Slashdot Mirror

I think you must work a dance hall very differently than I would, based on your focal length. I'm generally at 35mm or wider (on APS-C) so I'm pretty close and mixed in among the action. In that context, if I have a need for flash (which means the house lights are way down and the DJ has some effects going) then it inherently blends into the existing atmosphere of pulsing music and strobing lights. Ceremonies I shoot almost exclusively with ambient lighting because that's a quiet, subdued event where I don't want to attract attention, but at a reception I'm one dude in the mix of a bunch of dancers, adding a little bit of light to the situation isn't likely to be a problem.

In that context, flash is about as far from "samey" as you can get, IMO. For some examples, ambient lighting at receptions often gets you results like this: http://stevewatkinsphotography...
or this: http://static.photo.net/attach...
While flash gets you images more along the lines of this: http://www.melissajill.com/ima...
or this: http://static.jasminestar.com/...

Flash gets you brighter colors, sharper details, and most importantly, control over the situation - if you MUST get a shot at a precise moment, and don't know what the lighting is or how cooperative your subject is going to be (think cutting cake, bouquet toss, etc) then I find you don't have the privilege of setting up your focus point in advance and waiting for the subject to cooperate - eyes might be closed, subject might move in the opposite direction than you predict, or whatever. You can also line up an off camera flash for a cool effect, change your setup throughout the evening for variety, etc... So you proactively move focus and lighting to where the action is and where you need to be.

So, honestly, I would bet that a portrait lens with ambient lighting is the last thing most photographers would want for a dance or reception, except for a couple niche cases like the slow dances (father/daughter, etc) and maybe toasts - everything with action in it will probably come out better with a wider lens and flash. Of course, some of the most creative shots can come from breaking the standard rules, but to get back to the original point I think a 50/1.4 or 35/2.0 is going to be plenty fast to shoot a reception competently with a modern DSLR that can do decent ISO. If that setup can't get you your shot, your photography will be improved more by $1000 worth of flash gear than the >>$1000 you'll be spending to get a lens that only offers another fraction of a stop in speed.

it's not a peaceful, painless death. In many instances it could only be described as torture.

You're comparing to a nonexistent zero base state. 99% of animals left alone by humans die a painful, tortuous death - usually in the jaws of a predator. I've seen them swallowed alive and struggling inside the belly of a predator, cut in half, skinned alive, limbs gnawed off while still alive, attempting to flee with entrails hanging out, all without any human nearby. It is extraordinarily rare for a wild animal to die of old age. The methods humans have developed to slaughter livestock do not purport to be peaceful or painless, they just needed to be less painful than the death most wild animals would experience naturally to justify the killing as an improvement (from the animal's perspective) from a wild death.

I've killed (and continue to kill) my share of animals for meat. It is not the cold, emotionless process we've developed in slaughterhouses hidden from view of the supermarket shelves. You become intimately aware that this is a living thing struggling to survive, and you're ending its life so you can eat. You gain a tremendous respect for the creature that gave its life to become your dinner, and are less likely to do things like dump a half-eaten burger into the trash.

That's the question I raise to people (non-vegetarians) I meet who are offended that I "enjoy killing wild animals" for meat (fishing). The animals I catch spend their entire lives free in the sea to do as they wish, except for the last 5 minutes before I kill them and make a best effort to eat as much of the meat as I can. The animals they eat spend their entire lives penned up in captivity, basically as part of a meat assembly line, until they're slaughtered, and they probably throw away unused meat simply because it's inconvenient or doesn't taste good anymore. Yet somehow in their minds, I am the bad guy because I make the animal suffer more?
,br> If "cultivated meat" becomes affordable, I will probably eat it most of the time for convenience and to decrease my environmental impact. But I will still catch the occasional fish and eat it myself, to remind myself what the natural ecosystem is and to respect it, and not live completely isolated from it within the artificial biosphere that modern humans have created.

The ink-jet cartridges measure their print out volume based on the number of droplets deposited. A +/- 5% change in ink droplet diameter represents a +/- 15% change in volume. When dealing with really small feature sizes, variable temperatures, and variable viscosities, it is really tough to control droplet diameter exactly. The result is that the ink-cartridge manufacturers need to overfill their cartridges to guarantee that some customer in some corner case doesn't experience a rash of cartridges that run out early.

IMHO that's a pathetic argument. Why the hell are you estimating ink usage when it's possible to directly measure remaining ink? The old Canon printers used transparent ink cartridges. A sensor shone a light through the ink reservoir (right side in the pic), and when the light was unimpeded, it knew the cartridge was empty. Every Canon cartridge I replaced was in fact completely empty (except for a little ink in the sponge material directly above the outlet.

This is a simple problem, made unnecessarily complex solely as a means to make customers buy more ink.

There is no Kodak. Fuck whatever is calling itself Kodak today. Kodak died with Kodachrome in 2010.

Get over yourself. Kodachrome was an important product in its day, but it was never *ever* the be-all-and-end-all of Kodak.

I'm pretty sure that latterly the print films (Gold et al) massively outsold it, and the sad truth (from an apparent Kodak insider, "Rowland Mowrey") was that by the late-80s- even before Velvia came out, and long, *long* before digital was eating into it- photographers weren't interested in Kodachrome any more:-

EK had some seriously upgraded Kodachrome films in R&D in the 80s, and sent samples to various professionals at the time. This included the HS Kodachrome with an EI of 400.

NO ONE WANTED THEM!

Read that. NO ONE WANTED THEM. EK could not sell them. They wanted Ektachrome or color negative film. So, that is what they got.

Sorry, but I was there as it happened.

Look for my name on the patent for the yellow color developing agent. It is CD6. Been there, seen it happen. [..] People stopped buying right after the introduction of some serious upgrades to the entire film line, the ones you like right now. Then, when approached with further improvements in speed and grain, with no sacrifice in color, no one was interested.

Do you think EK develops a film and abandons it with no market research? How stupid do you think they are? Back in the 80s, they sent samples to professionals to test out before formal introduction. Reaction was blase. It was "we want Ektachrome, give us more". Remember, there was no Fuji Velvia at this time. The market was Kodachrome and Ektachrome vs Vericolor. So, the market in professionals and amateurs wanted Ektachrome, current Kodachrome, Vericolor, and Gold.

There you have it.

