adobe.photography
http://groups.google.com/group/adobe.photography?hl=en
adobe.photography@googlegroups.com
Today's topics:
* Canon > Nikon D3 > Sell All & Switch - 12 messages, 6 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/adobe.photography/t/0f2b645b7ef778d9?hl=en
* So is the photography forum dead or grasping for its last breath? - 5
messages, 5 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/adobe.photography/t/df98f10b5350a14c?hl=en
* Be VERY Afraid … - 3 messages, 3 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/adobe.photography/t/cf82f66e37b5ce25?hl=en
* Photography Portfolio Site - 5 messages, 3 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/adobe.photography/t/b2d51cd5e634234b?hl=en
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Canon > Nikon D3 > Sell All & Switch
http://groups.google.com/group/adobe.photography/t/0f2b645b7ef778d9?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 12 ==
Date: Sun, Mar 22 2009 9:33 am
From: Donald_Reese@adobeforums.com
Its only a matter of time till canon one ups nikon,so save your money. Hard to imagine f6 would cover a long table like that, but you now what you saw. natural light is relative as well. it could have been a room with a glass wall to the outside, letting in tons of soft light.I do agree the camera is great and i actually shoot at 800 on a regular basis now, but canon is making great stuff as well.
== 2 of 12 ==
Date: Sun, Mar 22 2009 9:47 am
From: LRK@adobeforums.com
Hard to imagine f6 would cover a long table like that, but you now what
you saw.
Because of my propensity to not always get the facts straight, I plan to contact him this week and inquire again. I would love it if he would provide me with a copyrighted JPG, but even so I would probably not be at liberty to share it publicly.
natural light is relative as well. it could have been a room with a glass
wall to the outside, letting in tons of soft light.
Maybe, but if my memory serves me right I think there was a lot of dark wood and shelves.
I do agree the camera is great and i actually shoot at 800 on a regular
basis now, but canon is making great stuff as well.
I hope so, but I have my doubts that Canon will be able to match the D3. If they do have plans to release a body that is comparable, I just hope they don't take too long.
== 3 of 12 ==
Date: Sun, Mar 22 2009 9:55 am
From: Lawrence_Hudetz@adobeforums.com
Does Canon have a PC lens?
== 4 of 12 ==
Date: Sun, Mar 22 2009 9:59 am
From: Ann_Shelbourne@adobeforums.com
f/6 ? … or might it have been f/16?
I know that the D3 is a huge joy, and the high ISO capabilities are astounding, but part of he success of that shot was probably the result of the photographer's own ability.
Sitting lawyers are reasonably static so, if the camera was tripod-mounted, he could have stopped down and used quite a slow shutter speed.
There is also the possibility that he used image stacking in the way that Fred did in that memorable Forest shot of his.
== 5 of 12 ==
Date: Sun, Mar 22 2009 10:00 am
From: LRK@adobeforums.com
Does Canon have a PC lens?
Yes, and they recently came out with two new ones. <http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=ProductCatIndexAct&fcategoryid=156>
== 6 of 12 ==
Date: Sun, Mar 22 2009 10:02 am
From: LRK@adobeforums.com
There is also the possibility that he used image stacking in the way that
Fred did in that memorable Forest shot of his.
I too wondered if there was any photo manipulation. He seemed to be expressing that it was simply shot as it was.
f/6 ? … or might it have been f/16?
I am pretty sure he said f/6, but will try to find out.
== 7 of 12 ==
Date: Sun, Mar 22 2009 10:40 am
From: PShock@adobeforums.com
Here we go again ... ;)
Just go ahead and buy the D3 already. It'll satisfy your craving for new equipment and you'll learn a valuable, albeit unexpected, lesson.
Really, I think you should buy it.
How much do you want for your Canon gear?
-phil
== 8 of 12 ==
Date: Sun, Mar 22 2009 11:07 am
From: LRK@adobeforums.com
Here we go again...
I wouldn't want to disappoint you. Besides, we need a little excitement around here. ;-)
Really, I think you should buy it.
If I get some time between the job I'm on now and a new job starting in April, I might rent the D3 for a day or a weekend, just to see how it feels and performs in my own hands.
How much do you want for your Canon gear?
If I do this, I'll check to see what the going rate is for used gear like mine, and then try to knock some off. I will want to make enough to at least cover the cost of the new gear though.
I don't plan make this move "too" impulsively. ;-) And I would like to see what Canon does within the next six months.
== 9 of 12 ==
Date: Sun, Mar 22 2009 2:52 pm
From: Wade_Zimmerman@adobeforums.com
The weigh is a factor Linda the D3 is heavy by comparison to the 5D.
Then shooting with the 5D at 800 is not all that fulfilling.
But renting the camera is the way to go. In spite of what others might think the old 24mm Tilt/Shift Canon lens is not a good choice as one colleague who just changed from a 5D to a D3x said the 24mm Tilt Shift Canon lens had too much barrel distortion and was not as sharp as he required.
