paulstenquist

It's worse than it was several days ago. I go to galleries and scroll down to one of my galleries and click view gallery. I get a kind of clunky workshop view, the same as on the portfolio level. If I copy the URL and ask someone else to view my gallery, the URL takes them to an ad to join Facebook. OR IF THEY'RE ALREADY A MEMBER, IT DISPLAYS THEIR GALLERY!!! WTF, people. Why did you implement a broken site? Please restore the old site or hire some programmers who know what they're doing. This is embarrassing.

 

I suspect this post won't appear. That would be consistent with what I've seen. Hide and cover.

 

Paul Stenquist

Long time member

More than twenty of my galleries, which were once full, are now empty. I'm missing about 1000 photos as well. Why did photo.net go live with a website that was obviously broken? Unbelievable. Not happy.

Paul Stenquist

More than 20 of my gallery folders are empty. In the gallery sort, it appears that they're populated, but when I go to gallery and attempt to view folder, the site says it's empty. I'm somewhat surprised that the new site was implemented with so many bugs unresolved. I hope you can fix it soon.

Paul Stenquist

<p>Pentax was smart enough to bail on the full-frame Philips chip before it was proven a loser. There was no other cost effective full-frame option available. There still isn't. Pentax plays in the prosumer segment. Full frame is still not a cost effective solution. But Pentax has built APS-C cameras that deliver great image quality at a reasonable price. That's what happened. And nothing went wrong.<br>

 </p>

Since Photo.net's last update, I've been unable to replace an image with a modified version using the edit command. After completing the

edit page with a new image file indicated, I can refresh until the cows come home, and the new image never appears. Used to be it would

come up after a couple of clicks on refresh. Now it never appears, even after several days, cooky deletions and computer restarts. I'm on a

Mac with system 10.5. Running Safari or Firefox yields the same result.

Paul Stenquist

The Pentax FA 80-320 is very good for the money. Here's a shot at 320mm on the *istD:

http://www.photo.net/photo/3113532&size=lg

Underexposing at 1600 with the K10D and then bumping it up two stops in PhotoShop will give you useless, noisy garbage. Been there, done that. The K20D is quite capable at high ISO. Yes, 6400 is a stretch because the camera automatically selects "strong" noise supression and the results are somewhat devoid of detail. 3200 with "weak" noise supression yields very nice results, considering the sensitivity level. At least as good, in my experience, as the K10D at 800. That's quite an achievement.

Paul

My pleasure, Renato. Here's a color pic shot at ISO 3200. The lens was the SMC Pentax 85/1.8. I believe the stop was f2.8.

http://www.photo.net/photo/7040595&size=lg

 

Of course a picture can't prove that the SR is better. It would require extensive testing to do that. However, my impression is that it is indeed better. The picture I posted -- and this picture as well -- are offered only as an adjunct to my impressions. Pentax says that it's improved. I tend to trust what people tell me until I have reason not to. I'm not a chickent-little photographer. And I don't test. It's a waste of time. I'm a shooter. And when I like a camera, I say so.

Paul

Paul

I have both the K10D and the K20D, and I'm very impressed with the K20D performance. I shoot a lot of low light photography and find that the high ISO performance is far superior. The image stabilization seems to function better as well. I also have come to apprciate the extra resolution. Fifty percent crops leave one with a very workable amount of pixels. I've also noticed that exposures are more consistent, particularly when working with flash. (I use the AF 540 FGZ.)

 

Here's a link to a pic shot at ISO 3200 in near darkness. It's the K20D with the DA* 50-135/2.8. Focal length was 70mm. Exposure was f2.8 @ 1/6th second. Handheld. Yes, that's 1/6th second. It's not a typo. Focal point is on the girl's right eye. Autofocus was able to lock in, even with very low light levels.

http://www.photo.net/photo/7057511&size=lg

 

BTW, this is the only forum where I've seen a somewhat negative reaction to the K20D. On both dpreview and the PDML, it's been very well received. Not that there's any significance to that. But I find the lukewarm reception here somewhat surprising.

 

Paul

It's a non-issue in the Canon forum, because, for the most part, Canon noise levels are abysmal, particularly with the less than full frame variants.

 

I don't like the softened version of my shot. Only the background is noisy in the original. And at print luminance levels, it's just fine. As I noted above, it's those with overly bright monitors who tend to find fault.

 

Of all those using the K20D, the consensus is that it's far better in regard to noise than any other Pentax or any Canon. It's primarily those who haven't tried the camera who are most critical. That's what happens when you view photos calibrated on someone else's monitor on your own.

 

The only cameras that equal or surpass the K20D in terms of low noise at high ISO are the Nikon 300D, which is approximately the same, and the Nikon 3D, which is the best of the breed.

 

But enough of this.

 

Mr. gutierrez, I would appreciate it if you would remove the photos of my granddaughter that you've posted here.

 

Thank you.

 

Paul Stenquist

In regard to the 3200 photo I posted, you can see blue noise in the dark shadow areas on a monitor that is overly bright. On a calibrated monitor that is correct for printing, it's not apparent. And at viewing size, there is no visible noise on the subject itself. The K20D 3200 pics print beautifully on an Epson R2400, and the 6400 pics are quite useable. For web pixel peepers, it may not make the grade, but it's serving me very well for a wide range of commercial and editorial work.

Hi Jennifer,

I'm the troublemaker who found this site:-). I have a couple of sites related to my photography and advertising work, so I googled my name to see where they came up. While I was at it, I looked through the first couple pages of entries and found a link to this site. I'm sure there are many more like this that haven't been discovered. It's just a function of showing one's work on the web.

