altern

I had this problem too. About a week ago I tried to request an address, but never received

it. Tried again a bit later, still nothing. Today it worked perfectly.

You should tell a little bit more about your budget. If every penny counts, I unfortunately

need to recommend a low-end Dell and a high-end CRT monitor. If you have more leeway,

I recommend looking seriously to getting a Mac and a high-end TFT monitor. The results

will be the same, but the Mac+TFT combination will be much more comfortable to work

with.

Another possibility is that you have some sort of malware on your computer. Some these

malicious applications replace or try to replace legimate ads with porn banners. You may

have got infected by not keeping up with Windows updates or by simply using IE and

Outlook.

 

Anyway, as already mentioned, the first thing you should try is to clear the browser cache,

manually if necessary.

I bought 135/2.0L for EOS 20D used a few months ago, because I like to have the fastest

lens I can afford for any particular focal length, and I wanted to try shooting with

something longer. I may sell it to buy a bit wider lens in 2005 to give better

handholdability and low light capability.

You should fix your HTML, though. The site fails terribly in Safari. Also, I don't know why

you use CENTER elements at all, as other parts of the layout come from CSS.

I use Flickr. So far I've uploaded three photos per month, so their free account with 10 MB

monthly upload quota suits me fine. Flickr's user interface is great. Also they not only

allow but encourage embedding your photos to your blog or linking to them. This makes

Flickr good for those of use who have blogs at Blogspot and can't upload images directly.

 

Though Flickr is a nice service of great value, it isn't directly comparable to Photo.net. The

primary market is different and the features are different.

Here's an update to the story: CERT-FI (the part of Finnish Communications Regulatory

Authority that issued the warning) has replaced the warning with a new one that doesn't

endorse alternative browsers hardly at all. Reasons for this have not been cited, pressure

from Microsoft is a possibility.

 

(The facts: Windows XP SP 2 does stop published exploits from working, but doesn't really

fix vulnerability. To continue using IE and still stay secure, you need an up-to-date virus

scanner with HTTP filtering support.)

 

Anyway, now that Mozilla FireFox 1.0 has been released, there's absolutely no reason

anyone should be using Internet Explorer as their primary browser. I've used FireFox/

Phoenix since version 0.7 without any significant problems on Win98, Win2000, WinXP and

Mac OS X.

 

My work involves lots of web stuff and I really wish more people would adopt FireFox,

some other Mozilla derivative or Safari. Their HTML rendering and JavaScript engines are

so much better that developing for them is joy, whereas developing for IE is a dreadful

experience.

 

Do yourself and me a favor, get FireFox.

Robert, I'd suggest you to improve your copy and visual design. The current site is slick,

but ultimately uninspiring. Less text but better text will quite likely prove to be more

persuasive.

 

I think your choice of portfolio images is nice, though I'd prefer to see them slightly

bigger. I found switching between photo- and videography somewhat disorienting, as the

same navigation bar is covertly replaced. As the navigation bar divided to button-like

areas with white lines, I also expected I could click any part of that area instead of the text

only. The current location doesn't seem to be indicated in the navigation bar.

 

Consider providing a no-Flash alternative.

 

Never refer to your site as "Flash photography website", instead talk of "Wedding

photography website". Nowadays Flash gives you no edge by itself. And I expected to see

flash pictures instead of a Flash site :)

Matt, as the responses from your students demonstrate, what you have here is two

questions in one:<br>

<br>

1. Could images from video games qualify as "gallery-worthy" art?<br>

2. Should violent images of art be hung on the wall of a gallery?<br>

<br>

I don't think the question reduces perfectly to these two sub-questions, but first

answering these questions separately and then considering if the questions combined

results in a different opinion can provide some insight. In other words, do people accept

violent paintings and calm images from video games more easily than violent images from

video games.<br>

<br>

Anyway, in response to questioning the moral standing of Rockstar Games, several

reviewers have said that they consider Grand Theft Auto: Vice City more of a work of art

than a commercial product. Another example, Peter Molyneux is a game designer with a

similar stance, that game production is ultimately about grand visions (which I guess

explains why some many of his games are boring after the first few hours).<br>

<br>

My opinion is that, well, I can't see why a video game or stills from one couldn't qualify as

art, but I've yet to meet a game that actualized that possibility.

I think the most important thing is to keep it simple. This rule applies to visual design,

content and technology. Regard "cool" as a sign to proceed with caution.

 

Find a focus (e.g. showcase your work to sell prints or services) and stick to it. Consider

having separate business and hobby sites, if you wish to publish other material too.

 

Get your own .com domain name, if you haven't got one already. Make sure

it's short enough and hard to spell wrong (e.g. doesn't require any punctuation).

 

Also, if you're serious about using the web for your advantage, consider moving away from

Frontpage. The best solution is to buy this book:

 

http://zeldman.com/dwws/

 

Then read it through several times, download NoteTab Light and open PhotoShop. The

second best solution is to get Macromedia Dreamweaver.