He is very happy with using a non PC lens on the D3x a 14-24mm zoom, reviewed by many as one f the best lenses Nikon ever made and seems will go down in history as one of their best lenses ever. He does all the perspective correction in Photoshop.
I do not agree that is always a good idea but that is his choice, but then without trying new nikkor pc lenses he judged it by the old experience he had with the Canon Lens so that does not speak well of his logic.
Unlike him I will try the 14-24mm lens this week to see if it fulfills the needs.
My colleague also is very conscious of money and it may simply be economics that drives his decisions.
Some of his clients have complained to me that he always uses the excuse we will fix it in photoshop, every shot and they are getting tired of it.
So there are factors working against him and the next time we talk he will probably tell me i should not use the 14-24mm because you always have to tell the client you'll fix it in Photoshop.
I expect a call asking to borrow the 24mm PC in the near future.
== 10 of 12 ==
Date: Sun, Mar 22 2009 3:35 pm
From: Wade_Zimmerman@adobeforums.com
Linda he may have been using the Nikkor 14-24mm zoom lens I have seen an image taken with it and it appears to be super sharp. It might also explain why he has such a depth of field depending on the focal length and of course a lens that renders the image in such a sharp way tends to give the impression that the depth of field has been in creased since it renders the image more accurately though out the filed.
Not something some of the guys here understand and think is irrelevant.
But you now see what i am talking about if it captures the image in such a way then your falloff is going to be much more subtle.
Generally referred to as a lens with a great depth of field.
Now they are going to jump back and scream bloody murder and that ll lenses render the depth of filed equally but that simply is not the case and do not listen to them.
You know they have said I cannot take a portrait but ask Peter Figen what he thinks of my
realistic approach to taking portraits and you might get a different opinion this time.
BTW Peter I would be interested in taking a portrait of your friend Benny Chan in the same informal way.
Peter was easy to photograph. Andrew I would need a little more time to hang out with first.
It is very important to me to get the person to trust you and to know you a bit before shooting.
It sounds like your photography friend Linda takes the same approach i am certain after a while they were very comfortable with him being around that he had not problem taking a few images and probably most are useable.
Don't listen to the experts rent and find out what lens he was using.
== 11 of 12 ==
Date: Sun, Mar 22 2009 3:45 pm
From: LRK@adobeforums.com
The weigh is a factor Linda the D3 is heavy by comparison to the 5D.
I've been using the extra battery pack with the 5D without a problem. I wonder how much heavier.
Then shooting with the 5D at 800 is not all that fulfilling.
The 5D does very well at 800 ISO, just not as well as the D3.
But renting the camera is the way to go. In spite of what others might
think the old 24mm Tilt/Shift Canon lens is not a good choice as one colleague
who just changed from a 5D to a D3x said the 24mm Tilt Shift Canon lens
had too much barrel distortion and was not as sharp as he required.
I don't know if I want a Tilt & Shift, but I will be asking my colleague what lens he used for the print he showed me.
He is very happy with using a non PC lens on the D3x a 14-24mm zoom, reviewed
by many as one f the best lenses Nikon ever made and seems will go down
in history as one of their best lenses ever. He does all the perspective
correction in Photoshop.
Sounds nice, though probably a little wide if I only end up with one lens for starters.
Unlike him I will try the 14-24mm lens this week to see if it fulfills
the needs.
I would be interested in seeing how it performs.
== 12 of 12 ==
Date: Sun, Mar 22 2009 3:50 pm
From: Donald_Reese@adobeforums.com
I still say you will continually be jumping back and forth between brands if you hope to have the best features all the time. stick with what you have and dont take such a huge hit on selling perfectly good equipment. The nikon 14-24 is truly one of the best optics that nikon makes and is a beauty,but it does not take polarizers,unless you jury rig something, which some have done, but at that wide,polarizers are not always feasible anyway.
Wade, would you prefer the rest of us not offer our input for consideration, as you seem to imply we are all just a bunch of idiots. I am surprised you are not giving linda your textbook speech on always wanting the best equipment. try just offering your suggestions and forego trying to brainwash people into hanging on your every word. just once anyway.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: So is the photography forum dead or grasping for its last breath?
http://groups.google.com/group/adobe.photography/t/df98f10b5350a14c?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 5 ==
Date: Sun, Mar 22 2009 9:40 am
From: Lawrence_Hudetz@adobeforums.com
Thanks, Ramon.
Adblock is already activated, I'll look into the others.
== 2 of 5 ==
Date: Sun, Mar 22 2009 11:50 am
From: Ramón_G_Castañeda@adobeforums.com
You'll need both "Adblock Plus" and "Adblock Plus: Element Hiding Helper". Then you need to hunt down each element you want eliminated.
If you get "Stylish" you don't need "Greasemonkey".
== 3 of 5 ==
Date: Sun, Mar 22 2009 12:12 pm
From: Dirck_Van_Lieu@adobeforums.com
Perhaps a few more sets of eyes could help me confirm: it appears to me that Adobe has amended the TOS without notice and without changing the date at the top. Twice I quoted by copy/paste the phrase "make available through your use of the Site" referring to their claim of rights to content regardless of where it is hosted or even if it is just hyperlinked.
