|
downtown_man posted:Holy Shhhit Seems that they might not be his after all and Uncle Earl took them. http://www.petapixel.com/2010/07/29/ansel-adams-garage-sale-mystery-apparently-solved/
|
#
¿
Jul 31, 2010 06:00
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 07:43 |
|
|
brad industry posted:Aperture, PDN, and Communication Arts are the only things I subscribe to. This is the only thing worth subscribing to. And very cheap, too: http://tinyurl.com/2dgblha
|
|
#
¿
Aug 17, 2010 09:07
|
|
|
torgeaux posted:Start the rumor now: The new Canon 1DMarkV will have this very sensor. Instead of 10 shots per second burst, it'll be 10 seconds per shot burst. Sure, it'll be noisy, but they'll have definitively won the megapixel battle. I think you are aiming too low with the 1DmkV - let's claim that the G12 will have it.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 24, 2010 13:33
|
|
|
DaNzA posted:Cross posting from the canon thread. Is this Canon's much-awaited answer to the Sony NEX? Because I think they have made a mistake somewhere.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 31, 2010 11:06
|
|
|
Sushi in Yiddish posted:I imagine a future in which the ipod can be slotted into the back of a apple-manufactured camera and used as a wireless screen for live view, image storage and remote control. And you can only access your photos via iTunes.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 2, 2010 07:11
|
|
|
Shmoogy posted:Haven't seen it here, but some silliness: That also annoy me much more than it should. Even more than the silliness of combining all the bad points of an iphone with all the bad points on a DSLR. That I don't mind.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 5, 2010 07:15
|
|
|
Helmacron posted:girl who is acting on my behalf for printing purposes has called me up asking for a photo that could print to 1.5m in length (whatever height) at minimum 1470 dpi. On the plus side, you can enjoy a little laugh when you hear that your file crashes their computer.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 9, 2010 05:58
|
|
|
Helmacron posted:Why wouldn't it. 
|
|
#
¿
Sep 9, 2010 10:14
|
|
|
Helmacron posted:Panoramas, sort of surprisingly, really just need a lot of storing space as they're processing. I don't really know much about it, I admit, but from my experience, a good computer is great but a big harddrive and patience really do wonders for large panoramas. I was just meaning 8gb of ram (assuming the photo isn't over 8gb, as pointed out), could only ever help. No, he is (rightly) pointing out that if you really try and process an image that big, 8Gb is not going to make a difference: As an analogy: you need to buy a new $2,000 MacBook Pro, but you only have $50 in your pocket. You get lucky and find $100 down the back of your sofa. No it won't hinder your purchase, but it isn't really going to help much either. $50 or $150 -you aren't going to be walking home with a new toy today. quote:And whitezombi, we're just testing stuff right now. I said "durable cloth of some sort could make my photos a little more renegade" and she reported back this is what he said. I'll hedge my bets and give him a couple different files. 147lpi is entirely possible as a resolution for a printed image on cloth. That's about 300dpi and will give good quality. You are utterly wasting your time with images this big. There is no way that they are 1,000 dpi.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 9, 2010 15:50
|
|
|
Tincans posted:All the ladies describe me as camera All the ladies describe me as tripod 
|
|
#
¿
Sep 15, 2010 14:13
|
|
|
Helmacron posted:I think that trying to work on 1,470dpi images may have made your mind go a bit funny. Maybe you should sit down and rest for a while? Open a window and get some fresh air.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 16, 2010 07:55
|
|
|
Pantsmaster Bill posted:Quick question, I have a few product images going up on a website, I want to be using sRGB for maximum compatability, right? Yes.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 16, 2010 14:51
|
|
|
I'll be honest, I never bother with proper calibration of my screen. I do the simple software stuff, but that's it. (MS/Adobe wizards) I don't make prints at home, so that is not a requirement for me. My images are either seen on my screen (so, if it looks good on my screen, that is fine)or on friends/family screens -which are usually so wildly miscalibrated, it doesn't really matter whether the image colour is completely correct. If I ever do print something out, it is going to be at a shop somewhere, so I'll need to colour match to them at the time of printing. I guess I enjoy the non-destructive editing capabilities of LR much - it's easy to tweak the colours again and again without quality loss.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 25, 2010 04:02
|
|
|
Pompous Rhombus posted:Depending on how big of a deal it is to you/if you can afford it: Run out to the Apple Store and buy a 16GB WiFi iPad to use. Can always re-sell it for a small loss on Craigslist later if you don't want it. I wouldn't be surprised if the interviewer ended up ignoring him and just played with the ipad all the time. Which may or may not be a bad thing.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 26, 2010 04:50
|
|
|
