|
brad industry posted:I wondered about that when I saw it. OPD just laid off 80 officers and I think they are just desperate for help (between highway shootouts with right-wing crazies, ghetto snipers, and other crazy poo poo that has been going on lately). They might be, and the police/prosecution could likely use them without permission for that purpose. What they probably cannot do is publish them, without attribution, to newspapers/media. Not an issue that comes up that often, though.
|
# ? Jul 21, 2010 21:19 |
|
|
# ? May 10, 2024 00:57 |
|
http://punctum.ro/expozitii/penitenciarul-de-femei-tirgsor#1 Saw this on gizmodo this morning, 14 female convicts, six digital cameras and one Romanian prison.
|
# ? Jul 22, 2010 10:05 |
|
fronkpies posted:http://punctum.ro/expozitii/penitenciarul-de-femei-tirgsor#1 I like when they asked them if they learnt anything in the project the reply was "don't use digital zoom and don't use ISO1600 outside"
|
# ? Jul 22, 2010 10:23 |
|
fronkpies posted:http://punctum.ro/expozitii/penitenciarul-de-femei-tirgsor#1 Sounds like a good porno. brad industry posted:I wondered about that when I saw it. OPD just laid off 80 officers and I think they are just desperate for help (between highway shootouts with right-wing crazies, ghetto snipers, and other crazy poo poo that has been going on lately). DISCLAIMER: HYPOTHETICAL ISSUES, I AM NOT YOUR LAWER! Of course every legal answer has a 'maybe' answer. A bit more detail is that the photos are 'evidence' as in that they do tend to provide information about a matter in question. However, the question you are likely asking is are they admissible evidence. The answer to that, is probably no. Without the photographer or other witness to verify that the photo is an accurate representation of the events in question, these are inadmissible. Now they can subpoena the identity of the photographer from Flickr and the ISP, force her to take the stand, and prosocute them for purgery or contempt if they lie or refuse. All of that is a bit far fetched, but this doesn't get at the problem that as FairU Use would not cover the use of publication. 17 USC § 107 posted:
1. Trial evidence would favor the police and would likely be dispositive. Publishing in the paper weighs in the copyright holder's favor to a moderate degree. 2. Isn't a factor in this context but more of a reference point of the other 3. 3. 100%, published in a paper, without credit. Heavily in favor of the rights holder. 4. This one will depend on the judges mood. If the copyrighted work is posted on a free website and not attempted to be sold or the author has never sold a single work, can this be seen as negitively affecting the market. On the otherhand, you could argue that as the creator you have a right to keep it from appearing in the Oakland/SF paper if that is your desire. Likely in favor of the rights holder. If the court would faithfully apply fair use the rights holder could beat it as to the publishing. The only problem would be that if you didn't have a registered copyright before the paper published, you'd have to prove damages. That'd gently caress you, virtually noone on flickr will be able to prove enough damages to get a benefit to bring the suit. DISCLAIMER: HYPOTHETICAL ISSUES, I AM NOT YOUR LAWER! KennyG fucked around with this message at 13:13 on Jul 22, 2010 |
# ? Jul 22, 2010 13:11 |
|
a foolish pianist posted:Can you get a split prism screen for DSLRs? You can also make your own. If you have a broken film SLR, the right tools, and a DSLR that accepts drop-in focus screens then you can measure the original screen, carefully disassemble the film SLR and cut or file down its' focus screen to size. I did this with my K10d by destroying a nonfunctional Pentax ME. The only thing I did wrong was to not be careful and get the screen dirty. It's matte so it's nearly impossible to clean now. I have a perfectly functional split screen prism with a few specks of grime. Not the most elegant solution, but if you're strapped for cash and don't feel bad about taking apart old equipment then I can vouch for results.
|
# ? Jul 22, 2010 17:57 |
|
Backing up 139GB of poo poo to S3 with an upload speed of 1mbps sucks rear end. That is all.
|
# ? Jul 23, 2010 04:47 |
|
man thats gross posted:Backing up 139GB of poo poo to S3 with an upload speed of 1mbps sucks rear end. That is all. Go outside and take some pictures?
|
# ? Jul 23, 2010 05:24 |
|
spog posted:Go outside and take some pictures?
|
# ? Jul 23, 2010 09:30 |
|
spog posted:Go outside and take some pictures? I have been. It's been uploading for like 4 days and it's 15% done. My internet is barely usable.
|
# ? Jul 23, 2010 15:34 |
|
evil_bunnY posted:If you shoot at 10MP you'd probably generate more data than what's been uploaded in the mean time. I am mildy curious what fps will match the upload speed. man thats gross posted:I have been. It's been uploading for like 4 days and it's 15% done. My internet is barely usable. Only another 26 days to go...
