geris_k

January 16, 2005

I agree. The old search methodology and engine used to provide much better results than the current system.

January 16, 2005

Why doesn't Photo.net just incorporate the security feature that disables the ability to right click a photo and save it to the hard drive? There are a lot of EASY technology approaches that they could incorporate to protect users. This is one of the reasons that I discontinued uploading photos, although I would like to.

January 1, 2005

I just received about 50 prints from Winkflash that I took with a 5.0 megapixel Sony DSC-V1. I was shocked by how good the Winkflash prints were. In fact, they were so good it made me depressed that I just upgraded my trusty Epson 870 to a 1270. The color was very good, but I wish that they'd allow customers to upload Adobe RGB and maintain the color profile throughout. Otherwise, they convert everything to sRGB themselves.

January 7, 2003

It's what Todd said.

January 6, 2003

It seems like you're aware that the weight, etc. is too much, but have already told us "there we are." So, I don't know if you'll heed the advice that you already know and have turned a blind eye to, but...

I can tell you that when I spent two years based in Paris and working as a photojournalist, I had one manual body and three lenses. I never missed a shot because of equipment.

Now that my camera bag has grown and I have more equipment, I was just like you and brought two bodies and five lenses (plus a P&S) on a two week vacation to Lithuania in November. I regretted it. I had everything planned out in my head, and yes I liked having Supra 100 in one camera and Supra 800 (pushed to 1600) in another. But, the truth is, I focused too much on equipment and equipment decisions and not enough time on looking. The weight was a burden. If you're going to be doing a lot of sightseeing, walking or hiking, the weight only gets worse. I logged about 8-10 miles a day. Do NOT underestimate what a drag such a big bag can be. You really need to rethink this IMHO.

If I were you, at the very least, I'd dump the 50, and the Ricoh. Also, light in SE Asia will probably be a lot better than the winter months in Lithuania, so depending on how you'd plan on using the FM2n, you might dump that too.

With all of this said, the one thing you're missing is an ultra-wide. I picked up my first 20mm in April of last year and was amazed at what a big difference it's made in the way I see shots. It's probably the most important photographic tool that I've acquired -- ever. It's an amazing lens for interiors and breathtaking landscapes.

January 4, 2003

I'll offer you this...stay away from older Tokina zooms. I had a Tokina 28-70 that was also labeled RMC. The bokeh looks like fruity pebbles.

The Minolta zooms were all very good in the medium range. The most readily available one is the 35-70.

December 25, 2002

Dan, I agree with Kevin. Go back and read your response. You start out by insulting the poster and then you try to go into casual conversation about the holidays? Did you have too much eggnog?

BTW -- Before you get to the final product, the glass and the optical design, and lens characteristics all play a role in the light traveling to the film. So, besides your poor social graces, your response was extreme in its conclusion and shallow in its thought process. That's not to say that you should buy a lens based on specifications alone, but I don't fault Kevin for asking the question.

December 25, 2002

" there are tons of answers in archive"

Dave, have you taken the time to read through them? I've researched this topic here and I'm pretty sure you'll find the answers you're looking for if you just take the time to read through them.

December 23, 2002

David, you're right, doezens of members have already invested time and effort in addressing this issue. Go to the search bar and type "cheap filters". Look around, you'll find a lot of info already captured on this topic.

December 21, 2002

I'm sorry for getting off topic, for while I appreciate the Leica lore and superb quality of the lenses, etc., I just couldn't help but laugh out loud at the poster's appreciation for the "Leica point of view" on film. Didn't know that those of us who shoot mostly Nikon's had such an inferior perspective on whether to use Kodak Gold or Kodak Supra...

BTW, I started to shoot the e100SW with my regular polarizer to see if it provided similar results to using the Moose warming polarizer. And sure enough, I found it pretty close, and much better than just e100VS. It also depends on what type of things you'll be shooting. If in the country, I'd suggest SW, if in the city, I can see a lot of applications for VS.

