TTQ B4U

I've not played with the 1080p much. Still looking to move to a DSLR for that but waiting for the next generation units. The current ones are good but have limitations. Having a handy camera with me at all times is very cool. Here's a snapshot and a quick frame added using Camera + while on the phone. Handheld, in low light and with the ability to print a large size from such an image, is very handy. http://www.pbase.com/timothylauro/image/139211166/original.jpg

Here's a very crude example of a 3G vs the 4s. Only thing done to either is resized both to 1024px in hieght and added a 100% crop from each. Of course being different MP's will result in the crops being different sizes as I cropped for pixel level 100% vs 100%. I purposely put it in a back-lit situation too. I think this shows the advancements in details, metering and of course details captured. As noted on other boards, the 4s has had it's processing tweaked to amp up contrast and color. Typical P&S crap. Easily fixed in post processing though. http://www.pbase.com/timothylauro/image/139211118/original.jpg

the devices macro function and ability is a result of the lens not the sensor. I do agree in showing the evolution of the lens, sensor and device overall though. I've read the article and seen the comparison. I still stand by my original comment about shooting a marco with a device that's not capable nor made to shoot it is user error. Doing so is user error, not camera error plain and simple. The above is a better comparison example of the point being beat to death. That point being shoot a scene that all the devices being used can properly shoot in focus.

When a photo is OOF it's OOF regardless of why. However, IMO the phone clearly focused on the contrast of the background vs the object intended. You can see it. User error IMO. They should have backed up to take the shot. You don't take a marco shot using a device that's not capable of it and put the results in a review. :leghump: Phones don't....people do. Again, user error. :gabe:

http://www.pbase.com/timothylauro/image/139210838/original.jpg

May be old to some, but new to me. Good thread. http://www.outbackphoto.com/CONTENT_2007_01/section_gear_cameras_2010/20100720_iPhone4/index.html#20111027

^^ I saw the above comparison on MacRumors. IMO the first two shots were OOF and should have been taken over.

Ouch!

$600 trapster?

The 4s pics are just resized and branded is all. It does pretty good overall.

7m people on earth and yet in 2011 Thousands piss and don't wash their hands afterwards too :no:

Sue me. :gabe:

Doesn't matter. Life revolves around a handful of CR'ites of which we are blessed to be able to be among. Even if many of them had no hair on their balls when the Internet opened up for public use as those of us in college became among the early users. Hell, I surfed porn before many of them even had an interest in it. :lolguy:

Repost.

Not my creation thus can't claim the work. However, some here might still choose to use the action and claim the creativity as their own and see nothing wrong with that.

Good feedback. I'm not a fan of the styling at all. Boring if you ask me. However, as a DD'er and commuter as you would be using it, I can see it being a strong value. I'm not in the market in that range, so I can't comment on other rides. Glad to hear there's still value to be had out there.

You got it. It's not necessarily just what value the photo has or even what the photographer makes. It's what the use of the image is going to potentially net the company using it. So why again? Because without my clear watermark, my photos could end up on a site somewhere talking about the 4s capabilities, linked to a few different forums and someone somewhere is eventually going to be generating revenue from it without my release to do so. Without my consent spelled out in a separate document, I can legally pursue that infringement and win.

All it takes is a form letter already completed and proven in case law around the world and used many times over to the hosting company of the internet provider. I wouldn't go after you. Neither would my wife. She doesn't do copyright law and is quite busy. I'd simply make one call and send one letter to the company providing your service with a cease and desist with clarity on the situation, expectations and next steps. If they don't comply, I go after them, as they are a much richer target and will likely more responsive as they have skin in the game. By doing so, you might actually make me money! The value of the photos wouldn't come into question. You're right, they have none really. However, I could prove that LightSpeed does and has a three year history of making money. However, all that aside even, their compliance with copyright law would come into question and right now, the last thing any company wants to do is be involved in is a compliance case that they can more than easily make go away. Do you think they would comply? Do you believe they would warn you prior to shutting off your service? Do you feel if they incur any costs that they might come back to you for not complying with their warning and violating any number of things that would shed the heat off of them? It's all in line with one of the basic very reasons (but not only reason) Ant enforces the no street racing policy around here. I'm sure he has no desired to have to fight the hosting site who would do the same if such an annoyance comes up. Companies do react when copyright law is in question. Especially when everything involved is digital and just takes a flip of a switch to correct should the offender not comply with a warning. Ben, I know this is all in good fun, but I've been down this road twice in the past 5 years. Both were over photos of my dogs believe it or not. Not even good ones at that. In one case, the offender didn't comply and I spend $500 to go after the ISP in Canada. It took 7 months to get my money back but that's okay. The photo was eventually removed and I had my fees refunded and my photos were eventually removed.

