber’s words, a “dick”, about it. In the same way, Gruber is well within his rights to publicly call out people whom he considers to be a “chickenshit” for failing to attribute links properly. We’re definitely talking in shades of grey.
Because I happen to subscribe to a lot of content from both sides of the fence, it has been a little more than irksome reading about this whole affair. I can see some validity in the arguments on both sides, but in true Internet fashion, anonymous commenters (trolls, if you will) from both sides came out of the woodwork and ruined any possible chance of reasonable discourse on the matter.
It’s a shame that this didn’t go to the courts, because we’d at least get some clarity out of this dispute.
There is no doubt in my mind that Some Kind of Bloop’s cover image is in some form a reproduction inspired by Maisel’s original image. Having said that, I have no doubt that it’s an artist’s unique interpretation of that image, and not just a resampled digital copy. I also give Baio the benefit of the doubt in that I believe that his failure to secure rights from Maisel in advance was an honest oversight.
Speaking as a normal, reasonable person and not as a lawyer or judge, it does appear on the surface to be a fair use of the original image. We all need to remind ourselves that inspiration typically comes from the previous works of others. In other words, everything is a remix.
Finally, some food for thought. I leave you with a lovely link on artists getting paid, courtesy of John Gruber.
For those of you who didn’t hear about it, here’s the backstory, in a nutshell.
Andy Baio had a music project where he basically reproduced a Miles Davis work, Some Kind of Blue, as a chiptune tribute. He had a friend recreate the original album cover by hand as an eight-bit style reproduction. Baio made a point of securing all the music rights for the project, but forgot to get permission for the album cover. Jay Maisel, the photographer behind the original image, sued. Baio settled, and subsequently blogged about the experience.
Then things turned ugly.
What you might not know, is that Andy Baio could be considered one of the “cool kids” on the Internet. He is a popular web personality along the lines of Jason Kottke, John Gruber and Merlin Mann, with a sizable following.
Jay Maisel, for his part, is a well known, respected photographer. And if you follow any photography sites like I do, you’ll realize that professional photographers are near rabid (and rightly so) about their intellectual property rights.
What erupted was an ugly war of words, with major web personalities like Gruber and Thomas Hawk unfurling a series of posts siding with Baio. It is also notable that Hawk has since deleted his series of strongly worded commentary.
On the other side, you had the outraged photographers railing against “freetards” like Andy Baio. Many major online photographers have had their work copied, transformed or reposted without their permission, so it’s easy to understand how this topic could elicit some raw feelings.
While I think this whole affair could have been handled differently, Jay Maisel was completely within his rights to go after Andy Baio. He was also completely within his rights to be, in Gruber’s words, a “dick”, about it. In the same way, Gruber is well within his rights to publicly call out people whom he considers to be a “chickenshit” for failing to attribute links properly. We’re definitely talking in shades of grey.
Because I happen to subscribe to a lot of content from both sides of the fence, it has been a little more than irksome reading about this whole affair. I can see some validity in the arguments on both sides, but in true Internet fashion, anonymous commenters (trolls, if you will) from both sides came out of the woodwork and ruined any possible chance of reasonable discourse on the matter.
It’s a shame that this didn’t go to the courts, because we’d at least get some clarity out of this dispute.
There is no doubt in my mind that Some Kind of Bloop’s cover image is in some form a reproduction inspired by Maisel’s original image. Having said that, I have no doubt that it’s an artist’s unique interpretation of that image, and not just a resampled digital copy. I also give Baio the benefit of the doubt in that I believe that his failure to secure rights from Maisel in advance was an honest oversight.
Speaking as a normal, reasonable person and not as a lawyer or judge, it does appear on the surface to be a fair use of the original image. We all need to remind ourselves that inspiration typically comes from the previous works of others. In other words, everything is a remix.
Finally, some food for thought. I leave you with a lovely link on artists getting paid, courtesy of John Gruber.
Pentax Q: Insane or Ingenius?