I no longer see that phrase in the TOS. Is it indeed gone or am I just missing it? And was there not language that said that they had the right to use your content for profit without remuneration to you?
== 4 of 5 ==
Date: Sun, Mar 22 2009 2:01 pm
From: Wade_Zimmerman@adobeforums.com
I'm a strict vegetarian on weekends!
== 5 of 5 ==
Date: Sun, Mar 22 2009 4:16 pm
From: Ozpeter@adobeforums.com
it appears to me that Adobe has amended the TOS without notice and without
changing the date at the top.
That would be a bit bad if it's the case.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Be VERY Afraid …
http://groups.google.com/group/adobe.photography/t/cf82f66e37b5ce25?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Sun, Mar 22 2009 10:15 am
From: Ann_Shelbourne@adobeforums.com
Sandee:
How very nice to see you here!
(For those that don't know, just check out the book shelves at Border's next time you are there!)
Peter is exactly right. Copyright is created at the moment that the shutter is pressed or pencil/brush is applied to paper.
The reason for registering with the Copyright Office is that it provides further proof of ownership (and allows you to collect higher legal damages if infringement occurs!) — but registration is not obligatory.
What Adobe are doing here is not a case of grabbing your copyright (they can't do that without a signed written agreement of transfer) but purloining the rights of all Usage, for any purpose, anywhere and for all time.
Wade has already pointed out the other dangers here.
Apart from loss of control of how your Art is used; and the loss of income from royalties: there is the huge problem of identifiable pictures of people and places being used for Advertising and Commercial Purposes without a signed Model Release and the potential for expensive law suits as a result.
== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Sun, Mar 22 2009 11:59 am
From: Ramón_G_Castañeda@adobeforums.com
Unfortunately, very bad prior experiences with two of the Quick Guides series with the image of a rabbit running on two legs years ago have kept me from buying Sandee's books. The ones I bought for Illustrator and, especially, MS Word by an author by the name of Maria Langer were a total waste of money. So much so that I flung the Word book out of a 24th-floor window onto the tracks in great disgust. :(
== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Sun, Mar 22 2009 1:07 pm
From: Laurentiu_G_Todie@adobeforums.com
were you living there?
(or made the climb on purpose : )
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Photography Portfolio Site
http://groups.google.com/group/adobe.photography/t/b2d51cd5e634234b?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 5 ==
Date: Sun, Mar 22 2009 10:20 am
From: PShock@adobeforums.com
Well, resolution of an image is irrelevant (web images have value just like those in print), but he's right.
A copyright notice won't prevent someone from taking an image, and if that person is located in another country, how much are you will to spend to right the wrong? Remember that an image without a copyright notice is no less copyrighted than one that has the notice. The only real benefits are having a photo credit - and the thief can't claim they didn't know the image was copyrighted. Other than that, a copyright notice means zilch.
And really, without registering an image with the copyright office, all you can hope to achieve is to get a violator to stop using the image. Actually, you might be able to get them to pay some usage fees if they're honest at heart, but the image must be registered in order to be awarded financial compensation (the oft-mentioned $1500 per image), in most cases, should you sue.
I use notices on my websites, but the only absolute way to keep images out of unlicensed hands is to never put them on the web.
-phil
== 2 of 5 ==
Date: Sun, Mar 22 2009 11:10 am
From: Laurentiu_G_Todie@adobeforums.com
put your own copyright notice on the pictures
(discrete, but clear; no watermark BS)
== 3 of 5 ==
Date: Sun, Mar 22 2009 1:30 pm
From: Lawrence_Hudetz@adobeforums.com
That's what I do anyway, and Phil, the important part is that so long as any copyright is visible at all times, you are covered. Yes you are covered from the outset but if it is published without the notice you lose.
If you win, the difference between registration and non is the unregistered image allows you to recover the usual fee for usage, registered means triple damages as a minimum + the usual fee.
== 4 of 5 ==
Date: Sun, Mar 22 2009 2:13 pm
From: Laurentiu_G_Todie@adobeforums.com
you can register after the theft, before the lawsuit if any : )
== 5 of 5 ==
Date: Sun, Mar 22 2009 3:30 pm
From: Lawrence_Hudetz@adobeforums.com
That would probably work, so long as you do before it gets published. Most of the time, you don't know until you see it somewhere.
In any case, she's taking a cavalier attitude towards her suppliers. I have refused advertising dollars because the agency refused to copyright the image. Nor would they consider triple fees for outright ownership. Some images would not go for even that.
==============================================================================
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "adobe.photography"
group.
To post to this group, visit http://groups.google.com/group/adobe.photography?hl=en
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to adobe.photography+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
To change the way you get mail from this group, visit:
http://groups.google.com/group/adobe.photography/subscribe?hl=en
To report abuse, send email explaining the problem to abuse@googlegroups.com
==============================================================================
Google Groups: http://groups.google.com/?hl=en
0 comments:
Post a Comment