I don't agree either, but that is a fact.

None of what I (or he) said is to say that Kodachrome was a bad film, nor that Ektachrome was better- just that people didn't want it, and by the end clearly weren't buying it in quantities sufficient to justify manufacturing it and keeping even the final lab (for *all* Kodachrome processing worldwide) open.

Greatest bedbug detector and eliminator in the world:

http://gallery.photo.net/photo...

Turn six of them loose in your house and you'll never see another bug again.

You can make Photo Developer with acetaminophen Parodinal Developer. Is a good therapy using it for photography and keeps it away from your liver.

Nope. Stars are essentially point sources, and so have a very high spatial frequency. If you had a hypothetical telescope that had a flat and infinite modulation transfer function your unfiltered star field would look like crap with all the aliasing. It's possible you could still measure distances between stars, depending on how extended those stars really are, and the distribution of the starfield, but it would look like crap and you'd get a better measurement with an appropriate low pass filter.

In reality there's no such thing as a lens or mirror (or microphone, or any other sensor) with a flat and infinite MTR so your lens itself is acting as a... wait for it... low pass filter. There are some examples of MTFs on this page: http://photo.net/learn/optics/mtf/. For doing realistic separation measurements in astronomy you want to make damn sure you're using an appropriate filter because you're generally looking at sources that are close together and hard to resolve. A little bit of aliasing will completely screw that up.

Actually, an efficient optical system has a sensor with a maximum frequency response that is similar to the rest of the system. There's no point in measuring resolution that your lens can't pass, and no point in passing frequencies your sensor can't detect. So the aliasing you'd see if you hacked the low pass filter out of a camera isn't anything like the aliasing you'd see if there wasn't any filtering at all.

It's quite possible there is some edge case where my broad generalization isn't quite true. An artist who likes pictures of featureless walls comes to mind. Or one who likes aliasing artifacts for their artistic value. It's fun watching you get more and more pedantic trying to find it though.

There have been third party programs doing this for nearly a decade. This is also the "trick" behind the light field camera. You simultaneously capture multiple versions of a scene, back out the distance information based on depth of field effects (diameter of the point spread functions at each location in each image), then use all that to reconstruct what the photo would have looked like with the focus at a plane of your choosing.

Very handy for macro photos and microscopy where narrow depth of field frequently makes it impossible to get more than a tiny sliver of the subject in focus. Long-term, I predict this is going to replace the bulky "professional" lenses carried by many DSLR photographers. One of the primary reasons to use these large lenses is to narrow the field of view to isolate the subject (blur the background and foreground). You can accomplish the same thing with a smaller lens, a light field camera, and some number crunching. (The other primary reason is for speed in low-light situations, which is becoming less important over time as CCD and CMOS sensitivity constantly improves).

"Any contract requires the agreement of both parties." That's right. And, the 'default case' is NOT that you have the right to reproduce my text (in memory and elsewhere) when I have explicitly denied this right. Go to Paris, take a photo of the Eiffel Tower at night, and publish it in a book. You must pay for this privilege. Where's the contract "requiring the agreement of both parties"? Did you sign one when entering France? No. The fact is, that is an absurd length France goes to, but the basic premise is that the default case is that you DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO REPRODUCE. I am making this expliict.

IN your reply you have just admited to making unauthorized reproduction of my text (in memory and elsewhere), thereby agreeing to be bound to $1. If you don't want to pay it despite your obligation, you can try to weasel your way out of it ("come sue me!") but the law is very clear. I revoked your ability to reproduce my work, except as outlined; you did it anyway. Now you owe me. One dollar. I demand you give me your contact details so I can collect.

Of course if you are not a gentleman you can steal one dollar from me by not paying. But we are not talking about what the "gentlemanly" thing to do is, but whether you owe me: you do. You seriously misunderstand copyright law if you think you need "agreement from both sides" before you can be on the hook for reproducing copyrighted material that was explicitly denied to your reproduction. I demand your contact details if you are a gentleman or honorable.

America is about money, jesus, and big tits.

http://gallery.photo.net/photo/6499476-lg.jpg
   

First, you have to develop the film to get any kind of image at all.

Well, okay, theoretically, you could scan the film, but not with any ordinary scanner. The light from the scanner, you see, would wash the image right out.

You have to develop film to bring the image out into a form that is visible to the unaided/untrained eye. Developing also stabilizes the image so that further exposure to light doesn't wash it out.

Places to educate yourself even further (regards negative and positive process film, etc.):

kodachrome

slide filme

Oh, and search Google for kodachrome and, more interesting, perhaps, kodachrome negative. (Why interesting? It brought up, among other things, this.

That's what I said.

but if you don't have studio (or some other well-heeled backer) money behind you it's a serious investment for an individual or two to make.

But it does not have to be a serious financial investment. The "EOS 5D Mark II can record up to 4GB per clip or record up to a maximum continuous video capture time of 29 minutes and 59 seconds, whichever comes first. This means you can get about 12 minutes HD video or 24 minutes of SD video on a 4GB memory card." Amazon lists the price at $2700. I don't recall what camera it is but there used to be an ad on TV for a digital camera, the camera was used to make the ad. While software can be expensive relatively, it doesn't have to be. Amazon lists Final Cut Studio, Apple's video editing suite, for just over $800. For free there's CinePaint which is open source. It started out as FilmGIMP when the author added 16 bit colour depths but the developers of GIMP did not accept it. A number of movies were made that used CinePaint. That about page lists some, such as the "Harry Potter" movies, Sean Connery's "League of Extraordinary Gentlemen", and Tom Cruise's "Last Samurai".

I haven't done it yet but I want to start a business as a photographer and I may do some videography as well.

Falcon

I bet it doesn't even stop the download when you exceed the limit. It just goes on to charge per megabyte or something.

I know this is Slashdot and articles are not read, as usual TFA refers to that. Higher bandwidth users can pay $80, $30 more, for a 10 GB plan. And Verizon charges $10 for every additional GB over the plan.

Now just how fast could I burn through the bandwidth allotted? For years I've said I wanted mobile wireless broadband. I love both hiking and photography and would love being able to upload my photos to my server while on a hike. The DSRL camera I'm looking at now, to get, is the Canon EOS 1D Mark III and it shoots 21 megapixel images at 14 bits per colour. One raw file runs more than 25 MB so 40 shots be more than 1 GB. A medium format camera takes photos with twice as many mega-pixels easily.