October 7, 2002

After the competent, but not outstanding, little 28-80 zoom that came with my N80 broke earlier this year, I researched zoom replacements and made the decision to stick with primes until I was ready to put out the cash for the 28-70 f2.8.

I typically travel with my 20, 50 and 70-300. But, I recently started to question if the constant changing of lenses (maybe 30-40 times a day when I'm on the road) isn't going to end up being very costly in terms of the stress put on the camera and lens' mounts.

October 7, 2002

I bought mine a few months ago. It "appears" that it makes a difference. I'd say it's worth the small amount of money, but it's a pain to carry it around because of the same reasons mentioned above.

October 7, 2002

I used a Minolta X-700 in the mid 80s when I started at the School of the Art Institute of Chicago, because that's what my dad (a die-hard Ricoh user) bought me as a gift. It was a great camera and got me through school and a six month assignment in Europe covering the fall of communisim in eastern Europe for a French magazine.

My photography passion and my Minolta sat in a closet for most of the 90s. I came across a camera fair at my local camera shop and spent some time with the Nikon rep. I was amazed by how much progress had been made in the areas of 3-D flash and matrix metering. I was also impressed by the advancements autofocus (compared to the early Maxxum's, which were the last AF's I ever handled).

Anyway, why did I switch to Nikon? Metering and optics. Although the X-700 is a tank of a camera, the N80's features have opened up a lot of possibilities. Bottom line: I have many more keepers and need to bracket less often.

I've since compared shots through my Minolta and Nikon glass. Although the Minolta glass is very, very good, it appears that the Nikon has smoother bokeh and higher resolution (maybe this isn't true scientifically, but it looks that way to me in my test shots).

I'd like the new Hasselblad H1 AF. I've also thought about the Leica R8.

July 27, 2002

It's great for interiors, tight places that you'd never be able to get otherwise. It helps to recreate atmosphere by capturing the whole room.

If you use it in the city, I'd suggest you get down so the receding lines aren't as distracting. If you take it from a standing perspective, you'll almost always get too much street (or sidewalk) in the shot.

July 23, 2002

What about the 105 f2.8 AF-D Micro? Let's say that I'd use it 50% for portraits, 25% for street photography and 25% for macro work.

I've always heard people say that using a Micro lens for general work is a waste of money (i.e., more lens than you need). But in this case, the other AF 105 has defocus control and costs $220 more than the micro lens (B&H Photo grey prices). I know that defocus control is a good thing for portraits, but as you can see, I'd be using it 50% of the time for other uses.

July 22, 2002

In manual mode, you can only set it as low as 1 second. Anything longer and you need to use Bulb (and a tripod and shutter release cable!).

The 8 second figure refers to when the camera is in Aperture priority mode. Although you won't see this number through the viewfinder, it's there and when the camera needs to go that long, it will.

July 6, 2002

Mark,

What's your point? Actually, most computer magazines suggest that you do not use your real name for any Internet activity. In today's crazy, crazy world, why would you disparage someone for trying to protect their identity?

She's not anonymous, if you want to contact her, she has an e-mail posted to her registered account.

I think her point is people who don't leave comments to their numerical ratings. But, regardless, I don't see the point in lashing out at her for posting this.

June 24, 2002

So much goodness has been captured in this thread, I don't even know where to start.

But even a first semester undergrad taking a statistics course would be able to tell you that this approach is whacked.

Not that this is a democracy, but wouldn't it be a great idea to post proposed changes and seek feedback from the marketplace rather than make your sweeping changes in the ivory tower???

Sure, you'll never make everyone happy. The old system was not that bad. But, at the very least, this process should be clear, consistent and statistically rational. This isn't rocket science boys and girls. But, this change is a whopping thud.

June 21, 2002

Brian,

I tried to communicate in my post that this is not a

question of �trust�. It is not a

question about �intent�. It is not about

what will be, but about what <b

style='mso-bidi-font-weight:normal'>could be.<span

style='mso-spacerun:yes'> It is not about what you <b style='mso-bidi-font-weight:

normal'>would do, but what you could

do. It is a question about the law and

the real meaning of the legal

language that you use in your Terms of Use.