Another recommendation for ny-camera.net . The only caveat is that it may take a couple

of days to get your question answered in English. As they don't have real-time stock status

or order tracking directly available to customers, ordering low-availability items is

therefore often an irritating experience.

Thanks for your answers. To be a bit more specific, the reason to choose 17-40/4.0L isn't

that I need a wide zoom, but that wide primes seem to be either less capable or much

more expensive.

 

I have been able to rule the 70-200/2.8L IS out, and the rest... Well, I suppose I have to do

some more thinking.

Now that it seems I'm getting Canon EOS 20D sooner than I assumed, I thought this might

be a good time to order some lenses, as all I currently have is 50/1.4. For the wider end,

I've already settled with 17-40/4.0L.

 

However, the tele side has proved to be a hard choice. I first thought about 70-200/4.0L,

but as I tend to end up in dimly lit spaces and dislike flash, I'm not sure if that's fast

enough. So I'm wondering if 70-200/2.8L IS or perhaps 85/1.8 and 135/2.0L would be a

better idea?

 

My main interest is in people photography, informal portraiture and street photography.

I've never used a zoom lens or anything above 100mm before, so I'm not sure what I'm

actually missing or gaining with the choice. Well, I know primes might give me better

image quality and zoom would give more flexibility with choosing my position, but other

than that...

In theory, peer-to-peer (P2P) for massive databases is possible. However, no one has yet found a practical way to do it.

 

The problem with distributing photographs via present-day P2P is that an individual photo file is actually too small compared to the files these P2P solutions were designed for. If Photo.net had problems with 100MB+ video clips instead of 200kB photos, then BitTorrent would provide an easy answer.

 

(BitTorrent is P2P solution that was originally used for distributing copies of different Linux installation CD sets over the Internet.)

I assume this happens when you're trying to install a device driver for the camera? What's happening is that you're about to install a driver that isn't certified by Microsoft. There's a higher risk that the driver will cause the system to become unstable (prone to crash), as it's possible that the driver hasn't been coded according to guidelines issued by Microsoft.

 

I would just ignore the warning, if it was my home PC. It's quite likely any PC already has some uncertified drivers, and the certification by no means guarantees perfectly working drivers. Installing software is never perfectly safe, that's what the backups are for.

Canon AF35M II. A proof that you can make a plastic compact with a solid feel. It's the only camera my parents have ever had so it's not exactly mine, but it was the first camera I ever used. I've yet to see an electronic device that would feel better in my hands.

"Does anyone know if digital watermarks survive the upload process?"

 

Watermarks are pretty resilient against common manipulations, including but not limited to resizing, rotating, adjusting colors, blurring and sharpening. A specialized watermark remover algorithm can remove it with very little quality loss, but I'm not sure if any programs implementing such a procedure have ever been released "in the wild". The only ones I've heard of have been proof-of-concepts used for research.

 

I know one true story about the benefits watermarks. A Finnish photojournalist used them to prove copyright over his images to some companies that had used his images on their websites without permission. Usually it was just that the web designer had cut'n'pasted the image from his gallery site. The managers were reluctant to admit that such a thing could happen, but when presented with the evidence, the issues were quickly resolved.

 

If there is a need to easily assert rights over some image, watermarking is the way to go. However, some comments here seem overly agressive. I don't see the point in preventing people from saving the image for personal amusement or research. Can such a thing be illegal even in the US? Shouldn't illegal reproduction and distribution be the thing to worry about?

 

And for those saying that little "protection" is better than no protection, you don't even have to fiddle around with browser settings or wget to save the "protected" images. Save as compete web page feature is built-in in every recent browser. Yes, there are tricks to prevent that too, but they are time-consuming to implement and easily worked around.

Yes, I failed to consider that there might be other reasons to service the camera besides screwed up firmware update...

 

I have an issue of PC Plus here somewhere with an interesting news story. Someone had hacked some early digital SLR and added an Arkanoid-type game. The story says it was in fact pretty easy to do, as the chipset driving the user interface of the camera was of standard make. I'd assume the electronics of 300D are similarly divided: some standard embedded device chip for the user interface and communication with the computer, proprietary Canon image processing chips (including DIGIC) and interfaces to the mechanical components.

 

However, it's possible to hacking firmware can't add capabilities. Even if the mechanical parts of the camera allowed some locked-out features, the lock is not necessarily in the firmware. It may as well be a little different routing on the circuit board.

