douglas lee

Checking error logs to see what the issue is from there.

 

I changed my email address back to the original one and I am able to login and see the forums as I should.

 

I received an email from photo.net asking if I had recently changed my email address as that has apparently caused some problems. So, I changed it back and all is well.

 

Thanks for the help.

Re being logged in. Even though I logged in, it doesn't always seem to work. Its 50/50. Regardles, even when I am logged in, I cannot access the forum page.

 

I will try going directly to a forum on my ipad to see if that works. (Don't have my MacBook with me at work.)

 

Update:

Going directly to a forum didn't make a difference.

Well, I can access the forums from my work PC via Chrome. Last night on my MacBook running the lastest version of the OS I cleared my history and deleted all cookies from Safari. Then I navigated to photo.net and was able to see all the forums. Great, I thought. I then logged in and clicked the Forums link next to my profile pic. Got the error message.

 

I don't have any issues accessing other sites. I'm on several other photo and motorcycle related forums and never had an issue. So, I assume there is some oddball incompatibility with photo.net, my account and my MacOS.

 

Oh well.

Interesting. Just checked via my iPad. I can access the forums, no problem. Then I logged in and am not able to access the forums. Perhaps I've been banned and don't know it?

I recently came back to photo.net and cannot access the site when using Safari or FireFox on my MacBook Pro. Using Chrome on my work PC works fine.

 

Any help would be appreciated. Thanks!

<p>I recently aquired a 503CX ($399), A12 back($199),WLF($149) from a local shop. These were the marked prices, just to give you an idea. The shop did not have a 503CW. They did, however, have a mint 501C/M kit in yellow! </p>

 

 

<blockquote>

<p>It's quite amazing that all here are blaming the demise of film photography for Kodak's woes... ... <strong>Nothing to do with film</strong>...<br>

...the 'inventors' of digital photography [<em>Kodak</em>] have been <strong>completely over-run and outpaced by the other micro-chip users</strong>.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>"This contradiction of claiming the level of film usage as not being a factor and then citing it as factor seems to the claim that is "quite amazing".</p>

 

 

<p>Guess it depends on one's interpretation. I read those statements to mean Kodak stopped being an innovator and got overrun by its competition. </p>

<p>Regarding the level of film usage... well, yes. Film usage dropped, digital rose, Kodak's management failed to redirect the company into new and profitable lines of business. But, I will miss the yellow boxes.</p>

<p>Fred, your reply is a bit much, but, perhaps mine was as well. No need for the personal attacks.</p>

<p>Yes, my statement was overly broad. However, I did say "generally" and specifically referred to on-camera flash diffusers.</p>

<p>Let me say it this way -- if you are using on-camera flash with a translucent diffuser that extends close to or past the front element of the camera lens, then there is a very high probability that the result will be an underexposed flash picture, if using TTL, iTTL, or what have you.</p>

<p>You apparently dismissed that "guess", but did not say why. Seems to me, after looking at the Fong thingy, that particular diffuser could extend up to/beyond some lenses, especially with the dome attachment.</p>

<p>I hope your problem doesn't recur, but if it does, keep this "guess" in mind.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Disagree all you want. I was just trying to help. Obviously, you don't need it. My apologies.</p>

<p>Next time try it with and without the diffuser attached and the flash head pointing forward. (Assuming the problem recurs.) Generally, diffusers are not intended to be used when the flash head is pointed forward. That is not a guess, that is a potential problem with shorter/wider angle lenses and on-camera flash. If I can find a reference, I will post it.</p>

<p>Glad you are no longer having the problem.</p>

<p>+1 for B Christopher</p>

<p> </p>

<p>If the couple is happy, I wouldn't give my honest opinion without some kind of sugar coating. And, I certainly wouldn't offer it up unless absolutely necessary. Why play the spoiler? </p>