I understand the reasons for your Terms of Use.<span

style='mso-spacerun:yes'> I don�t have a problem with why you have

them. For the most part, they all make

sense <span style='font-family:Symbol;mso-ascii-font-family:"Times New Roman";

mso-hansi-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-char-type:symbol;mso-symbol-font-family:

Symbol'>¾

except for the phrase that I specifically quoted.<span

style='mso-spacerun:yes'> The point of my post was to give you some feedback

from the marketplace as to how to craft the Terms of Use that, as you said,

would most likely be different for the webspaces.<o:p></o:p>

Let me make it

crystal clear <span

style='font-family:Symbol;mso-ascii-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-hansi-font-family:

"Times New Roman";mso-char-type:symbol;mso-symbol-font-family:Symbol'><span

style='mso-char-type:symbol;mso-symbol-font-family:Symbol'>¾

again <span style='font-family:

Symbol;mso-ascii-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-hansi-font-family:"Times New Roman";

mso-char-type:symbol;mso-symbol-font-family:Symbol'><span style='mso-char-type:

symbol;mso-symbol-font-family:Symbol'>¾ I was not trying to

suggest that this is a scheme of any kind.<span

style='mso-spacerun:yes'>

It�s not a question of how <b style='mso-bidi-font-weight:

normal'>I would read the Terms of

Use <span style='font-family:Symbol;mso-ascii-font-family:"Times New Roman";

mso-hansi-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-char-type:symbol;mso-symbol-font-family:

Symbol'>¾

it�s a question of what they mean in

a court of law. It�s not about what

would be smart or stupid; or what you are planning to do today (in June of 2002

vs. a <i style='mso-bidi-font-style:

normal'>perpetual license).

I always find it amazing when people say, �Well that�s not

what we really mean�we would never do that.�

Then, why is it written that way in your contract?<span

style='mso-spacerun:yes'> I didn�t write it!<span

style='mso-spacerun:yes'> It�s not my imagination.<span

style='mso-spacerun:yes'> That�s how you had it written�they�re not my

words, so why are you offended?<o:p></o:p>

If you can�t see the cold, hard business logic and how the

law works, it�s no wonder that your answer is to tell members not to upload (or

even easier�to just leave), rather than go back to the lawyers and say, �Hey is

there another way we can accomplish what we�re trying to accomplish without

using this specific language that you�ve suggested?�

June 20, 2002

That's fantastic. How

do the photo.net Terms of Use apply specifically to

members who use this feature?

Currently, the Terms of Use state that members:

��grant photo.net a perpetual

non-exclusive world-wide royalty-free license to modify, publish and reproduce

that material for the purpose of operating, displaying, distributing and

promoting photo.net.�

I�m not an arm chair attorney, but I do run a business based

on intellectual property law and have extensive experience with exactly these types

of agreements and licenses. There will

be those that are sure to chastise me for even bringing this up (�if you don�t

like it, leave��). But, it�s clear from

the 101 postings of �I put my lens on backwards and I can�t get it unstuck�

mentality that people don�t always pay attention to the details, much less read

the fine print.

I�m not trying to disparage

photo.net�s business ethics or intent.

But, as the Terms of Use read <span style='font-family:Symbol;

mso-ascii-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-hansi-font-family:"Times New Roman";

mso-char-type:symbol;mso-symbol-font-family:Symbol'><span style='mso-char-type:

symbol;mso-symbol-font-family:Symbol'>¾ in a court of law <span

style='font-family:Symbol;mso-ascii-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-hansi-font-family:

"Times New Roman";mso-char-type:symbol;mso-symbol-font-family:Symbol'><span

style='mso-char-type:symbol;mso-symbol-font-family:Symbol'>¾ this

is virtually an unlimited license. If

you wanted to publish a coffee table book of <i style='mso-bidi-font-style:

normal'>The Best of Photo.Net or open your own stock image library, these

Terms of Use would allow you to do that.