Falcon

29 seconds? It's more along the lines of 12 minutes, iirc.

That's what I thought I read in early reviews, but a review on photo.net says it can record 12 minutes in HD or 29 minutes, 59 seconds in SD. Being able to record 12 minutes, you should be able to break up scenes into small enough segments to record all of it, so maybe with the right accessories maybe it can be a decent movie camera.

Falcon

Well I'm one of those 'still clinging onto that idea'.

I'll take your example - can you show me an artistic photograph that uses this photo-stacking technique? As a keen photographer myself, I do not see the point of it - it would require using a tripod in order that the images are perfectly aligned, if that is the case, then a long shutter speed combined with a small aperture would achieve the same, and without any artefacts due to the slight changes in focal length seen in many lenses when refocused.

I think the public perception of film is stunted by the cheap ways film used to be dealt with in your local processing lab - processed in a non-dust free environment, and scanned by poor quality machines with poor quality operators. In actual fact 'flim' itself has a tremendous capacity to capture information, and if one is willing to take a small amount of effort to maximise information obtained from the film, one would find very high resolution (35mm captures around the equivalent of a 24mp dslr - see link below), excellent dynamic range, which has a curved shoulder allow colours to fade smoothly into white when overexposued, tonality (see the 7D versus fuji velvia - it's not just the resolution, but also the colour accuracy and colour resolution).

http://photo.net/film-and-processing-forum/00WErk?start=200

This article looks more at the non-resolution aspects of film:

http://www.twinlenslife.com/2009/05/digital-vs-film-real-deal-nikon-d300-vs.html

And Ken Rockwell, as much as he says things clearly thinking it through, has an excellent article with many more valid points here:

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/why-we-love-film.htm

Now please do not reply with one of the comparisons which confirmed in a large number of peoples minds that digital was superior, without 1st quoting what scanner was used to do the comparison, and if it isn't a drum scanner, you are already standing on shaky ground.

Duncan.

P.S. Of course buying a Nikon D3X is more convenient and probably cheaper than using a 35mm film camera and sending your photos off for drum scanning, but that is not what we're discussing. I have no problem with people stating that digital is cheaper and more convenient with quality nearly up there with film.

It depends whether you are talking about media designed to represent art or information. Of course, if you were using film to make copies of documents, then it's behaviour beyond it's resolution limit is of no interest, as that is information lost.

However, lets take a photograph taken on a 35mm format camera, at, say ISO 1600, enlarged to 20"x20" - most photographs would say that this is technically beyond what film or digital at this size can do. But here is such a photograph by Testino, which was shown at this size at the National Portrait Gallery:

http://www.pbase.com/omoses/image/103309345

You can see from even this small image the amount of grain in the photograph - imagine how much grain the fullsize print had. However, this print was one of the most impressive in a room full of portraits by Testino, Rankin, etc..

When you take photographs at the limit of the media's capability, and then enlarge it to large sizes, the artefacts become crystal clear, which is a problem if they are ugly.

With digital expect to see: moire (an interference pattern created by the precise pattern of the sensor), bayer artefacts (similar to moire, except in two dimensions - caused by the algorithm used to interpolate brightness values from the RGB sensors), noise reduction artefacts (seen as a smoothing of areas with little detail - the problem occurs with natural subjects, where the decision to smooth is not intelligent, and you lose information in order to lower the 'noise' at high ISOs), sharpening artefacts (to counteract the softening of noise reduction - except it won't know the size you are enlarging to, so it is often unhelpful), noise (of a multi-colour sort, seen by most people as undesirable). I won't go on, but I left out chromatic aberrations and blooming. Admittedly, with better sensors, these are improving.

Here is an example I have taken where grain is an integral part of the image. Apart from the grain, this image suffers from no other artefacts that I can see:

http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=11324330

If you go back to my original posting, you'll see that I state right off that many comparisons compare digital with scanned film - the one you have linked is a good example. At most you can say that film scanned with a Polaroid Sprintscan 4 has worse dynamic range than digital. But that is not what we're discussing here.

Clarkvision's site has been around for a while, so I am well aware of his tests. I think some of them have some important flaws. One of his most linked graphs compares resolution with ISO of both film and digital, unfortunately he measures resolution in MP, rather than tested resolution, therefore concluding that a 20MP camera at 3200 has as much resolution as the same sensor at 100. I'm not sure if this has been updated. I also cannot remember how the film was scanned.

Here is a link comparing film scanned with a half-decent scanner (Nikon Coolscan), though still not professional grade (i.e. not a Heidelberg Tango drum scanner) with digital:

http://photo.net/film-and-processing-forum/00Rb8S

You keep saying that we are discussing the technical limits of the media here, but if you are comparing media, you need to take all aspects of it into consideration, and I think how a medium performs beyond its limits is important aswell.

The best 35mm film stocks don't come close to top-end DSLRs, in either resolution, color reproduction or dynamic range.

Can you give any citations? There are pro photographers, those who make their living as photographers, who disagree with that. Here's wiki's article on digital vs film. And here's Photo.net's discussion. Ken Rockwell, quoted in the wiki article, has the article Why We Love Film. For instance regarding dynamic range he says:

"You want dynamic range? I got your dynamic range right here in this little canister. It's called film; a write-once, read-many (WORM) medium."

"I made this shot on a Contax G2 with a 21mm Zeiss lens at f/8 on Fuji Velvia 50, which was processed and scanned at the same time at NCPS. The dynamic range is so great that the hellacious sunbursts you see are just what's naturally coming off the diaphragm blade at f/8, as if 1,000 suns were shining in the lens in the two-minute exposure."

He further states "A frame of 35mm film, scanned cheaply at a good photo lab to a CD, is about equal to the resolution of a 25MP DSLR."

Falcon

Was a stupid idea to buy it in the first place because it took bloody ages and results are poor

In the same general price range Epson Perfection V500 is good. I've got hundreds if not thousands of exposures on film I've been scanning. So far all I've scanned is negatives, I haven't scanned positives or slides yet so I don't know how those will come out. The one problem I have with the V500 is the errors saying image size or area selected is too large for the resolution and to reduce the res or reduce the size. If I had the money I'd upgrade to the V700. A dedicated film scanner may be better but except for the drum scanners costing thousands of dollars most of them only scan 35mm and I want to scan 4x6 medium format film as well.