How about if a coworker took the picture frame on your desk at work, removed your wife's picture and put it on their desk with their family in it. What if that idea at work you came up with was presented by someone else as theirs and you weren't given credit? Would that bother you? How about if I come over and take your grill off your deck? I mean it has no value to anyone else here on CR, so who cares right? How would your boss/company feel if you took a ream of paper home with your now and then? Do you think a neighbor you don't know would care if you took his garden hose? Do you mind if I give out your cell number however I please? Do you care if I use your drivers license as a basis for making fakes? Perhaps those things don't mean anything to you, but is what you think of them the basis for determining if the action is right/wrong for the rightful owner regardless of the market value? So by your theory the RIAA doesn't give a shit if you were to illegally download an album that wasn't a hit or in demand? how do you think the recording artist would feel if you took that album and put your name on it? Do you think he/she would feel differently just because it was not a popular album? Just curious.

or that retired Fire Dept. SUV that Michael drives? :lolguy: http://i198.photobucket.com/albums/aa26/wardengine/white%20haven%206-25-09/whitehaven6-26-09068.jpg :gabe:

Once it's gone, please turn in your man card to me. :gabe:

The Pumpkin Patch Kids sure did. :gabe:

You have some really nice shots there my friend. Timing wise, here in the Midwest, the fall is great. Shoot either really early or late in the day. The angle of the sun really gives some nice warmth and if you can, invest in some reflectors, silver and gold and for ease of one person shooting, the stands too. I use them a lot on location. In terms of fill flash, no need for ND or Graduated filter really. Just remember, aperture controls flash exposure and shutter speed controls available light. If it's too bright, switch to manual mode. When shooting Manually, you have four things to consider: Aperture, ISO, the distance between your subject and light source and the power setting or FEV of your flash. Just set your aperture to your desired DOF, control the exposure with your FEV and ambient light with shutter speed.

I'm Speachless :no: Yeah.....me! Oh my is there going to be one happy new F-Body owner with this car. Sad to see you selling it. Even more sad that I can't own it. :dumb: GLWS.

Starting off the week with a couple pics from our Sunday afternoon. Will be another light week for me online though as I've been so busy at work during the day and rarely able to have camera in hand it seems. Rug Rats of the Pumpkin Patch Canon EOS 40D & 24-70L f/2.8 with a need for more FEV, but it works. http://www.pbase.com/timothylauro/image/139097451/original.jpg Daddy's Little Girl Canon EOS 40D & 24-70L f/2.8 http://www.pbase.com/timothylauro/image/139097421/original.jpg Great Apple Season this Year. The rain must have really helped as the trees were loaded, even after weeks of being picked over. Canon EOS 40D & 24-70L f/2.8 http://www.pbase.com/timothylauro/image/139094319/original.jpg Apple iPhone 4s http://www.pbase.com/timothylauro/image/139092228/original.jpg Even the Good Die Young Canon EOS 40D 24-70L f/2.8 http://www.pbase.com/timothylauro/image/139094393/original.jpg Humpty Dumpty's Pumpkin Cousin Canon EOS 40D 24-70L f/2.8 http://www.pbase.com/timothylauro/image/139095134/original.jpg Apple iPhone 4s http://www.pbase.com/timothylauro/image/139092227/original.jpg