You and your attorneys could easily argue that publishing a book was �promotion��that

opening a stock image library was �necessary for generating revenue required to

support the operating of the site.�

It�s one thing to post a few dozen images in the member

directory or critique section. It�s

another for those members that are going to build extensive sites, maybe even

some who will use this as their commercial site for their photography business.

I think this has the potential to be a great feature for

many people. Maybe your attorneys threw

this language in and no one questioned it or paid attention to its potential

implications. But, given this new

feature set that you are making available, maybe it�s a good time to �question�

the existing terms as they don�t seem to be in alignment with the intent of the

offering.<o:p></o:p>

May 14, 2002

Ok, thanks to Shun Cheung for clarifying the Canon zoom. I didn't pick this up...sorry to diverge the group from its zoom topic.

But, why have the elves incorporated Shun's response INTO my post??? I am NOT assuming anything nefarious here, but it's weird things like this that, well...make for a weird experience. As a point of online etiquette, no one should alter another person's post for ANY reason. If the elves want to delete them fine, just don't alter them.

May 14, 2002

As I indicated in my subject, I was referring to the Hoya Ultra Thin Polarizer. I was not commenting on the 17-35mm or the use of 77 mm filters. I was responding to Gary Jean's comments about using the Hoya Ultra Thin Polarizer on a 20mm lens. Although it may work for him on his Canon, I have found that it does not work on a Nikon 20mm.

You are correct, that it is possible that Moose's filter won't vignette on the 20mm. But, now that Evan has informed us that they use a standard filter mount, I am very skeptical. I'd like to give Moose the benefit of the doubt because so many of his articles are "spot on." But, I've tested the 20mm with standard filters and there is definitely strong vignetting. For me, I think I'll have to physically inspect one and compare it to the filters I've already tested.

As far as I can tell, Gary Jean is talking about using the Hoya ultra-thin polarizer on a Canon 17-35mm/f2.8 zoom (that combo starts vignetting when the zoom is widened to 20mm and wider at large apretures). Gary Jean is not talking about the Canon 20mm prime lens. Since these primes and zooms use different filter sizes, at least I feel that there is some confusion. -- Shun Cheung

May 13, 2002

FYI -- I did extensive testing with a Nikon 20mm f2.8 and this "ultra thin" polarizer and it DID vignette -- to the point where it was unusable. It's hard to understand how there could be much of a difference between the Canon and Nikon 20mm, but for the record, it does vignette on the Nikon.

According to Ken Rockwell, the Nikon polarizer is the best choice for the 20mm. See http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=000nUl for more...

I'm glad this post came up, because I've been considering Moose's filter for my 20mm.

October 31, 2001

Les,

Thanks for the reply. It's funny, that's what the Kodak folks said. It's hard to understand, though, since it scans other film without a hitch and other scenes on Supra look fine.

Although you can easily fix the color in Photoshop, I'd rather find a solution at the point of creating the negative. Your quick fix does look much, much better than the original scan. But, I've found that working with the curves to get a better blue often times ruins the other colors in the picture.

October 31, 2001

I've been using Supra for over a year now for general street

photography and low-light photography. I've been shooting 100, 400

and 800 and keep quite a bit of it stocked in the fridge and in my

bag.

It's my film of choice for general purpose work and I do agree that

it scans well.

My issue is that it doesn't seem to handle outdoor nature scenes very

well. I've been very unhappy with the color of the sky in pictures

I've taken in Montana, Cancun and the Smokey Mountains. Even when I

bracket, I seem to always get a slightly greenish cast to the skies

and foilage looks a tad more yellow than it should.

I almost always shoot with a UV filter and have also used a

polarizer.

I called Kodak and of course they've never heard of an issue with

Supra and skies.

Has anyone else had this issue or come up with a fix?<div></div>

Sign In

Profiles

Forums

Blogs

Events

Downloads

Gallery

Store

Posts posted by geris_k