Also I think someone said that it was better to scan at a lower resolution for some reason, is that so?

That depends on how big the prints are, if you print, and how much is cropped. Even printing at 300 dpi a 2400 ppi scanner will print 8" photos. On the other hand if you want bigger prints or will be doing a lot of editing scanning at higher resolutions is better. Check out Photo.net's film scanning forum.

Falcon

Doing a Modbook themselves wouldn't gain Apple anything.

Ah but I think they would, otherwise they'd never have done the iPad. The iPad is just an overblown iPhone that can't make phone calls or a crippled MacBook, if Apple were to release a tablet like the Modbook Pro, with a compleat implementation of OS X they could sell for more than a MacBook Pro. When I first heard of the iPad I, and many other photographers, were hoping for a laptop with a built-in tablet. With one we could take it with us to a photoset for a day of shooting and be able to use a pin for some editing. Here's a poster on photo.net wanting a way to go through a photo session while between different places to pick and choose keepers and throwout don't keeps. Now I won't suggest the driver doing it but a second person can. As the article Apple iPad: For Photographers? says the iPad is designed for the consumer, but if Apple were to release a tablet for photographers many would want to get one.

Sure those photographers who want one bad enough can buy the Modbook Pro, but then they wouldn't get the support Apple offers. I'm typing this on a MacBook Pro I bought almost 3 years ago. Every tyme I had a problem with it, 3 tymes, I was able to put it in my backpack and go to an Apple store to have it looked at. The first tyme was the day after I got it, I had ordered software utility with it but I could not boot with the disk when I tried when I got it. So I slipped it into my backpack and drove to an Apple store the following day. There I found out the software version was an old one whereas the MBP was a new one. Another tyme I had to reinstall OS X and the other tyme the graphics system had to be replaced. Each tyme I was able to go to Apple and have it looked at that day. I wouldn't be able to do that with a Modbook.

Apple made the right choice for Apple.

With many Apple users being graphics artists and photographers Apple would sell more tablets if it were not an overblown iPhone or a crippled MacBook. Here's more of what photographers say about the iPad both positive and negative. There are good ideas or points made on both sides, one good one being taking the iPad to a meeting and being able to show photographs, but related to that is the bad of the lack of much mass storage.

Falcon

I second this. I just bought my 2nd DNS 323 after the first one got full. (its cheaper to buy 2 DNS 323 which are 2 bays, compared to getting the 4 bay version). I shoot a lot of pics, and at 20-25 meg per RAW file, it adds up quickly. The first is stacked with 2x1.5 TB drives, the 2nd with 2x2TB drives.

I'd love to get the Canon EOS 1Ds Mark III, I still have a film based EOS Rebel and lenses for it, which has a file size over 60 MB according to Canon. And though maybe not all the tyme I'm sure there will be tymes I'll want to save photos in raw as well as tiff and or jpeg. Eventually I'll also want to get a medium format camera body, perhaps a 645 like Mamiya's 645AFD III, with film and digital backs. I don't know when but I want to start a photography business.

Right now for mass storage I have 3 external HDDs, two I have here with me while the third can be stored off-site. Now what I'd like is wide area wireless broadband so when I'm out hiking I can upload my photos, I mostly do nature photography but I want to try astrophotography as well.

Falcon

My numbers come from here: http://photo.net/learn/film/interviews/robert-caldarone

An interview rather than a scientific article, I admit, but photo.net's a pretty decent site. We could go hunting for the technical specs of the film he mentions...

Not at all. Actually if all you want is something small and portable to surf the web, a netbook makes more since than an iPad. All it adds is a tablet, but it uses a crippled OS. Actually after he saw a netbook in Target my brother-in-law asked me what I thought of it, he said he thought about getting one. But I hadn't seen one there so I couldn't say. I did tell him they were fine for causal web surfing and editing simple documents. Now I don't know if he got the one Target had but my sister now carries one around.

I've seen complete computer novices go out and buy those, and be completely fine with 10'' screens

I want something I can use for photography as well as development, a 10" screen does not cut it. Actually many photographers say the minimum size of monitor for editing photos is 21". Photo.net has a number of threads on monitors in it's forums, in some people ask what size monitor they should use, in some people say they use 27", 30", or bigger monitors that cost above US$2000. I want one 24" and am thinking of getting a 24" HP LP2475w, which costs about $600. It has an H-IPS panel, is wide gamut, and has been gotten good reviews from photographers. I'd then use my MBP's LCD to hold the panels and toolbars. That is when using my laptop. When using my desktop, er tower, PC I can use my 21" monitor, an old CRT, for them.

And I've never seen a website tell me to update my version of Flash, unless you're running an entire version behind. :P

I posted the Flash player version, 10,0,42,34, which is the latest. I even copied and pasted it from the Adobe test page I linked to.

• You Tube keeps saying i need to upgrade my adobe flash player but still cant play videos. Help!?
• "You need to upgrade your Flash Player by clicking this link" I did but still not working
• You need to upgrade your Flash Player

Google has many more results for need to upgrade flash player.

Falcon

Not at all. Actually if all you want is something small and portable to surf the web, a netbook makes more since than an iPad. All it adds is a tablet, but it uses a crippled OS. Actually after he saw a netbook in Target my brother-in-law asked me what I thought of it, he said he thought about getting one. But I hadn't seen one there so I couldn't say. I did tell him they were fine for causal web surfing and editing simple documents. Now I don't know if he got the one Target had but my sister now carries one around.

I've seen complete computer novices go out and buy those, and be completely fine with 10'' screens

I want something I can use for photography as well as development, a 10" screen does not cut it. Actually many photographers say the minimum size of monitor for editing photos is 21". Photo.net has a number of threads on monitors in it's forums, in some people ask what size monitor they should use, in some people say they use 27", 30", or bigger monitors that cost above US$2000. I want one 24" and am thinking of getting a 24" HP LP2475w, which costs about $600. It has an H-IPS panel, is wide gamut, and has been gotten good reviews from photographers. I'd then use my MBP's LCD to hold the panels and toolbars. That is when using my laptop. When using my desktop, er tower, PC I can use my 21" monitor, an old CRT, for them.

