General Photography Chat - Page 39

Doady · #**761** Posted **Jun 17, 2010, 11:51 PM**

Flickr has just made Getty Images invitation an option for all Flickr users. I know many on here on Flickr (as I am). So what do you think of Getty Images? Enable invites or not?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aleks

Hello members! As some of you know, my camera was stolen last month. This month I had my birthday and graduation which means presents! I didn't ask for anything for my birthday but I did ask for a 2 Terrabyte external hardrive for graduation.

I'm gonna reset my computer to it's original factory condition and start from the beginning. I'm saving all my work as we speak! 180gigs of pictures (around 178gigs of those are pictures I actually took!) and everything else! I'm glad I got this EH (external hard-drive) because now I can back up all my work. Phewww!

Sorry to hear about stolen camera. You are lucky though that you did not lose those 178gb worth of photos. That would have been even worse than losing a camera. Camera is replaceable, the photos are not. It is too much chance to leave them so many of them on the hard drive like that for so long.

Every 4gb of photos I make, I immediately burn them to DVD. I burn approx 1 DVD every two months. Obviously I don't photograph as much as you...

vid · #**762** Posted **Jun 18, 2010, 5:52 PM**

I know some people who have made money with Getty images. It might be worth it, if you have the kind of photos they're looking for.

I recently lost most of my photo archives to a hard drive crash (which I caused because I am retarted), but recovered many of them with Recuva. I never saved them to disk though. (I only had a CD burner in the old computer). I had about 10,000 photos in it, but it was only about 8GB because the resolution is low.

Now I have a DVD burner so I'll be doing what you're doing with disk backups.

Doady · #**763** Posted **Jul 2, 2010, 4:44 AM**

I was think of getting a filter for infrared photography, the B+W 092 MRC (Multiple Resistant Coated)
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/591341-REG/B_W_1057385_40_5mm_092_Infrared_IR.html

BH Photo and Video seems to be the only retailer In North America that carries this filter. That is Problem #1 (it is a US retailer and I live in Canada).

Problem #2 is the filter for that thread size, 40.5mm, is special order only and could take a long time and there are no refunds. They do have the 52mm version in-stock, but it is more expensive ($15 more) and I would need to use an adapter to put it on my camera as the lens has a 40.5mm thread.

Problem #3 is that if I ever get a Micro Four Thirds camera, the 40.5mm version could become obsolete as there is only one m4/3 lens so far has a 40.5mm thread. In contrast, there are four m4/3 lenses available that use the 52mm thread (the rest range from 37mm to 58mm). There is no guarantee I will buy a new camera anytime soon though.

I have little experience buying filters, so I ask: should I just special order the cheaper 40.5mm version that fits my current camera perfectly, or pay extra for the in-stock 52mm version that might be more usable in the future?

flar · #**764** Posted **Jul 2, 2010, 5:39 AM**

52mm is a very common filter size so there's a very good chance it could be used with future lenses. It would also be easier to sell than an odd sized filter.

mr.John · #**765** Posted **Jul 19, 2010, 10:19 PM**

Anyone try to link a photo from flickr lately? since they changed their format I no longer have a clue how to link photos from their site, why do those stupid a-holes keep changing things every year?

Ramsayfarian · #**766** Posted **Jul 19, 2010, 10:35 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by mr.John

Anyone try to link a photo from flickr lately? since they changed their format I no longer have a clue how to link photos from their site, why do those stupid a-holes keep changing things every year?

I find the new improvments are a vast improvement. Try clicking on the tab that says "Share".

mr.John · #**767** Posted **Jul 20, 2010, 2:17 AM**

In the old format all I did was copy the photo's url and paste it to insert image, I don't see this option when I click "share this" in the new format when I copy grab the link this is what I get

Ramsayfarian · #**768** Posted **Jul 20, 2010, 3:07 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by mr.John

In the old format all I did was copy the photo's url and paste it to insert image, I don't see this option when I click "share this" in the new format when I copy grab the link this is what I get

That's because the [img] tags are expecting a jpeg file. If you got to thehtml you can extract that. Flickr doesn't like people to link directly.