|
# ? Jul 23, 2010 16:17 |
|
The last roll of Kodachrome ever produced has been processed. Note this is the last one Kodak made, but you still have until December to process Kodachrome.
|
# ? Jul 23, 2010 17:59 |
|
BeastOfExmoor posted:The last roll of Kodachrome ever produced has been processed. Two rolls coming back from processing next week, and I still have 2 1/3 rolls left to shoot. And film ain't dead either.
|
# ? Jul 23, 2010 18:46 |
|
spog posted:I am mildy curious what fps will match the upload speed. I'm shooting RAW, averaging about 15MB per shot. I ended up with 0.008 fps or one shot every 2 minutes to match 1 mbps. Roughly. man thats gross fucked around with this message at 19:01 on Jul 23, 2010 |
# ? Jul 23, 2010 18:59 |
|
man thats gross posted:Backing up 139GB of poo poo to S3 with an upload speed of 1mbps sucks rear end. That is all. Holy Jesus! $.1/GB/Mo... I guess $14/mo isn't that bad for offsite backup. Is it for business or personal? ...for personal there are plenty of other strategies that could be nearly as effective for less cash.
|
# ? Jul 23, 2010 19:30 |
|
KennyG posted:Holy Jesus! None of them are really as idiot-proof or secure though. Optical degrades, hard drives fail, there's always the remote possibility of fire, theft, etc. Personal, but important. I'd rather have the peace of mind than the $14.
|
# ? Jul 23, 2010 20:03 |
|
KennyG posted:Holy Jesus! I had 2 archive drives fail on the exact same day and S3 saved about 4 years worth of images that I otherwise would have lost. (or at least recovering them would have been a lot more money/effort/pain than hitting "Restore" in JungleDisk).
|
# ? Jul 23, 2010 20:10 |
|
You should go out and buy lotto. Having two drives failing at the same time is extremely rare unless they are on the same computer or something.
|
# ? Jul 23, 2010 20:30 |
|
I always wonder about external mirror drives (like what I back up my photos on), since they are essentially just cloning each other, maybe they are cloning their failure probability too?
|
# ? Jul 23, 2010 20:45 |
|
There really isn't a way to clone failure probability.
|
# ? Jul 23, 2010 21:48 |
|
DaNzA posted:You should go out and buy lotto. Having two drives failing at the same time is extremely rare unless they are on the same computer or something. Not really. It's not terribly improbable if they came from the same batch.
|
# ? Jul 23, 2010 21:52 |
|
Rated PG-34 posted:Not really. It's not terribly improbable if they came from the same batch. Or if the same underspec'd/overworked PSU was powering them both.
|
# ? Jul 23, 2010 21:54 |
|
McMadCow posted:Or if the same underspec'd/overworked PSU was pwering them both. Or if they were in the same computer that was hit by a rocket.
|
# ? Jul 23, 2010 21:55 |
|
brad industry posted:I had 2 archive drives fail on the exact same day and S3 saved about 4 years worth of images that I otherwise would have lost. Your doing it wrong, you need at least 3 drives for backup But seriously sometimes poo poo happens, having your stuff in the cloud always helps, i think 2 backup drives and another in cyberspace somewhere is more than enough, if that doesn't help, the stress of worrying about a 4th storage method would just kill me.
|
# ? Jul 23, 2010 23:02 |
|
I just wanted to come in here and admit that my workflow is pretty much a blend of bullshit and lethargy. I sort things into folders by month (all RAW and jpegs together), then import the jpegs to iPhoto. I browse in iPhoto, then use Spotlight to find the RAW file I want to open. Sometimes I save the original PSD, sometimes I just save as a jpeg and call it good. Everything I edit goes into a folder called "Photo Edits" or one of its randomly named subfolders. There's a reason I have zero aspirations of doing this professionally. Edit: I DO have everything backed up to a RAID 1 NAS device though.
|
# ? Jul 24, 2010 00:32 |
|
brad industry posted:I had 2 archive drives fail on the exact same day and S3 saved about 4 years worth of images that I otherwise would have lost. I haven't had a failure yet but I do backup all my poo poo with jungledisk and it's awesome. I just backup my processed files.. my computer runs a raid 1 so I am not at a horrible risk of losing all my poo poo. The final products are whats most important to me anyway, I don't really ever go back and re-edit old photos.
|
# ? Jul 24, 2010 00:34 |
|
Backing and cleaning up my memory cards right now, going to Japan tonight. Woop.
|
# ? Jul 24, 2010 03:32 |
|
loving jealous. Japan is one of those countries I think I could spend the next two years wandering around and photographing.
|
# ? Jul 24, 2010 04:03 |
|
So I was sitting here watching a documentary about psychopaths... found the link from reddit... and all of a sudden I see one of my photos flash by the screen. Photo in question It's cool though. I forgot I had uploaded this originally with a creative commons license, and anyone could use it as long as I was credited. And they even credited me in the end so it's all legit, but it was really weird seeing this when I was not expecting it!