Greybone posted:I've ran out a couple of times, always at the worst possible moments. I flew to Japan with loads of memory cards, two fully-charged batteries, but forgot the recharger. Both batteries ran out on day 3. 'No problem' sez I, 'This is Japan, home of Canon, I can pick one up anywhere' Turns out that if you ask for a battery -charger for a camera that is 3 years old, you might as well be asking for film for a daguerreotype. I got a lot of politely-confused looks from dept-store clerks. (yes, I know it used plates, not film, but it works better in my story)
|
|
#
¿
Oct 28, 2010 12:24
|
|
|
http://gizmodo.com/5678601/what-your-choice-of-camera-says-about-you What Your Choice of Camera Says About You
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2010 05:40
|
|
|
AIIAZNSK8ER posted:Weird, I don't really agree with any of these. Well, humour is subjective and all that, but I found it pretty funny and thought the sterotypes hit the mark well.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2010 15:46
|
|
|
Hot Cops posted:Yep. You're going to get your balls busted WIDE open if you do anything but the adjustments you mentioned in your previous post. PJ ethics are very, very strict. Kind of ironic, given the general level of ethics of the rest of the journos.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 6, 2010 04:16
|
|
|
PushingKingston posted:Here's a story about how one little digital alteration caused a set of photos to be disqualifed at this years World Press Photo. They're pretty serious about these sorts of changes. Even require entries to include the original RAW files: http://www.petapixel.com/2010/03/03/world-press-photo-disqualifies-winner/ But they didn't have any problem with the fake grain being applied? That surprises me.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 7, 2010 13:15
|
|
|
guidoanselmi posted:
They look and sound like an excellent way to get shot in the US.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2010 10:08
|
|
|
Dread Head posted:
Let me guess, if you want one with a red ring, it costs 3x as much?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 19, 2010 04:07
|
|
|
spf3million posted:Do point and shoot's fall into this category? I don't really know, but I always thought Canon dominated the P&S world. Could be because that's all I've ever really owned though. 'We are passionate about making a success of the NX system,' JW Kim said, 'and we are certain that the APS-C sensor will dominate the compact system camera market. It won't be long before compact system camera sales exceed those of DSLRs, and then Samsung will be the best selling camera brand' It's a little unclear, but I guess they use the phrase 'compact system camera' to mean 'mirrorless cameras with removable lenses' rather than 'P&S' Which makes more sense, I guess.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 22, 2010 04:06
|
|
|
Reichstag posted:That's a camera blog, not a photography blog. Also, he is someone I would not want to talk to at a party.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 24, 2010 06:53
|
|
|
Martytoof posted:*remembers on the train ride home that his D200 incorrectly meters +2/3EV with his Sigma 30 1.4 and green button reset the custom -0.7EV adjustment* Why the hell does it do that?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 28, 2010 06:08
|
|
|
guidoanselmi posted:Is anyone doing the NatGeo photo contest? I have a lot of photos from Kashmir that would probably fare well, but the $15/photo to enter is pretty $$. I wouldn't enter a photo contest that charges you to enter.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 29, 2010 04:48
|
|
|
Dread Head posted:I think those fees do 2 things, limit the people who has just got a rebel from entering 20 shots of flowers and to re-coup some of the costs with having to have someone look at every photo that is entered. I respectfully disagree. That fee is solely so that they can make money. In fact, the whole competition is just a method of earning money. They want as many people as possible to enter at all levels of skill. It takes less than 5 seconds per photo to weed out the bad/average ones, and at $15 per photo, it is a very profitable venture.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 29, 2010 05:17
|
|
|
mr. mephistopheles posted:That is silly. I'm sure they do make money off of it, but to say that that's the sole reason is absurd. They do need some barrier to entry if they don't want to be going through millions of photos, and a monetary fee is probably the easiest way to weed out those who aren't serious about it without a stipulation like "must have previously published work" that would defeat the purpose of having such a widely available contest. Let me rephrase: I respectfully disagree. That So, yes, I agree with you that if this were a competition for the sake of Art, then the fee would help reduce the number of frivolous entries. But in this (and many) cases, the fee is the reason for the competition. They want lots of paying entries so they can make lots of money. I am not saying that it is a bad thing, or that you shouldn't enter one, it's just perhaps not something I would want to enter into (and $15 is still $15).
|
|
#
¿
Nov 29, 2010 05:48
|
|
|
AIIAZNSK8ER posted:GAH! She can see us! One of my nightmares has come true!