And I've never seen a website tell me to update my version of Flash, unless you're running an entire version behind. :P

I posted the Flash player version, 10,0,42,34, which is the latest. I even copied and pasted it from the Adobe test page I linked to.

• You Tube keeps saying i need to upgrade my adobe flash player but still cant play videos. Help!?
• "You need to upgrade your Flash Player by clicking this link" I did but still not working
• You need to upgrade your Flash Player

Google has many more results for need to upgrade flash player.

Falcon

You don't necessarily need a to shoot down the drone. Improvising other methods may work too.

Rumor is that CCD sensors in cameras are susceptible to burn-in. A laser pointer or an improvised lasing device (made with some components from an old or broken CD or DVD burner and an old flashlight), and a bit of luck (at least for moving or obscured cameras), you might make it an expensive game for those watching you. Of course this approach doesn't come without obvious risks to yourself as well.

Configurable?

Reviews of an actual system seem to lean fairly positive:

http://photo.net/canon-eos-digital-camera-forum/00CXjw

That's it? The LCD on my MacBook Pro is 1680 x 1050 but graphics will drive a 1920 x 1200 external monitor.

You do realize I'm talking about before graphics drivers are installed, right? With the drivers, my card can support HD resolutions.

Duh, that's why I said "I updated hardware drivers for Windows but both Windows 95 and NT4 used my 1024 × 768 monitor out of the box." I did phrase it wrong though, I said my monitor was 1024 × 768 but it's 1600 x 1280. The graphics card drove the monitor at 1024 x 768 without updating the driver.

That said, I would kind of expect Apple software to support Apple hardware straight out of the box, that's kind of the point of running an OS only a handful of hardware combinations.

I can use a monitor from someone else. One of the monitors I was thinking of getting is the HP LP2475W which is 1920 x 1200 and has gotten some good reviews on Photo.net. If I could afford it I'd get a higher resolution monitor than that.

Falcon

I'm surprised GIMP doesn't do what you want.. I love it.

I print photos and while GIMP is fine for online work it lacks what many print artists demand. Like high colour bit depths. GIMP only offers 8 bits per colour channel, 24 bit total. PhotoShop does 32 bits per colour channel Supposedly GIMP 2.6 works with 16 bits per colour channel but in practice it doesn't. For professional prints CYMK is needed. That's comes standard in PS, GIMP requires a plug-in. GIMP also lacks other thing pro print photographers need. The digital darkroom forum at photo.net has some discussions on what photographers think of GIMP. Some like it, mostly for online work, and others don't like it because it does not do what they want or need.

On the two monitor thing, I ran them for years and LOVED it.

Same here. Years ago I was set up with dual monitors using Windows and Paint Shop Pro. A few months ago I bought a new LCD monitor I connected to my MBP, but I returned it. I've been looking at getting an HP LP2475w which has gotten good reviews from photographers. It may not be an Ezio, La Cie, or NEC monitor but it doesn't come with their price tags either. It's actually one of the cheapest LCDs with an H-IPS panel, currently about the best panels for graphics and photography.

Falcon

Ubuntu is nowhere near ready for prime time

Ubuntu is already being used by businesses.

Go and spend 24 hours or so on Ubuntu's forums before you try and tell me it is stable.

Because I plan on installing Ubuntu on my Mac I have spent more than 100 hours in the the Ubuntu forums, photo.net, and elsewhere. In all this tyme I haven't run into any complaints about Ubuntu not being stable. I have however run into incompatibilities, and the fixes for them. Then again maybe it's just because of what I'm looking for, how to install Ubuntu on my Mac. I've been researching how to before I do it so I can make a plan which includes any problems that may come up.

Instead of Windows, they went with OS/2, which bombed, at least in mainstream terms.

It wasn't IBM's bomb. IBM and MS was working on OS/2 together when MS pulled out and did Windows instead.

Ubuntu is the proverbial dog with fleas, of Linux distributions.

Then why has Ubuntu been the most popular Linux distro this past year? Of course that link is just for those who visit Distro Watch. Starry Hope asks Ubuntu: Still Popular? Using metrics from various sites it concludes Ubuntu is still popular.

Falcon

Related: does anyone know if this filter is removable (and by extension who offers that service?)

There should be, there are services that convert digital cameras to infrared

Falcon

BS! It was less than $100. No where near your $500.

You didn't look hard enough, then

Ya, Using your own link, I configured the Alienware laptop with similar specs to the 17" MacBook Pro and it came out costing $3,269. Try it yourself configure the Alienware with these specs:

Alienware M17x

• Intel® Core(TM)2 Duo T9800 2.93GHz (6MB Cache, 1066MHz FSB)
• 17-inch WideUXGA 1920x1200 (1200p)
• 4GB Dual Channel DDR3 at 1333MHz - 2 x 2048MB
• 500GB 7,200RPM w/ Free Fall Protection
• Dual NVIDIA® GeForce® GTX 260M, 2GB - SLI® Enabled

Canadian dollars.

Seeing that ca.dell I thought so. Now let's see what Yahoo! says about the Canadian and US conversion:

Currencies Center, Canadian $3,269 = US $3001. That is more than US$100 more than the 17" MBP So my stance still is valid.

Or are you honestly telling me that you bought a 24" external monitor that cost $800?

I said nothing about an external monitor. Since you brought it up though I've been looking at getting the 24" HP LP2475w. It uses H-IPS panels which are the recommended panel for photographers and other graphic artists. The HP LP2475w itself is recommended by photographers.

Even if you had to wait 6 months to see a cheque (Dell usually issues credits/cheques within 3-6 weeks, btw), you're still coming out ahead.

From the numbers above I come out behind not ahead.

Unless you actually *want* to spend a boatload more cash than you need to in order to get a pretty apple logo on the back of your LCD.

Now you're trolling.

Falcon

BS! It was less than $100. No where near your $500.

You didn't look hard enough, then

Ya, Using your own link, I configured the Alienware laptop with similar specs to the 17" MacBook Pro and it came out costing $3,269. Try it yourself configure the Alienware with these specs:

Alienware M17x

• Intel® Core(TM)2 Duo T9800 2.93GHz (6MB Cache, 1066MHz FSB)
• 17-inch WideUXGA 1920x1200 (1200p)
• 4GB Dual Channel DDR3 at 1333MHz - 2 x 2048MB
• 500GB 7,200RPM w/ Free Fall Protection
• Dual NVIDIA® GeForce® GTX 260M, 2GB - SLI® Enabled

Canadian dollars.