11/07/2011 Filed in: Photography
A few weeks ago, Pentax announced a novel little interchangeable lens system camera called the Pentax Q. Billed as the world’s smallest interchangeable lens system, its size advantage came with a “major defect” that offended the sensibilities of camera buffs obsessed with speeds and feeds: a tiny sensor.
Sensor aside, the camera has a great fit and finish with a take-it-or-leave it design reminiscent of the film age. Its premium build is accompanied with a matching price - a whopping $800 for the body and a 47mm equivalent prime lens. $800 is not cheap, but I suspect that Pentax is going for the same target market as Leica’s repackaged and heavily marked up Panasonic compact cameras. It’s also not too far off from Ricoh’s line of compacts, beloved by serious photographers (for their handling) but much maligned by measurbating camera lovers. It should come as no surprise that Ricoh bought the Pentax photography division last week.
Not all camera lovers are photographers, and not all photographers are camera lovers. In my mind, camera lovers are more interested in the machinery of photography than the actual taking of photos. Obsessed with feature checklists, camera lovers flood the Internet discussion boards with their constant bitching and kvetching for every camera release. Every little missing feature is a deal breaker for these people, and if you were to look at their post volumes, you’d wonder if these people even have time to snap photos. Doubtful, since the people who are really taking pictures are too busy uploading to Flickr and Facebook than trolling rumor sites.
I love photography and cameras, but I do try to temper my requirements with my own real world use cases. I rarely make prints, and for my needs, my photos only need to look good on a few devices – an HDTV, an iPad, an iPhone and a 15” laptop. Is obsessing over sensor size a worthwhile exercise? Unlikely.
I recently took my “enthusiast” point-and-shoot camera (a Lumix LX3, if you’re wondering) on a vacation and was quite happy with the results from its smallish sensor. I didn’t want to take my heavy DSLR with me, and even with its weak low-light capabilities, I was able to capture plenty of decent outside night shots. One acquaintance actually thought I had taken my photos with a DSLR. So let’s be honest with ourselves, the Q’s image quality is probably good enough for most casual snapshot situations.
I have seen many complaints lodged against the Q for being a non-pocketable camera. Releasing a pocketable camera these days is a losing proposition. The compact point-and-shoot camera market undergoing a major disruption. Camera phones like the iPhone 4 are killing the low end of the market. Why carry another tiny device when your camera phone will do? The safer area of the market is in the slightly larger enthusiast cameras like the G12, LX5, XZ1, etc. These are ideal travel cameras, as they have a bit of heft, but not nearly as much as a DSLR.
Pentax deserves some credit for releasing this camera with a satisfactory complement of lenses on day one. Aside from the kit prime, there’s a general purpose zoom, a fisheye, and a couple of novelty “toy” lenses, which should satisfy most use cases for the Q. The Sony NEX, which has been around for over a year, is a system that is hurting for first party lenses from Sony. With the exception of the zoom and fisheye, the Pentax Q’s accessory lenses are quite affordable, with pricing under $100.
When taking a more measured view of this camera, the Pentax Q is actually an interesting and fun little camera. It is an instant classic and a collector’s item. Yes, it’s expensive and it’s got a small sensor, but if those are your biggest quibbles, perhaps that suggests that Pentax may have got many of the other pieces of the puzzle correct. I’ll admit, the day this camera was announced, the sensor and price had me thinking “WTF”? Specs aside, however, I love the aesthetic of the camera and the fact that it has an inexpensive fisheye lens. This is definitely a niche camera, but kudos to Pentax for daring to put out a cute little camera that doesn’t scream out “me-too”.
The Pentax Q should be available globally at the end of August.
Sensor aside, the camera has a great fit and finish with a take-it-or-leave it design reminiscent of the film age. Its premium build is accompanied with a matching price - a whopping $800 for the body and a 47mm equivalent prime lens. $800 is not cheap, but I suspect that Pentax is going for the same target market as Leica’s repackaged and heavily marked up Panasonic compact cameras. It’s also not too far off from Ricoh’s line of compacts, beloved by serious photographers (for their handling) but much maligned by measurbating camera lovers. It should come as no surprise that Ricoh bought the Pentax photography division last week.
