marc_rochkind

Since this is your second level of backup, Glacier is perfect. But getting the images there with certainty involves some work. Read this: Verifying and Uploading Large Archives of Photos with ZipVerifier and S3BigUpload

Agree with Ed. Most photographers here spend $$$ on equipment, and pay a lot of attention to sensor and lens quality. To then post-process with anything but the best makes no sense at all to me. And, you want parameterized (a.k.a. non-destructive) editing, not just the original and the results (TIFF or PSD). $10/month for Lightroom + Photoshop + all updates is ridiculously cheap. ESPECIALLY if you invest thousands in cameras and lenses, as I have done.

Adoramapix. They will adjust your file, or you can download a printer profile for color management, with soft proofing. And, great service. Read this: Incredibly good service from Adoramapix.com

In early May I ordered metal prints (the largest 20x30) from Adormapix for an upcoming art show. One of the three arrived a little early, last Friday. The other two, including the big one, wasn't delivered, even though UPS showed that it was in their distribution center. But not out for delivery. Desperate to get UPS to do something, I filed a lost-package claim on Monday, even though it wasn't lost. UPS had it, but wasn't delivering it. Not on Monday, not on Tuesday, not on Wednesday. On Thursday I finally heard from UPS: The package had been damaged, and was being sent back. The show is tomorrow (Saturday), so no big metal for my booth. Well, I have another show in a few weeks, so I called Adoramapix to tell them to just cancel that order, intending to place a new order. Not necessary, they said. We'll just print and send this one again. Are you sure it will arrive in two weeks, I asked? Yes, they said. We'll put a rush on it. That was yesterday, Thursday. They made the two metal prints, and SENT THEM OVERNIGHT, at their expense. They arrived a few hours ago. And I will have all three for my show tomorrow! Truly outstanding service from Adoramapix, especially as the damage wasn't even their fault. I'll never print with anyone else.

I think you should put more effort into post-processing. With my photos, that's where the image comes alive. With the right tool, by which I mean Lightroom, it's actually fun. And, because the changes are parameterized, you can do a little when you feel like it, and then come back and continue or redo when you have more time and think more highly of the image.

There are two basic approaches: Use the file system's structure to organize images, or put references to them (not the image themselves) in a database and have multiple, overlapping organization methods (keywords, collections, etc.). Lightroom allows you do both, since when you import an image it can stay in its file system location. The Lightroom approach is vastly superior to using the file system only. It is often misunderstood by people who don't use it. The most common misconception is that it puts images into the database.

In 1914 Kodak introduced its Autographic system that allowed you to take notes directly on the film, including the date.

Unified view seems to have been replaced by New Posts, but I can't find a way to filter out the forums I don't care about. Right now, it's dominated by posts about the new forum. No fun to read photo.net at all any more. I know that Unified View was one of the popular features before. Odd that the new design didn't incorporate the best of what had come before.

<p>@Brad: I think you are agreeing with my point. I said that having the best equipment and software was equally important, and that seems to be exactly what you said. (I'm taking "adequate" and "just fine" as more or less the same degree of "best".)</p>

<p>Impossible to know if this shot was creative. I have discovered shots in my camera that I took my accident, such as when the shutter trips while I'm making an adjustment, or putting the camera away. Perhaps that's what this is? Equally, it may be the result of hours of planning, including hiking to the right spot when the light would be just right.</p> <p>On the other hand, any shot can be evaluated based on its qualities as a photograph, regardless of the context in which it was taken.</p> <p>To say it another way, without some explanation apart from the photograph, it's unknowable what, if anything, was in the photographer's mind.</p>

<p>$10 a month for Lightroom isn't really the whole truth. For that, you get Photoshop, too. I do nearly all my processing in Lightroom, but, when I do go into Photoshop, what I'm doing there is very critical. It's as important to have the best software tools as it is to have the best camera and lenses. I acknowledge that "best" is a matter of opinion; for my purposes, my opinion is the only one that matters.</p> <p>Anyway, if, for you, LR5 is "best", then you should stay with what you have.</p> <p>Not that this applies to you -- I don't know anything about your equipment -- but I know lots of people who spend thousands on cameras and lenses, but would never pay $120/year for software. Seems silly to me.</p>

<p>@Edward: Is this angle problem still there with IPS screens?</p>

<p>To add a bit more to my needs: For 99% of my work, even work with photos, screen accuracy is irrelevant. (For example, when entering captions, or ordering prints). Only when I'm soft-proofing does the screen really matter and, as I'm a fine-art photographer, my volume is very low. (Maybe 30 - 40 shots per year will get printed.)</p> <p>And, the work will be done in my own trailer, not in motel rooms, coffee shops, or friends' houses. So, I'm seriously thinking of taking along my desktop monitor.</p>