Seeing that ca.dell I thought so. Now let's see what Yahoo! says about the Canadian and US conversion:

Currencies Center, Canadian $3,269 = US $3001. That is more than US$100 more than the 17" MBP So my stance still is valid.

Or are you honestly telling me that you bought a 24" external monitor that cost $800?

I said nothing about an external monitor. Since you brought it up though I've been looking at getting the 24" HP LP2475w. It uses H-IPS panels which are the recommended panel for photographers and other graphic artists. The HP LP2475w itself is recommended by photographers.

Even if you had to wait 6 months to see a cheque (Dell usually issues credits/cheques within 3-6 weeks, btw), you're still coming out ahead.

From the numbers above I come out behind not ahead.

Unless you actually *want* to spend a boatload more cash than you need to in order to get a pretty apple logo on the back of your LCD.

Now you're trolling.

Falcon

If you're talking about saving as a tiff or something, then yeah, those file sizes can blow up pretty big. But even most pros don't do that anymore because it's wildly inefficient - there are just better file formats to use except in certain specific types of situations.

Many stock agencies require photos in certain formats. Some require jpeg others require tiff, some compressed some uncompressed. Myself, I want to keep the original file in raw then save a copy I can edit as a tiff. Then if needed save as jpeg as well. Actually the camera I linked to, and many others, can save photos in 2 or 3 formats at the same tyme.

Oh, and tiff retains more detail than some other formats, which is important to some. Some photographers at photo.net prefer tiffs while others like DNG. Here's a thread on JPG/JPEG vs. RAW vs. DNG".

Falcon

If you're talking about saving as a tiff or something, then yeah, those file sizes can blow up pretty big. But even most pros don't do that anymore because it's wildly inefficient - there are just better file formats to use except in certain specific types of situations.

Many stock agencies require photos in certain formats. Some require jpeg others require tiff, some compressed some uncompressed. Myself, I want to keep the original file in raw then save a copy I can edit as a tiff. Then if needed save as jpeg as well. Actually the camera I linked to, and many others, can save photos in 2 or 3 formats at the same tyme.

Oh, and tiff retains more detail than some other formats, which is important to some. Some photographers at photo.net prefer tiffs while others like DNG. Here's a thread on JPG/JPEG vs. RAW vs. DNG".

Falcon

So, will this be yet another in a long, illustrious line of great products that Nikon refuses to make 64-bit drivers for?

Until they get their act together and pull their heads out of the sand with regard to 64-bit support, I will continue to recommend that people stay far away from Nikon.

(angry Nikon owner)

Apple is not dropping firewire, in fact these are the best days of firewire 800.

Apple is dropping Firewire. The 13" MacBook only has 1 Firewire 400 port but two USB 2 ports. All of the MacBook Pros have 2 USB 2 ports, well the 17 model has 3 USB ports, but only 1 Firewire 800 port. And the MacBook Air does not have a Firewire at all, only 1 USB 2 port. On the other hand my MacBook Pro, which I've had almost 2 years, has 1 Firewire 800, 1 Firewire 400, and 3 USB 2 ports. And Apple still does not offer docking stations with or without additional ports.

Now all Macbooks have firewire

Check the spec page for laptop Macs I linked to above.

Mac Mini latest generation has fw800.

Apple's specs for the Mac Mini says it has 1 Firewire 800 and 5 USB 2 ports. The specs for the iMac says it has 1 Firewire 800 and 6 USB 2, 2 on the wired keyboard, ports. Only the Mac Pro has more than 1 Firewire port, it's specs say it has 4 Firewire 800, 5 USB 2, and 2 more USB 2 ports on the keyboard.

The reason you won't see too many firewire drives is simple: They have their own controller so they will be more expensive.

I saw more external devices with Firewire ports last year than I see now, that's not only HDDs but printers, scanners, and cameras as well. Okay, printers don't need the speed Firewire 800 has but higher speeds are good with cameras and scanners. I've got a cheap Epson V500 scanner which has lower resolution than dedicated pro film scanners like the Nikon Coolscan line. The Canon 5D Mark II DSLR, which has a 21.1 megapixel sensor, does not have a Firewire, 400 or 800, port. However it can shoot up to 13 photos in RAW+JPEG per burst, each 40 MB in size. With large cards it can take a while to transfer photos from the camera and cards using only USB.

They have their own controller so they will be more expensive.

Pro photographers are willing to pay more for good equipment. Heck the Canon I link to above is a prosumer model that lists for about $2500. The Canon 1Ds Mark III lists for 2 to 3 tymes as much. And those are digital equivalents to 35mm cameras. Medium format cameras with digital backs can generate files of hundreds of megabytes and easily cost 10 to 20 tymes as much.

Falcon

Apple is not dropping firewire, in fact these are the best days of firewire 800.

Apple is dropping Firewire. The 13" MacBook only has 1 Firewire 400 port but two USB 2 ports. All of the MacBook Pros have 2 USB 2 ports, well the 17 model has 3 USB ports, but only 1 Firewire 800 port. And the MacBook Air does not have a Firewire at all, only 1 USB 2 port. On the other hand my MacBook Pro, which I've had almost 2 years, has 1 Firewire 800, 1 Firewire 400, and 3 USB 2 ports. And Apple still does not offer docking stations with or without additional ports.

Now all Macbooks have firewire

Check the spec page for laptop Macs I linked to above.

Mac Mini latest generation has fw800.

Apple's specs for the Mac Mini says it has 1 Firewire 800 and 5 USB 2 ports. The specs for the iMac says it has 1 Firewire 800 and 6 USB 2, 2 on the wired keyboard, ports. Only the Mac Pro has more than 1 Firewire port, it's specs say it has 4 Firewire 800, 5 USB 2, and 2 more USB 2 ports on the keyboard.

The reason you won't see too many firewire drives is simple: They have their own controller so they will be more expensive.