<p>If you are at f32, then you are going to have diffraction issues, I believe. Counter-productive.</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Apart from apprenticeships and similar training, most people start work and earn money from day one. I don't think a two to three year delay in this is reasonable or practical.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Perhaps, but this is why there are so many poor (quality and financially) wedding photographers and disappointed (with the results) couples. IMO. Obviously, there are exceptions.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Yeah I see. Nowaday people using flash when either there is sufficient ambient light or the camera has high enough ISO to make the exposure without the flash. The flash is really do little if anything. If the lighting is really low or using low speed ISO there won't be motion blur when using flash even at low shutter speed because there isn't sufficient ambient light exposure to register the blur.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>No, flash is used to fill shadows, make the subject stand out, etc.. Flash is not just used to raise the overall exposure of a scene.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Sure, you can get more bells and whistles but that's it.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>JMO, but going from a D70(s) to a D7000 is more than a bell and whistle upgrade.</p>

<p>You'll be happy, I am sure. Good flash and you can use it as a master to control your SB-600 if need be.</p>

<p>I am not familiar with the D7000. (Have one, but haven't used it, yet.) However, keep in mind there is a difference between iTTL and iTTL/BL. The latter will attempt to balance flash exposure with ambient, the former won't. I use iTTL indoors and iTTL/BL outdoors.</p>

<p>This may be redundant, or not. Read Neil's site. It is exactly the info you need to start with.</p>

<p>Mac,</p>

<p>Sorry if my comments offended you. Not my intent. In your initial post, you admitted to being new to the digital workflow and didn't mention your workflow included an iPad with limited processing power. I was merely responding to what I perceived (perhaps incorrectly) as the idea that RAW requires additional processing steps than JPG.</p>

<p>If you want to us an M9 to shoot jpg and it works for you, congratulations. Personally, I have finally admitted to myself that I hate post processing and just want to simplify the entire image making process. Regardless, I still shoot dng, but I do not have your limitations (referring to the use of an iPad).</p>

<p>As far as the detour the thread took? It happens frequently.</p>

<p>Take care.</p>

<p>Hello. My name is Doug and I am a "lazy photographer." :-)</p>

<p>I also shoot RAW and use LR. If I shot JPG, I would save processing time how? I rarely print (to be honest, I rarely shoot any more) but, when I do, it is the same time/process for either jpg/raw. I see no time savings shooting jpg vs. raw. Perhaps I am missing something?</p>

<p>If they are moving the date forward, i.e., earlier, then just move it. No basis for a fee as they are opening up a date for you to book another wedding. IF they are moving it later, then you keep any non-refundable fee and enter into a new contract, but consider keeping the original fee structure.</p>

<p>Just my opinion and I do not run a photo business. Seems reasonable to me.</p>

<p>Clint, the Leica certainly has its shortcomings. Macro and telephoto being the two most obvious, to me. AF, not so much.</p>

<p>AF inaccuracy wide open is the prime reason I switched back to Nikon from Canon. Also, I am not sure if it is even possible to put AF into an M body/lens. </p>

<p>My biggest complaint (besides price!) is ISO performance. Rather the lack of. Not sure why Leica couldn't have upped the ISO on the M9. I am happy with my M8.2. I knew what I was buying (back) into. Just wish I could afford faster glass. (I miss not having the 35 and 50 1.4 and the 90 2.0.)</p>

<p>Enjoy.</p>

<p>Pretty much my experience, too. I just picked up an M8.2 and the Leica 24 3.8 and 75 2.5.</p>

<p>This is my 3rd time around with Leica (wish I had kept those previous lenses!) The menu system doesn't really bother me. ISO is easily changed and I hardly ever use auto exposure. As far as focusing is concerned, it works for me. Too many great photographers took many great photos before the advent of AF. And, with the Leica lenses, zone focusing works well for general shooting. If I needed AF speed, I would have kept my Nikon D3s.</p>

<p>Enjoy your new toy, err, I mean...., well, you know. :)</p>