<p>Thanks, Eric. Will check these out.</p>

<p>To focus my question, I'm not asking about processors, RAM, SSDs, graphic controllers, ports, price, or anything else other than the screen. Also, not interested in Apple hardware.*</p> <p>Anyone know of a laptop with a screen comparable to better desktop monitors? I have a Dell UltraSharp U2515H 25-Inch Screen LED-Lit Monitor, which is not the best (it's not the one Andrew Rodney is always recommending), but it works for me and it way better than the laptops I have. My guess is that 2017 laptops might include one or two with suitable screens.</p> <p>I'll be using a hardware calibrator, perhaps the one I use now or maybe a new one.</p> <p>Ideas?</p> <p>-------------------------------------</p> <p>* I am a Mac OS X and iOS developer with many apps on the Apple stores, and have found Apple to be a horrible company to work with, as have many other developers. So, in my retirement, I don't want to use an Apple computer.</p>

<p>Works OK for me. However, menu buttons should be at the top. Otherwise, some viewers who don't scroll won't see them. Also, probably 99.999% of web pages have menus at the top, and that's where people expect them to be.</p>

<p>Whether this is possible depends on what chemical process made the print. Assuming, that is, that's it's possible for any of them.</p> <p>I vaguely recall Farmer's Reducer, but always thought it was for negatives. Was it also for prints?</p> <p>Anyway, in the digital world, you mess with the digital file, not the print, so I have a feeling there's nothing out there for you.</p>

<p>I've been using mirrorless for years now, with an EVF on about half of the cameras I've bought. For the first time, with my Olympus OM-D MD5 II (which replaced my original MD5), the EVF is as good as it needs to be, which, for me, means as good as an SLR.</p> <p>So, for me, mirrorless is now mature. (As Thom Hogan says, mirrorless and SLR aren't two different kinds of cameras. Only their viewing systems are different.)</p>

<p>If you think f/1.2 is bad, try VR. You'll definitely toss your cookies.</p>

<p>I think most every client will want a flat fee for the shoot, and would understand that in addition each print (or other rendering) would be paid for separately. Perhaps a fixed number of prints could be rolled into the flat fee.</p> <p>You need to think about whether the client gets originals (e.g., full-size JPEGs on a CD for a wedding), and whether the client gets rights.</p> <p>If you're starting out, figure an hourly rate (maybe $20 - $30 in the US) and multiply by your estimate of number of hours on the job, including prep, travel, shoot, and post. Then compare that figure to what you understand other photographers at your level in your area charge for that kind of shoot.</p> <p>Photograph is a very hard way to make a living, and you're unlikely to make a very good living. Of course, like everything else, that doesn't apply to top photographers. Will you be one of those?</p>

<p>If the person is not recognizable (face obscured), you don't need a release. You say that "no face is rendered," so maybe that qualifies.</p>

<p>I know exactly what you mean by "disillusioned"!</p> <p>That's exactly how I feel about film cameras, of which I have about 150, including an OM-1, and OM-2, and OM-10. Last time I tried it, the OM-1's meter worked. But, as other say, it's very old. I love the cameras, but don't like using them.</p> <p>My digital cameras are much newer and work much better.</p>

<p>"Tax accountant" is too general a description of whom you need to see. I've worked with several over the years, and I'm sure they have only a foggy understanding of these sorts of complex sales-tax issues. Make sure whomever you see really knows about this. Don't pay someone to research the topic for you. Only someone who really already knows.</p>

<blockquote> <p>... judging by the eBay sales of film cameras and lenses, a lot of other people are using it too.</p> </blockquote> <p>I would draw a different conclusion: Because the cameras are no longer being used, they are put up for auction. And, I doubt that there are any statistics available about the number of completed eBay sales of film cameras in 2016 compared to, say, 2006 or 1996.<br> <br> As for the re-introduction of Ektachrome, that is being done by Kodak Alaris, a spinoff of Kodak that manufactures film. Given that that's their mission and market, this action, in their view, advances their business. It doesn't mean that film is doing better, only that this company is trying to do better in that niche.</p>

<p>Anything we say is just guesswork, of course. My guesswork is that film photography has changed from something people still do because they have always done it that way or because their favorite camera (the one with all the lenses) is a film camera. The change is to doing film photography because it in some way aligns with their artistic intent better than does digital. Or, perhaps because it's cool. My college daughter got interested in photography a couple of years ago, and only wanted to shoot film.</p> <p>My even-younger daughter is taking a high-school course in photography, and it's all digital. I think she and her classmates would think that shooting on film is too weird to take seriously.</p> <p>The old man in the family, namely me, used to shoot film, as did everyone, but went to digital and likes it about 9,000 times more. I can do things in post that go far beyond anything possible in the darkroom, and it's fun, not work.</p> <p>I love film cameras (my collection has about 150), but hate using them.</p> <p>I agree with the other posts here that ascribe the ascent of film, if it's real, to the novelty factor.</p>