In my experience, a Canon 350D can't even come close to that level of ISO 800 noise. I've tried it, I've seen it. And these shots are equally noise free in color. Here's an IS) 3200 shot, cropped to 60% of frame. Some noise in the shadows, but the bright areas are virtually noise free.

http://www.photo.net/photo/7021188&size=lg

I haven't noticed any fumes or odor coming from my K20D, nor have I reacted in any negative way when using it. I'm not having problems with the viewfinder either, although I don't wear glasses when shooting.

Paul

I've taken my K10D, my *istD, my 6x7 and my LX from a cold air conditioned room into steamy 95% humidity tropical heat. Yes, the immediate result is condensation, but it clears in less than five minutes. No damage to any of these cameras. And condensation was always limited to external surfaces as far as I could tell.

Paul Stenquist

I've been shooting with the K20D for several days now and have to say that I'm very impressed in regard to the noise levels. I've found that ISO 1600 on the K20D, with high ISO noise supression set to "weak" is approximately equivelant to ISO 400 on the K10D. I've posted some on my photo.net pages. This shot is at 1600 with the K20D and the FA50/1.4 @f2:

 

http://www.photo.net/photo/7007067

 

This shot is at ISO 6400 with the same lens, again at f2. The only light is from a television screen. I believe the camera automatically switches to "strong" noise supression at ISO 6400:

 

http://www.photo.net/photo/7006983&size=lg

 

This shot is at ISO 800 with the A400/5.6 mounted, f8 aperture:

 

http://www.photo.net/photo/7013146

 

I'm really liking the new camera.

Paul Stenquist

Mine have been removed.

No. Hide them under YOUR bed:-)

I didn't cry wolf, Marc. I alerted people to the existence of the site. To me, the only negative is that it's a sleazy environment.

 

All commercial enterprises that use photos in promotions begin with comp work. Comp work is used as a demonstration of what the final piece might look like. For the comps, the art directors search the web for low-res pictures that will illustrate the idea. They look at stock sites, which allow you to download low-res versions for comping, flickr, photo.net and numerous other sites. As I said, sometimes the comp photo is well received, and the agency will attempt to purchase the high-version. Photos that have not been purchased are never used in published work, only for demonstration. If the photographer is unwilling to sell the hi-res version, the agency will sometimes shoot something similar or look for something else.

 

I don't personally use photos for comping, because I'm a writer. But all of the art directors I've worked with harvest comp photos from the internet. Everywhere. Every ad agency and numerous other pubs. It's how things are done, Marc.

 

Using what's on the internet for idea generation is valid. Using it for personal profit or attempting to sell it without first purchasing rights would not be.

 

If you want people to stay away from your images, Marc, take them off the internet and hide them under our bed.

I added contact information in the comment box below each of my photoes on Playcomet. I also indicated that they were being displayed without permission.

I'm somewhat surprised at the paranoia here. People deleting their images. Making them thumbnail size. Even an image 900 pixels tall is useless for any commercial use. The only downside I saw to these images being posted on the China website was that the environment there was somewhat sleazy. Other than that, exposure is good. I work in the advertising business, and we frequently swipe pics from a variety of sites for comping. And more and more, we end up buying a high res version of the comp image we took from the web. But if the pics too small, it won't be used. If it's not here, it gets no exposure.

 

I've sold a number of photos through photo.net exposure. I have photos on stock house sites that are duplicated here. More exposure is good. No exposure is bad.

 

A hidden stock house that requires passwords? Doesn't sound like a profitable enterprise to me.

It's not STILL up. It's up again. It was down for a day or more. Apparently, they found a new server or GoDaddy decided there wasn't reason enough to take it down. If people care enought, they'll have to get after them again. Some of my pics are back up, but I'm not terribly worried about it.

I agree with Lou Ann. If the Photo.net galleries aren't easily accessible they would be of little value to many of us. Photos are meant to be seen.

 

I wouldn't even want to lose the right click download capability. I've exchanged post processing ideas with many PN members via work on each others desktops. That could, of course, be handled bia e-mail, but it would involve extra steps. I like things the way they are now. No one suffered from the display of their photos on that obscure site. And it's unlikely that they ever would.

Paul

I tried to file a copyright claim with GoDaddy via e-mail. I tried to follow their instructions, but probably didn't get it quite right. I received this reply today:

 

Dear Paul Stenquist,

 

Thank you for contacting GoDaddy.com. We do not allow content on our site to infringe on copyrighted materials. We work regularly with both the courts and law enforcement to ensure that this abuse is curtailed.

 

In harmony with the DMCA (Digital Millennium Copyright Act), we have created a Copyright and Trademark dispute policy to help get this matter resolved. Please review GoDaddy's Trademark and Copyright Policy found at http://www.godaddy.com/gdshop/legal_agreements/show_doc.asp?se=%2B&pageid=TRADMARK%5FCOPY

 

In order to process a copyright infringement complaint, you will need to submit your copyright claim to the

following address.

 

 

CopyrightClaims@GoDaddy.com

 

 

Please provide all information as described in this document under Copyright Disputes in your email. It would also be very helpful, although it is not necessary, if you include the Copyright Registration Number that is being violated. (This information can be looked up via the Library of Congress at http://www.copyright.gov/records/cohm.html ). This information will enable us to confirm who, if anyone has the copyright. Content that is not registered with the Library of Congress, or the equivalent body in your area, as a copyrighted work is often highly subjective, and may need to be determined by a court of law.

 

If you have any further questions, please let us know.

 

Regards,

 

 

Copyright Department

GoDaddy.com

CopyrightClaims@GoDaddy.com

Thanks Barry. I already posted a notice in my own clunky way, but I will do it again in this manner.

Paul