Jump to content


PhotoNet Pro
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited


1 Neutral

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Could be fungus or could just be hairs! If it's fungus it will get worse with time. If you see the "hairs" appearing to come (and/or radiate) from the "dust spots", then it's most likely fungus. If the hairs look like single hairs, then they may well just be hairs. That lens probably isn't worth having cleaned since it would likely cost more to have it prefessionally cleaned than a new (used from ebay) lens would cost. Usual advice to kill fungus is exposure to UV light (sunlight or UV lanp). That will halt the progress (if it is fungus), but won't remove what's already there.
  2. <p>It's an option for whoever initially set up the forum, not for users. Historically it's usually been set to "most recent thread first". Only the forum moderator can change it (if they want to).</p> <p>When I said "you can set...", the "you" I was referring to was the person creating the forum. Sorry for any confusion. I'm not aware of any functioning option that allows a user to select the order.</p>
  3. <p>It's an option when setting up a forum. You can list threads new to old or old to new along with a few other options such has how long to list a thread on the index page.</p>
  4. <p>Just on a historical note, the Nature forum has always welcomes posts on Landacape Photography as well as Macro Photography (which is usually nature related). Why that forum isn't used by those who want to discuss those topics is another question entirely of course.</p> <p>My experience with forums (which dates back to the days of rec.photo on Usenet in the 80s and 90s) is that people often want forums so that can read more about a topic that write about it. That, of course, doesn't lead to the desired outcome, so if you ask for a forum, please do your post to post to it on a regular basis.</p>
  5. <p>Technically, it's #3 below, though these days most people would probably avoid such usage in this context. "Charitable" might be a better term. Sounds like a bug in the software rather than a feature...</p> <blockquote> <h2>Full Definition of Christian</h2> </blockquote> <ol > <li> <p >1a : of or relating to <a href="http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/christianity">Christianity</a> <<em>Christian</em> scriptures>b : based on or conforming with Christianity <<em>Christian</em> ethics></p> </li> <li> <p >2a : of, relating to, or being a Christian <<em>Christian</em> responsibilities>b : professing Christianity <a <em>Christian</em> affirmation> <a <em>Christian</em> country></p> </li> <li> <p >3: <em><strong> commendably decent or generous</strong></em> <has a very <em>Christian</em> concern for others</p> </li> </ol>
  6. <p>I've never had the slightest problem with Canon rebates. I've always gotten the full rebate within the time-frame they specify. I must have done this a dozen times with never any problem. Many of the rebates were for multiple items.<br> Of course I sent then all the documents for any one rebate in their own envelope. Mixing up rebate forms is asking for trouble.<br> You won't sue them of course, just badmouth them on forums.</p> <p> </p>
  7. <p>David - I don't know that there is any such mechanism anymore, but I'm not involved with advertising on the site. If you want a particular item and want Photo.net to receive credit you can try typing the item name into the search box and selecting "equipment store" from the drop down list of where to search. Maybe you'll get a hot, maybe you won't. These days it seems the links mainly go to Amazon or Beach Camera.</p> <p>Check your inbox ( http://www.photo.net/community/inbox ) for a PM</p> <p>If there is a way to go through Adorama, maybe Glenn can tell you how to do it.</p> <p> </p>
  8. <p>Filters are either global or, in some cases, forum specific. Contact the forum moderator if you think a forum specific filter is inappropriate.</p>
  9. <p>If you want sub second accuracy, shoot pictures of a clock/watch/stopwatch with a sweet second hand (or digital display). Presumably once you've calibrated things in this way they will stay the same. Almost any time lapse system will be based on digital timing so my guess is that it will be very accurate.</p> <p>Canon EXIF data records the time to the nearest second anyway.</p>
  10. <p>There's an FAQ here - http://www.photo.net/info/frequent-questions and some community guidelines here - http://www.photo.net/info/guidelines/</p> <p>That might help. Documentation here isn't as good as it could be. There are no videos.</p> <p>Asking a question here is often the bast way to get information.</p>
  11. <p>I didn't want to ignore the question, but I have no idea of the current status. As far as I know, PN 2.0 is still in the pipeline, but other than that I have no information.</p>
  12. <p>I guess it developed a fault, or some change to the system (libraries?) caused a problem with reading the EXIF data. Luckily Jin is a wizard with these things and spotted the problem. Thanks for bringing it to our attention!</p>
  13. bobatkins


    Exposure Date: 2015:08:18 16:42:37; ImageDescription: OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA ; Make: OLYMPUS IMAGING CORP. ; Model: XZ-2 ; Exposure Time: 0.0015625 s; FNumber: f/6.3; ISOSpeedRatings: ISO 100; ExposureProgram: Normal program; ExposureBiasValue: 0 MeteringMode: Pattern; Flash: Flash did not fire, compulsory flash mode; FocalLength: 24 mm; FocalLengthIn35mmFilm: 112 mm; Software: Version 1.2 ;
  • Create New...