Boquillas · #**769** Posted **Jul 20, 2010, 3:48 AM**

They don't like "hotlinking" (as state in their TOS) to static images, but prefer images posted with linkbacks. There are a million and one ways to do that, but the easiest I've found (at least so far as creating an image thread) is quickr pickr. It will generate HTML or BB code of the image in any of its sizes with the linkback imbedded, like so: (my image)

hammersklavier · #**770** Posted **Jul 20, 2010, 4:16 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ramsayfarian

That's because the [img] tags are expecting a jpeg file. If you got to thehtml you can extract that. Flickr doesn't like people to link directly.

Dude, I can tell you're stretching your aperture performance to the breaking point on that picture...but then those lenses sports photographers use are like insanely expensive.

Aleks · #**771** Posted **Jul 25, 2010, 6:25 AM**

so i haven't had a camera for over 2 months and it's been hell. so many beautiful sunsets and lost memories

well i was going to get a new d90 but yesterday i found out that there might be a d90 replacement coming out before the end of the year. the new "d90" would have:
-16mp dx sensor
-same noise performance as the d700
-full HD
-8fps
-video auto focus
-aluminum body.

i might just wait even if it means going 2 more months without a camera. i decided that this time i'll buy new. if it's less that 1500 bucks i'll probably end up saving about half the money and have the rest be an early Christmas present (i dont usually ask for presents if i get something expensive). anyways, what do you guys think about these new "d90" rumors?

i liked the image quality of my deceased camera, but i've always like the quality of full frame. the only thing holding me back from getting a full-frame is $$$. because a good body needs a good lens and fx lenses are expensive!

Doady · #**772** Posted **Jul 25, 2010, 7:27 AM**

d700 is has an FX sensor, I doubt d90 successor will match that. Probably will be more like d300.

The important thing about a new model is drastically reduced price for the previous model. It is your opportunity to buy the d90 at a bargain price in the coming months.

Ramsayfarian · #**773** Posted **Jul 25, 2010, 9:14 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by hammersklavier

Dude, I can tell you're stretching your aperture performance to the breaking point on that picture...but then those lenses sports photographers use are like insanely expensive.

I still had some room left as far as aperture goes. I was pushing the ISO though at 1600.

mr.John · #**774** Posted **Jul 25, 2010, 5:05 PM**

Anyone have any info on the new d400 (price, performance at high iso.. noise wise) I want to upgrade but the d700 is way too expensive for my budget

LSyd · #**775** Posted **Jul 25, 2010, 5:09 PM**

Quote:

-same noise performance as the d700

i'm interested if it's low-light/high ISO noise performance. probably not possible though since it's not full frame.

-

Ayreonaut · #**776** Posted **Jul 25, 2010, 8:39 PM**

I completely forgot about LR3, so I downloaded the upgrade today. I've only done two photos with it so far, but it seem really great.

Aleks · #**777** Posted **Jul 25, 2010, 9:17 PM**

^^lightroom 3 looks awesome but i won't download it until i get a new camera. i really liked the beta versions and the full version looks even better.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LSyd

i'm interested if it's low-light/high ISO noise performance. probably not possible though since it's not full frame.

-

yeah i was wondering about the iso performance as well. i guess we'll have to wait to see samples and the actual body. plus on the d90 the iso quality looked great! i'd use 1600+ at times and it looked pretty clear to me.

doady-yeah i was thinking the same. maybe get a new d90 since it'd be cheaper. although d90's went up by 100 bucks in th last month, i think it's because nikon will (or already) stop manufacturing it. maybe when the replacement is announced it'll drop again.

hammersklavier · #**778** Posted **Jul 25, 2010, 11:50 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ramsayfarian

I still had some room left as far as aperture goes. I was pushing the ISO though at 1600.

How old's that camera? My point-and-shoot doesn't even noticeably grain at ISO 3200...

Ramsayfarian · #**779** Posted **Jul 26, 2010, 1:42 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by hammersklavier

How old's that camera? My point-and-shoot doesn't even noticeably grain at ISO 3200...

The camera is about a year old. I don't see any ISO noise in the photo.

diskojoe · #**780** Posted **Jul 26, 2010, 4:00 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by mr.John

Anyone try to link a photo from flickr lately? since they changed their format I no longer have a clue how to link photos from their site, why do those stupid a-holes keep changing things every year?

I pull up the large size then right click for properties. its kinda lame but still works. i dont care for teh upgrades they have made. they are not user friendly unless you just want to plaster them on facebook.