Gizmodo 
Enter your username and password.
Tip your editors:
tips@gizmodo.com
Editorial Director:
Brian Lam | Email | Twitter
Editor:
Jason Chen
Email | AIM | Twitter
Features Editor:
Wilson Rothman
Email | Twitter
Senior Contributing Editors:
Jesus Diaz
Email | AIM | Twitter
Mark Wilson, Reviews
Email | AIM | Twitter
Contributing Editors:
Matt Buchanan
Email | AIM | Twitter
Adam Frucci
Email | Twitter
Sean Fallon
Email | Twitter
Jack Loftus
Email | Twitter
John Herrman
Email | Twitter
Dan Nosowitz
Email
Chris Mascari
Email
Danny Allen
Email | Twitter
Rosa Golijan
Email | Twitter
Chris Jacob
Email
Columnist:
Brendan I. Koerner
Interns:
Don Nguyen
Email
Kyle VanHemert
Email
Comment Intern:
Nick Ellenoff | Email
Comment Account Questions:
Comments@gizmodo.com
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.
09/28/09
06/19/09
06/19/09
05/29/09
I was extremely rude this afternoon. I forgot to give you thanks. You have really stepped up since Mahoney left. I didn't really forget about you but I wanted to get a thank you up when the moment was right.
Thank you John for all you do.
05/29/09
05/30/09
[gizmodo.com]
05/29/09
05/29/09
05/29/09
GAWD I'm glad its Friday.
05/29/09
05/29/09
05/29/09
Have you tried the free reader, Stanza? I can't imagine $10 buying me that much more than I already have with Stanza, but another opinion would be welcome.
05/29/09
05/29/09
It appears that your theory stands. For the time being anyway.
05/23/09
I can tell a crappy picture or image when I see one. I've also worked with enough image editing applications to tell the good ones from the bad. This app doesn't impress me. Based on the reviews I'm obviously not the only person who thinks that way either. They're off to a mediocre start. I hope they take the feedback positively and apply it to future revisions of this app.
05/23/09
It totally goes out of its way to broken the blacks in the image and add some more saturation.
05/23/09
Er...um...huh?
05/22/09
* sigh *
This is just another in a series of tools which, when handed off to people who don't know squat about visual aesthetics, proudly make total crap, just like the sample shown. I mean, all I want to do is take these untrained/clueless but otherwise well-meaning folks, sit them down and pound three things into their little me-too noggins:
1) Photography: HDR, when used with restraint can be beautiful, but pay attention that you don't get clownish results. Just use your eyes and common sense. If you find you're pushing the sliders out near the limits, chances are you're screwing it up.
2) Video: Do NOT use transitions between every frickin' clip. When you DO use them, again, show a LOT of restraint both in number and type, that is unless your point IS to make a laughably bad video.
3) Video: Do NOT feel you need to add a damned piece of music to every frickin' video you dump onto YouTube. People, you are NOT making music videos. Silence or natural soundtrack IS FINE.
/soapbox
05/22/09
(Pablo Picasso was never called an asshole, at least not in new york)
05/22/09
And I don't fault people for their lack of training, understanding that they WANT to make nice looking things, and said as much above. But it is incumbent upon the creators and vendors of these tools to guide people as to how to best use the tool they are selling and, more importantly, to not mislead people as to the nature of their product.
If you have the time, go take a look at the iTunes page for this HDR product. Look at the samples provided by the vendor and also read the text. It seems to me these are people who may be great programmers, but know nothing about HDR or what it is supposed to be. Their sample pics are each and every one ugly and unnatural. Colors are usually so oversaturated that the pics almost take on the quality of a Lite-Brite toy. Then in the text they talk about how the tool is SUPPOSED to essentially do just that, intensify the colors. Uh, that is NOT HDR.
Now go Google HDR. Find out what HDR is SUPPOSED to be, as used by trained photographers. It is NOT a "saturation" and "vividness" tool. It IS a tool about dynamic range, a very different factor, specifically related to highlight and shadow detail. The commonly accepted goal of HDR is to put subtle and natural--keyword here is NATURAL--details back into those two extreme light/dark values of the photo. Sadly, this HDR tool for the iPhone sidesteps that whole concept, misdirecting and selling people with a buzzword that is being overplayed internet-wide.
05/23/09
Why don't you post your Flickr photostream link and let us judge your work? I am a hobbyist photog myself, but I don't believe I have the right to tell other people what they are trying to accomplish with their work.
Probable past quotes:
"It truly is a shame that the common man should have the skills of writing"- Renaissance Royalty
"Imagine the monstrosities that will be created with the affordable graphite pencil!"-High Modernist Artist
And the current:
"(HDR) is just another in a series of tools which, when handed off to people who don't know squat about visual aesthetics, proudly make total crap"- 2009 know-it-all
05/23/09
My work is private and/or commercial. As such it is not posted on Flickr and never will be. However, since you ask, here is one set of samples of portrait/celebrity work I did at Sundance in 2008 (and this site is, as all are my photo pages, usually password protected and not visible to the public).
[web.me.com]
And if you need more "shut the fuck upping", let me know and I'll post some more links.
05/23/09
05/24/09
The funny thing is that I agree with you that this app is useless, and it is only jumping on a bandwagon already rolling. I agree there are many "HDR" images that aren't visually pleasing. I think the only thing that I don't agree with is your incredibly disrespectful attitude.
Your photography looked great. Crystal clear, even in low light. Because of this, I don't think that you need to put other's lowly attempts at photography down. You don't need to stand on their heads.
05/24/09
05/24/09
Anyway, if we're offering olive branches to each other, I accept yours and hope you can do the same in return.
05/24/09
As I said in my previous post, it is true that this iPhone app is dumb. And all it is doing it making "HDR" an acronym that will make photogs cringe because of poor use.
Well, that settles that. Sorry that I didn't show more tact in my initial reply.
BTW, I live 1/2 hour away from Sundance. I don't know if you live nearby. Maybe we could shoot the lake sometime and you could give me some tips.
05/25/09
Bartender! A round of hugs and kisses, all around the house, my tab! Cheers!
05/22/09
05/22/09
05/22/09
05/08/09
The Navy doesn't fly the F-22 or the B-2. Way to research! Neither the F-22 or B-@ can take off or land from a carrier.
05/08/09
Not every aircraft the Navy flies, lands on a carrier. Take the C-130 for example. They fly it, but not onto the decks of a carrier. Though they did do it one time.
Though both are Air Force aircraft. One could take off just fine from a carrier. The B-2 can not of course.
Also the F-22 can land on a deck. They do have nets also. Plus several AF aircraft do have arresting hooks. The F-15 for one. The concept of the arresting hook catching a wire is used in more places then a carrier.
Way to research.
05/09/09
05/09/09
A F-22's landing gear is too weak for a carrier landing... if you have ever seen a carrier landing, they SLAM those jets down. Also, the F-22's nose gear would be ripped off by the catapult.
There was a study into a F-15N (N for Navalized). The additional weight and structural rework needed to make a F-15 carrier capable would have made is a lemon. That is why the F-14 is so beefy... more weight means bigger engines means a bigger aircraft.
05/09/09
05/08/09
Thanks for all the great writing. I really enjoyed it. Sad to see you go!
05/08/09
Where ever you go next, don't go to Soviet Russia, because in Soviet Russia, Gadget Blog leaves you.
(Insert Sad trombone sound here)
05/08/09