 

(Now that I think of it... If camera phones weren't already here, we might see consumer digicams with a game or two, to encourage keeping the camera with you all the time. Perhaps even some kind of Eye-Toy pocket version, though that might be possible with cellphones too. Of course, with all that gaming, the battery would probably be dead when you wanted to take a picture ;)

For those who aren't aware about the origins of the word "hack":<p>

<a href="http://jargon.watson-net.com/jargon.asp?w=hack">The Jargon Lexicon/File entry</a><p>

<a href="http://jargon.watson-net.com/section.asp?f=meaning-of-hack.html">The Meaning of 'Hack'</a><p>

Unfortunately nowadays the term is more often than not applied in a whole different meaning. Though it certainly voids the warranty, uploading a modified version of firmware to a camera may or may not be illegal depending on where you live. And whether it can be called a "hack" doesn't depend on it's legal status.

Of course, you could always ask for clarification. Call, write or e-mail the mag staff. They can probably forward you query to the article author, give you his or her contact details or allow you leave a note or voice mail.

"I'm looking to only spend around 150-250 for a camera."

 

Assuming that's Dollars or Euros, your options are pretty much limited to low-end point&shoot digital compacts. You won't probably get enough manual control options for creative photography, but if you're going to use the images from the camera only as source material for image manipulation, that may not be a problem for you.

 

Find a store that has good deals (low end digicams are found everywhere from computer stores to mail order catalogs) and compare reviews of the products that fit your price range. As already mentioned, dpreview is an excellent source for those. You might also want to check some computer mags (this category of cameras is usually regarded as computer accessories, not photography tools).

 

When checking the reviews, pay the most attention to real image quality. Megapixels are about the resolution of the sensor, not quality of the resulting picture. If the camera "zooms" or not won't probably matter to you. Choose a model that has few features but well done instead of more but badly executed.

 

If you can add extra 20-50 for a memory stick or card, whether or not the camera has internal memory won't matter to you. Forget about movies, they take a lot of space and are of terrible quality. They are only a marketing gimmick.

 

The results from a digital compact in your price range work excellent on the Web and just fine for normal size prints (or not, depending how sharp eyes you have). However, large prints are probably out of question.

 

If you want great quality on budget and the volume of work is small (a couple of dozens or so photos), you have other options too. One is to borrow the equipment from friend or rent it. Another is to have friend or a perhaps even a commercial photographer take the shots for you (after all, if graphics design is your bread and butter, why not allow an expert or hobbyist do the photography). If you have an especially daring nature, you could get a manual film SLR (available for less than 100) and have the developed film scanned at the lab.

"An interesting thing to think about that is related to this is the manafacturing of computer processors. At a certain point in time, Intel produced 2 common processors: The Pentium and the Celeron."

 

If I recall correctly, even the original Celeron was different from Pentium in other regards too. I think the main difference was smaller on-chip cache, but I might be mistaken. However, this practice in general is standard way how processor business works. The processors are tested in the factory and sorted according to test scores. If the demand for lower clock speed chips is higher than supply, the extra demand is satisfied by shipping chips performing better than needed (leading to a batch of well over-clockable processors).

 

The first time this came to public knowledge was with 486 chips. At some point it made no sense to have separate production lines for chips with and without math co-processor. So to make a chip "without" co-processor they simply removed one pin from the processor. The math circuits were still there but unusable.

 

Third example, ATI Radeon 64MB DDR display adapters sold in "bulk" packaging had lower speed memory than the ones sold in "retail" packaging. However, certain "bulk" patches were made with "retail" memory. My adapter is from one such batch :)

 

Could this same happen with 300D and 10D sensors? I think it's quite possible that the "A" grade sensors go to 10D's and "A-" grade ends up in 300D. However, I think a more plausible explanation is that very little quality testing is done at the factory, eliminating only clearly defective items, and both 300D and 10D have better and worse units.

Here are some common (not specific to Photo.net) troubleshooting instructions for problems such as those you described:

 

Clear your browser's document cache, restart the browser and try again. Are you using a proxy server? If yes, try again without a proxy. Are you running some kind of ad-filtering software? Try adding Photo.net to the bypass list.

 

If none of this help, it would be useful if you told what browser and which version of it you are using. You could also try a different browser and see if the problem still keeps appearing.

 

And finally, try to wait half an hour between tries. If the Photo.net servers are busy, they may fail to respond to some of your page load requests, which may result a blank page and no error messages in some browsers.

I think the phrase "equivalent level" is the key here. Even less than 200 euros (or dollars :) can buy an SLR and a lens that gives results equal to a digital camera system 3-10 times more expensive. Of course, you need to factor in the cost of film and the benefit of convenience and instant feedback of digital. And photography isn't all about technology, talent is required too.

 

Technically and in most cases, I guess not. But it definitely isn't impossible.

Even if an average teen mag doesn't have any nudity, the pictures there are far more suggestive in average than a random sample from Photo.net galleries. Also, I've seen a lot of nude pictures with very little sexual content. It's just that some people can't stand to see a bare nipple without losing their mind, and unfortunately they are the ones most frequently looking over your shoulder at the library terminal. :)

 

(When was the last time I read something that you could count as "an average teen mag"? One and a half months ago. As you can easily tell, I didn't enjoy it much.)