|
# ? Jul 24, 2010 06:28 |
|
man thats gross posted:I'm shooting RAW, averaging about 15MB per shot. I ended up with 0.008 fps or one shot every 2 minutes to match 1 mbps. Roughly. I hope this doesn't put you off taking photos, as every shot you take means another 2 mins without high speed internet pron. Martytoof posted:loving jealous. Japan is one of those countries I think I could spend the next two years wandering around and photographing. I swear that there is something magical about the light in Japan. It's perfect for photography - as soon as the day gets a bit of sun, every single shot you take has perfect brightness, contrast and colour. I've never felt that elsewhere.
|
# ? Jul 24, 2010 06:32 |
|
spog posted:I hope this doesn't put you off taking photos, as every shot you take means another 2 mins without high speed internet pron. Actually I wanted to play video games with my friends. Anyway, once I get it out of the way it shouldn't be too bad. If I just sync up every time I dump a mem card or make a lot of edits I should be alright.
|
# ? Jul 24, 2010 07:02 |
|
I have a Foto folder with subfolders done by month. Within each is a RAW and a FINISHED folder. Stuff straight from camera -even jpegs- goes in the RAW folder, and anything that I've taken to a processed stage is saved in finished. Lightroom is in its own folder in the default area, though I might change that. I have an external hard drive that I haven't backed my stuff onto in a while, but I do use backblaze, which is $50 a year for unlimited storage, and has so far been awesome.
|
# ? Jul 24, 2010 10:04 |
|
I am using Lightroom 2.2 and I noticed its putting .dngs in Pictures/Lightroom/blah as you would expect, but there is also about 8 gigs of .nef's in Public/Lightroom/Imported on blah Is it ok to delete the nefs? When I right click -> show in finder in Lightroom it shows me the ones in Pictures/Lightroom as I would expect, so not sure what the nefs are doing in Public/
|
# ? Jul 24, 2010 22:01 |
|
Mannequin posted:So I was sitting here watching a documentary about psychopaths... found the link from reddit... and all of a sudden I see one of my photos flash by the screen. Thats cool.
|
# ? Jul 25, 2010 00:48 |
|
Time-lapse of a guy walking across America. Pretty awesome: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lzRKEv6cHuk Here's something similar I found as well. It's a couple of years old but it was new to me: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3A-unBigvoY
|
# ? Jul 25, 2010 02:43 |
|
How they made the "walk across America" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cp8t27oT_ww
|
# ? Jul 25, 2010 08:11 |
|
dakana posted:After that Phorumr script broke with the new Flickr page, I got tired of manually putting in the BBCode and copying over URLs, so I wrote a new one. I'd been meaning to do something similar for ages and never got around to it, so thanks. Here's a mkII version that hides the link away as an entry in the drop-down share menu. code:
|
# ? Jul 25, 2010 11:41 |
|
unixbeard posted:I am using Lightroom 2.2 and I noticed its putting .dngs in Pictures/Lightroom/blah as you would expect, but there is also about 8 gigs of .nef's in Public/Lightroom/Imported on blah I'm not sure of the correct answer, cause I cannot understand the problem fully, but in this case, I would do a simple test: Pick an image, got into explorer and drag it from its location and onto the desktop. Then run LR and see what happens when you browse to that image. If it is missing, then you've screwed up. If LR seems happy, then you can got ahead and move all the NEFs to a folder elsewhere for a week, then delete them (to be on the safe side)
|
# ? Jul 25, 2010 17:13 |
|
I'm so loving pumped, after weeks of assisting on other shoots I'm finally starting to do poo poo for myself. Lets hope the model doesn't flake!
|
# ? Jul 25, 2010 21:59 |
|
Mannequin posted:Time-lapse of a guy walking across America. Pretty awesome: Cool video but dear god do I hate that song.
|
# ? Jul 25, 2010 23:20 |
|
|
# ? May 10, 2024 00:57 |
|
FWIGTEW and Other First Wedding AcronymsLensrentals.com posted:This one is rather specific to the rental business, but its amazing how many people order the Canon 24-70 f2.8 and are shocked that it doesn’t work on their Nikon D300. Or my favorite “I couldn’t use the 85mm f1.4 lens you sent me because it wouldn’t zoom out sufficiently to take the group shots I planned to use it for. You should say more clearly on the website that it doesn’t zoom.” And the runner up “I had no idea the camera I ordered to shoot this wedding didn’t come with a lens. I wanted one with a lens.” Uhm. The part where the page said “This camera doesn’t come with a lens” didn’t provide a hint, huh? Working at a photography equipment rental company must be incredibly frustrating sometimes.
|
# ? Jul 26, 2010 01:40 |