|
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2010 04:21
|
|
|
You know, it may actually be very sage advice. X, X and X might get pissed at you for deliberately not taking their photos. They won't say anything to your face, but will badmouth you behind your back for the rest of the time you work in the same company. Petty, unbelievable and childlike? Yes. Plausible? Yes. Especially if X is a middle-aged woman.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 16, 2010 07:19
|
|
|
Captain Postal posted:How so? I'd guess because once some people turn on a phone, they become oblivious to everything around them. Up to, and including, actual flames.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 22, 2010 04:11
|
|
|
Mannequin posted:I wish I knew how to do this. Is it fairly simple? I still have not come up with a proper backup solution after getting my recovered data back. If you have Windows7, it is as easy as a few mouse clicks to get a RAID1 setup (convert to dynamic disk and then to mirrored RAID) But, RAID is for fault tolerance, not backup and you'd be better to follow AIIAZNSK8ER's suggestion or run Windows Backup and Recovery to an external HDD EDIT http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cKDCmOBqNBY Literally takes less than 1 min to perform all the clicks to set this up spog fucked around with this message at 06:46 on Jan 15, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Jan 15, 2011 06:42
|
|
|
If you just consider reliability, then I've not seen anything to suggest that software is less reliable than hardware. That said, there are definite benefits to hardware RAID: http://www.cyberciti.biz/tips/raid-hardware-vs-raid-software.html But, consider how many of these would affect your own situation at home. For home use, I contend that RAID is pretty pointless - you'd be much better off spending your time and money getting a good backup system and workflow. If you are running a commercial setup where time is money, then absolutely you should use RAID, but for home use, does it really matter if you have to spend an hour restoring from a backup in the event of hardware failure Also, for commerical use, administration time is an important factor, as well as the ability to hot swap busted drives and for that, separate hardware is going to be better. That said - if you have everything all backup regularly, I see no disadvantage of throwing in an extra HDD into your PC case and running mirrored RAID. Drives are so cheap these days. But, practically, it's not much of a real advantage.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 15, 2011 07:11
|
|
|
Rated PG-34 posted:I thought the final outcome of Colorfinger's thread was pretty hilarious: I still don't understand why that thread ran: soliciting has been explicitly banned for a very long time - even when a mod is benefiting (I think it was NMS who had his thread gassed by Lowtax, with the comment 'this is stupid') Nothing at all against Colorfinger - but he's screwed this photographer into working for free or else face the wrath of goons invading his online business. We're not fcking 4chan.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 16, 2011 05:14
|
|
|
Zegnar posted:And the only guy who points that out in the thread gets banned, not even a probate. Well, when you are shaking someone down, you don't want people pointing that out. It's interesting to me - is this the birth of a new form of extortion? In the past, people would threaten sites with DDOS. Now they can threaten them with a flood of negative reviews. How can a photographer (or other small business) protect themselves against this?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 17, 2011 04:59
|
|
|
Paragon8 posted:I dunno, I think most small businesses would fly under the radar to a group large enough to be able to flood a facebook page or twitter with negative reviews. My thinking is that to DDOS Amazon, or an online casino, you need to put together quite a large network of bots. This takes time, skill and expertise. Plus, a big company is going to have the internal manpower to fight against it. Finally, it is clearly extortion and you will have the police interested. Now, this method is much simpler. You only need for a few hundred (or less) of your group to show that they can flood the photographers facebook page to the point where he either takes it down, or shuts off commenting all together. Many small business are going to rely on the traffic that their facebook pages generates and they don't have the resources to fight this attack. So, all you have to do is show your muscle (flood an online vote, or similar), then give a mild threat (have a handful of these people post negative comments on the webpage) Then some guy emails and says 'hey what special offer can you give me in exchange for free positive advertising on this forum?' and maybe they realise that it is easier to give him a free photoshoot, rather than have to shutdown your virtual storefront for a couple of weeks. Much easier to organise, implement and receive the benefits than large scale extortion. One-man band photographers are going to be particularly vulnerable.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 17, 2011 05:34
|
|
|
beeker posted:Digital Rev TV is an endless source of amusement to me if only because he's constantly accidentally breaking expensive things: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uDHQ5lXZGTo Never mind 'accidentally' breaking things: http://www.youtube.com/watch?annotation_id=annotation_972587&v=D1tTBncIsm8&feature=iv I demand that everyone watches this video. EDIT: it is a bit slow, but stick with it. spog fucked around with this message at 06:56 on Jan 23, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Jan 23, 2011 06:41
|
|
|
You mean an ever-ready case? http://www.jessops.com/online.store/categories/Accessories/Bags%20and%20Cases/Ever%20Ready%20Cases/Show.html   I that they will do what you want. Unfortunately, the versions for zoom lenses tend to look like large, neoprene dongs.  Which may or may not be an added benefit.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 27, 2011 16:40
|
|
|
xzzy posted:I guess this could be moved to the camera bag thread, but yes, that's the sort of thing I'd like. A camera condom that I can toss in my normal backpack. These are <USD40: http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=zoomster+delsey&rh=i%3Aaps%2Ck%3Azoomster+delsey&ajr=3 I've used both types and I prefer these ones. They are slightly bigger than neoprene ones, but I always felt that neoprene wasn't that protective: it could stop scratches, but if you had something hard and pointy in your backpack, it would push right through. Plus, you can sling them over your shoulder for carrying, or attach them to your belt if you want your trousers to fall down in public.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 27, 2011 17:15
|
|
|
Helmacron posted:gently caress you guys jump to the drug conclusion quickly Are you stoned right now?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 28, 2011 07:16
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 07:43 |
|
|
Kilometers Davis posted:Counterpoint: No-one will want to steal it Counter-counterpoint: the 'Pentax' logo should do that just fine (I kid, I kid)
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2011 07:10
|
|