Not all camera lovers are photographers, and not all photographers are camera lovers. In my mind, camera lovers are more interested in the machinery of photography than the actual taking of photos. Obsessed with feature checklists, camera lovers flood the Internet discussion boards with their constant bitching and kvetching for every camera release. Every little missing feature is a deal breaker for these people, and if you were to look at their post volumes, you’d wonder if these people even have time to snap photos. Doubtful, since the people who are really taking pictures are too busy uploading to Flickr and Facebook than trolling rumor sites.
I love photography and cameras, but I do try to temper my requirements with my own real world use cases. I rarely make prints, and for my needs, my photos only need to look good on a few devices – an HDTV, an iPad, an iPhone and a 15” laptop. Is obsessing over sensor size a worthwhile exercise? Unlikely.
I recently took my “enthusiast” point-and-shoot camera (a Lumix LX3, if you’re wondering) on a vacation and was quite happy with the results from its smallish sensor. I didn’t want to take my heavy DSLR with me, and even with its weak low-light capabilities, I was able to capture plenty of decent outside night shots. One acquaintance actually thought I had taken my photos with a DSLR. So let’s be honest with ourselves, the Q’s image quality is probably good enough for most casual snapshot situations.
I have seen many complaints lodged against the Q for being a non-pocketable camera. Releasing a pocketable camera these days is a losing proposition. The compact point-and-shoot camera market undergoing a major disruption. Camera phones like the iPhone 4 are killing the low end of the market. Why carry another tiny device when your camera phone will do? The safer area of the market is in the slightly larger enthusiast cameras like the G12, LX5, XZ1, etc. These are ideal travel cameras, as they have a bit of heft, but not nearly as much as a DSLR.
Pentax deserves some credit for releasing this camera with a satisfactory complement of lenses on day one. Aside from the kit prime, there’s a general purpose zoom, a fisheye, and a couple of novelty “toy” lenses, which should satisfy most use cases for the Q. The Sony NEX, which has been around for over a year, is a system that is hurting for first party lenses from Sony. With the exception of the zoom and fisheye, the Pentax Q’s accessory lenses are quite affordable, with pricing under $100.
When taking a more measured view of this camera, the Pentax Q is actually an interesting and fun little camera. It is an instant classic and a collector’s item. Yes, it’s expensive and it’s got a small sensor, but if those are your biggest quibbles, perhaps that suggests that Pentax may have got many of the other pieces of the puzzle correct. I’ll admit, the day this camera was announced, the sensor and price had me thinking “WTF”? Specs aside, however, I love the aesthetic of the camera and the fact that it has an inexpensive fisheye lens. This is definitely a niche camera, but kudos to Pentax for daring to put out a cute little camera that doesn’t scream out “me-too”.
The Pentax Q should be available globally at the end of August.
Adapter: Uber-Converter
05/07/2011 Filed in: Curated
For Windows and Mac.
Via Lifehacker:
If you've ever needed to convert media on your Mac to various formats you've probably accumulated a collection of various applications that serve some functions and not others. Adapter saves you the trouble by letting you convert just about any audio, video, or image file to the format you need.
Ditching Facebook for Google+
04/07/2011 Filed in: Curated
PCWorld has a nice list of reasons to choose Google+ over Facebook.
They forgot a big one: Google+ is not Facebook.
A big reason not to switch to Google+? If you’re on Google Apps, you’re currently not one of the cool kids, so you can’t join.
They forgot a big one: Google+ is not Facebook.
A big reason not to switch to Google+? If you’re on Google Apps, you’re currently not one of the cool kids, so you can’t join.
Yep. I'm back.
04/07/2011 Filed in: News
It’s a fresh start. No back archives, no back content. I’ve wiped the files and started anew. It’s a bright new day.