I saw more external devices with Firewire ports last year than I see now, that's not only HDDs but printers, scanners, and cameras as well. Okay, printers don't need the speed Firewire 800 has but higher speeds are good with cameras and scanners. I've got a cheap Epson V500 scanner which has lower resolution than dedicated pro film scanners like the Nikon Coolscan line. The Canon 5D Mark II DSLR, which has a 21.1 megapixel sensor, does not have a Firewire, 400 or 800, port. However it can shoot up to 13 photos in RAW+JPEG per burst, each 40 MB in size. With large cards it can take a while to transfer photos from the camera and cards using only USB.

They have their own controller so they will be more expensive.

Pro photographers are willing to pay more for good equipment. Heck the Canon I link to above is a prosumer model that lists for about $2500. The Canon 1Ds Mark III lists for 2 to 3 tymes as much. And those are digital equivalents to 35mm cameras. Medium format cameras with digital backs can generate files of hundreds of megabytes and easily cost 10 to 20 tymes as much.

Falcon

Apple is not dropping firewire, in fact these are the best days of firewire 800.

Apple is dropping Firewire. The 13" MacBook only has 1 Firewire 400 port but two USB 2 ports. All of the MacBook Pros have 2 USB 2 ports, well the 17 model has 3 USB ports, but only 1 Firewire 800 port. And the MacBook Air does not have a Firewire at all, only 1 USB 2 port. On the other hand my MacBook Pro, which I've had almost 2 years, has 1 Firewire 800, 1 Firewire 400, and 3 USB 2 ports. And Apple still does not offer docking stations with or without additional ports.

Now all Macbooks have firewire

Check the spec page for laptop Macs I linked to above.

Mac Mini latest generation has fw800.

Apple's specs for the Mac Mini says it has 1 Firewire 800 and 5 USB 2 ports. The specs for the iMac says it has 1 Firewire 800 and 6 USB 2, 2 on the wired keyboard, ports. Only the Mac Pro has more than 1 Firewire port, it's specs say it has 4 Firewire 800, 5 USB 2, and 2 more USB 2 ports on the keyboard.

The reason you won't see too many firewire drives is simple: They have their own controller so they will be more expensive.

I saw more external devices with Firewire ports last year than I see now, that's not only HDDs but printers, scanners, and cameras as well. Okay, printers don't need the speed Firewire 800 has but higher speeds are good with cameras and scanners. I've got a cheap Epson V500 scanner which has lower resolution than dedicated pro film scanners like the Nikon Coolscan line. The Canon 5D Mark II DSLR, which has a 21.1 megapixel sensor, does not have a Firewire, 400 or 800, port. However it can shoot up to 13 photos in RAW+JPEG per burst, each 40 MB in size. With large cards it can take a while to transfer photos from the camera and cards using only USB.

They have their own controller so they will be more expensive.

Pro photographers are willing to pay more for good equipment. Heck the Canon I link to above is a prosumer model that lists for about $2500. The Canon 1Ds Mark III lists for 2 to 3 tymes as much. And those are digital equivalents to 35mm cameras. Medium format cameras with digital backs can generate files of hundreds of megabytes and easily cost 10 to 20 tymes as much.

Falcon

Like 1TB on a laptop is gonna be used for Word Docs or "official business"...Please.

Many photographers demand high capacity, 500GB, 1TB, and 1.5TB drives. Here's a photographer thinking of setting up a 6TB RAID array. Now s/he doesn't say whether it will be setup to stripe the files, mirror, or what.

Falcon

Like 1TB on a laptop is gonna be used for Word Docs or "official business"...Please.

Many photographers demand high capacity, 500GB, 1TB, and 1.5TB drives. Here's a photographer thinking of setting up a 6TB RAID array. Now s/he doesn't say whether it will be setup to stripe the files, mirror, or what.

Falcon

Like 1TB on a laptop is gonna be used for Word Docs or "official business"...Please.

Many photographers demand high capacity, 500GB, 1TB, and 1.5TB drives. Here's a photographer thinking of setting up a 6TB RAID array. Now s/he doesn't say whether it will be setup to stripe the files, mirror, or what.

Falcon

I can understand having this much space at home, for movies, TV series, pictures and the like, but on the go ?

Yes, on the go. I don't have one now but when I finally get a digital camera I will want to have as big an external drive as I can get. Actually two, one I can keep on-site and the other for off-site storage.

it's the same thing with iPods. the 30 GB model I had was enough to put all my music there

Some photographers use iPods to store photos.

Falcon

Same here.

and this level of data storage still boggles my mind.

Not for me. My Linux box has two HDDs installed, a 40GB drive the OS is installed on and a 750GB drive for my user files. When it crashed I had more than 500GB used on that drive. Maybe a month ago I got a new 1.5TB external drive and once I start scanning my film I'm sure I can fill up space quickly. Pro photographers use NAS/SANs of a couple of terabytes or more to store photos. Here's someone asking about using a 2TB external drive on photo.net to store photos. He or she is only using a 15 megapixel camera and is concerned about running out of space yet there are cameras with higher resolutions and pixel counts. The digital camera I'd like to get to start with has a 21 megapixel sensor. Opening, editing, and saving a raw file in Aperture, Photoshop, or Lightroom can generate files of a few hundred megabytes.

Falcon

You're kidding me. You honestly couldn't manage to go to cinepaint's web page and figure out "click the download button, and double click the file that downloads"?

I did that. And when I launched CinePaint after installation all I got was a CinePaint titlebar, nothing else. I tried to open a photo with it, by ctrl clicking the photo and choosing CinePaint in the Open With dialogue. But it did not open.

Of note btw, while cinepaint is shiny (and easy to install), there's actually better software to do that kind of thing on Macs -- pixelmator for example.

Does pixelmator work with at least 16 bit colour channels, depths? I googled it, and oh surprise a license cost $60. Looking at a comparison between it and Photoshop Elements it looks like PE does more, and I got PE with the scanner I bought. However that comparison doesn't say what it's colour depth is, let's look more. Oh, here we go: "It should be noted that 16 bit raw files when saved out are reduced to 8 bits of color depth so using Pixelmator for JPGs would be fine but if you want to shoot raw I suggest using either the pro-level tools or the software that came with the camera." It only saves 8 bit colour channels? Not that good, at least CinePaint saves at least 16 bit depths. Now let me go over to photo.net and see what people there say about it... Not much, out of thousands of posts it's mentioned only 3 tymes though none of them say how well it works. One does say though that "the screenshots for Pixelmator are apparently created in PhotoShop" and provides a link. CinePaint works well enough to use on a number of movies including "Last Samurai", "Harry Potter", and "Lord of the Rings". And you think pixelmator is better?

Falcon

You're kidding me. You honestly couldn't manage to go to cinepaint's web page and figure out "click the download button, and double click the file that downloads"?

I did that. And when I launched CinePaint after installation all I got was a CinePaint titlebar, nothing else. I tried to open a photo with it, by ctrl clicking the photo and choosing CinePaint in the Open With dialogue. But it did not open.

Of note btw, while cinepaint is shiny (and easy to install), there's actually better software to do that kind of thing on Macs -- pixelmator for example.

Does pixelmator work with at least 16 bit colour channels, depths? I googled it, and oh surprise a license cost $60. Looking at a comparison between it and Photoshop Elements it looks like PE does more, and I got PE with the scanner I bought. However that comparison doesn't say what it's colour depth is, let's look more. Oh, here we go: "It should be noted that 16 bit raw files when saved out are reduced to 8 bits of color depth so using Pixelmator for JPGs would be fine but if you want to shoot raw I suggest using either the pro-level tools or the software that came with the camera." It only saves 8 bit colour channels? Not that good, at least CinePaint saves at least 16 bit depths. Now let me go over to photo.net and see what people there say about it... Not much, out of thousands of posts it's mentioned only 3 tymes though none of them say how well it works. One does say though that "the screenshots for Pixelmator are apparently created in PhotoShop" and provides a link. CinePaint works well enough to use on a number of movies including "Last Samurai", "Harry Potter", and "Lord of the Rings". And you think pixelmator is better?

Falcon

You're kidding me. You honestly couldn't manage to go to cinepaint's web page and figure out "click the download button, and double click the file that downloads"?

I did that. And when I launched CinePaint after installation all I got was a CinePaint titlebar, nothing else. I tried to open a photo with it, by ctrl clicking the photo and choosing CinePaint in the Open With dialogue. But it did not open.

Of note btw, while cinepaint is shiny (and easy to install), there's actually better software to do that kind of thing on Macs -- pixelmator for example.

Does pixelmator work with at least 16 bit colour channels, depths? I googled it, and oh surprise a license cost $60. Looking at a comparison between it and Photoshop Elements it looks like PE does more, and I got PE with the scanner I bought. However that comparison doesn't say what it's colour depth is, let's look more. Oh, here we go: "It should be noted that 16 bit raw files when saved out are reduced to 8 bits of color depth so using Pixelmator for JPGs would be fine but if you want to shoot raw I suggest using either the pro-level tools or the software that came with the camera." It only saves 8 bit colour channels? Not that good, at least CinePaint saves at least 16 bit depths. Now let me go over to photo.net and see what people there say about it... Not much, out of thousands of posts it's mentioned only 3 tymes though none of them say how well it works. One does say though that "the screenshots for Pixelmator are apparently created in PhotoShop" and provides a link. CinePaint works well enough to use on a number of movies including "Last Samurai", "Harry Potter", and "Lord of the Rings". And you think pixelmator is better?

Falcon

For hardware, Apple's can be of higher quality because it is higher priced.

2009 calling. Apple hardware prices have been comparable to Windows PCS for years. At least comparing specs for Mac Pros. The problem is that you will not find a low cost tower or other expandable Mac. I've also heard here and elsewhere that the Mac Mini is under powered. However yesterday I came across some threads on Photo.net asking whether the Mini is any good for photography, which is demanding in specs, and repliers have said it is in fact good for it. I was surprised by this as I thought the Mini was underpowered too.

Falcon

That does look like a nice screen. My Westinghouse is nice, has an MVA panel, but is now only being sold with a TN (at first I felt ripped off, when I saw it go from $700 to $399... but then I checked out forums, so at least I know why).

It does seem like a lottery in getting a monitor with an IPS panel. This happens with Dells, HPs, and Samsung along with other companies, even Viewsonic. Hardly any brick and mortar stores sell these monitors so they have to be ordered online. Yet companies like Newegg that do sell them don't guaranty a monitor will have an IPS panel. What's worse is that they have bad exchange policies for monitors with dead or stuck pixels. I think Newegg requires 7 before they will exchange a monitor and they wait to test a returned monitor before shipping a replacement.

After searching and driving to different stores I found an employee at a Best Buy that found the HP online, at Best Buy for Business website. So if and when I get one, I'm hoping to in a month or two, I may be able to take it to Best Buy for an exchange. Normally for a purchase like that I'd also buy a buyer protection plan but in this case I won't have to, HP's warranty on it is a 3 year on site plan. If I have a problem I can call HP and they'll send a tech to me. Because of this instead of ordering it from Best Buy I may get it from B&H Photo and Video. Because of the panel lottery and dead, stuck, pixel issue I'll have to check their return policy first though.

Falcon

Yeah... a lot of people are unimpressed - DVI-DVI is fine, VGA too... but as soon as it detects HDMI, it only offers the comparable HDTV resolutions (if that) - my Westinghouse L2410NM 1920x1200 screen with 10.5.6 was happy at 1920x1200@60. 10.5.7, would only let it go to 1920x1080@30, interlacing. Pretty ugly bug.

Not using 1920x1080 just won't do. Actually I've been looking for an eSATA or ExpressCard 34 graphics card that has a higher resolution.

chromablue photography

That's why I want a larger higher res monitor, for photography. The HP LP2475w I link to is the cheapest 24" LCD with an IPS, H-IPS or S-IPS I don't recall which right now, I've found and it has some good reviews. It's one of the monitors recommended by people at photo.net..

Falcon

I think the USA should be careful when it comes to copyright. Not necessarily the copyright itself, but what official representatives say and do about it.

The reason is that copyright infringement is a civil matter in court. This, combined with the fact that all parties are supposed to pay their own lawyer expenses and the low damages given for unregistered work means that residents of the USA can very easily infringe on the copyright of foreigners and then hide behind the law.

What's that, you don't believe me? OK, then read this discussion: http://photo.net/business-photography-forum/00T5B5 . I am the starter of the discussion, and have had one of my photographs published by Jay Klusky and Duke University (or an employee/student of that university), both inside the USA. I live outside USA, and as far as I can tell the effects of the US legal system is that by standing up to defend my copyright I will loose money. Why bother, then?