steveshinn

June 30, 2014

I use State Farm (in California) and have had some of my fellow photographers use it too. I and one of them have both had large losses (new 500 mm on 7D0 dropped in lake) all covered with NO hassle.

You do NOT need to have any other insurance with them.

January 10, 2014

Amazing and very interesting, thanks.

Looking good, hopefully executing any changes won't be too painful for you folks behind the scenes.

April 16, 2012

I've been using State Farm (in California) and found it to be very competitive.

My equipment was robbed from my car (smashed a window and grabbed) and the company sent me a check for the amount that I paid for the equipment. Some of it was quite old but I would still like a few minutes alone with the #$@%%$s that took my old 40D and my beat-up 100-400.

And no, they do not require you to have any other insurance with them. I have a couple of friends down here who have only their camera equipment covered.

December 28, 2011

Shipping is free, the $1.75 gets you a few less days on the truck.

December 28, 2011

Hey Bob, Don't know what to tell you but there are at least TWO different prices for this at B&H. The one using the code that I cited gets you $400 off. My order placed four days ago and good to 7 Jan;

<tbody>

<tr>

<td bgcolor="#FFFFCC">Item Description</td>

<td bgcolor="#FFFFCC">Price</td>

<td bgcolor="#FFFFCC">Total Price</td>

</tr>

<tr>

</tr>

<tr>

<td>EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM Telephoto Zoom Lens </td>

</tr>

<tr>

</tr>

</tbody>

</table>

<tbody>

<tr>

<td align="right">Subtotal: 1974.00 Shipping Charges: 1.75 Taxes: 0.00 Total: 1975.75</td>

</tr>

</tbody>

</table>

December 27, 2011

They seem to have a couple of prices for this lens. If you use the right code you get $400 off and pay $1974!

Use their code; B&H # SHCA7020028L

It says "Offer ends JAN 7 '12"

</ul>

December 27, 2011

This may sound silly but believe me it works.

Quart or gallon Heavy Duty Ziploc bags. Ya pack them empty and fill them with any dry sand or dirt (if you want a "bean" bag you can buy some beans at any of the local markets) at your arrival location. I used one for two weeks in Kenya/Tanzania and never had a leak.

I had a friend from the UK who said that ziplocks are not available there.

November 29, 2010

Good move but I'll bet that they will still resort to mindless calculations, etc ... ah, the drama of it all...

I hesitated in posting the current math games on this public forum but the practice seems, from what I'm hearing, pretty well known. Interestingly enough, I have heard no instances of threats, retribution or the other childish crap that was going on before the recent changes.

I have received very respectful emails asking why I rated some particular image as I did and am now trying to take the time to include the rating in my comment section. I might get blasted for it but I never figured that I would ring the gong with my stuff anyway... unless I start shooting really raunchy nudes.

November 29, 2010

Just a reminde;

Let's not forget that the current system DOES allow anyone who wants to put the time on it to know, rather exactly, who rated what number by simply observing each successive post of each rater and subtracting the old average times the old number of raters from the new average times the new number of raters. It is being done, identities are known and yet there are no riots in the streets. We HAVE, however, discovered some rather nefarious characters who seem bent on changing this site to "<a href="http://porn.net/" target="_blank">porn.net</a>".

November 28, 2010

Oops, guess I'm getting old. Looks like I'm repeating myself... goes with being near 70 I guess.

November 28, 2010

If real cases matter, I would like to offer a few I just found by accident that make an interesting case.

Two "names" both registered on the same date. Neither apparently posts any images but both rate others shots. It would be foolish to assume I just happened to find the only two who do this.

When I looked at the "photos rated highest by this member", I found that all of the 7's in both cases were only of nudes and, IMHO, not very good ones at that! You'll notice that there are only 1's given to others and no 4's, 5's or 6's in the other. At least some of those were of bird and nature shots leading one to suspect that if it wasn't a naked female human, it got dinged.

Given that the "Top Rated Photos" and "Top Photographers" are driven by these charming little numbers that we have all come to love so much, it is clear that these two among who knows how many others, can easily cause great damage to these ratings. This would be especially true for newer members who haven't gone to great and obsessive lengths to cultivate huge stable of loyal followers. Their large numbers would dilute these spoilers but newer and less aggressive members can be shot down in flames.

I've emailed the identities of these "members" to Josh. But you might want to do a bit of investigating on images that seem to be getting strange ratings.

Once more, I'll make the case for full disclosure. If a rating, be it high or low, requires a comment a lot of this silliness will go away. If somebody cannot deal with honest criticism, they should go post on one of the funny forums. If you don't want a critique or rating you don't ask for one. I hate to hear of other members feeling as though they have been sabotaged but that is what happens with no accountability. I don't know about the rest you but that really frosts my junk!

See below.

<tbody>

<tr>

Ratings Given

</td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td>

</td>

<td>

1

</td>

<td>

2

</td>

<td>

3

</td>

<td>

4

</td>

<td>

5

</td>

<td>

6

</td>

<td>

7

</td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td>

Ratings

</td>

<td>

72

</td>

<td>

0

</td>

<td>

0

</td>

<td>

0

</td>

<td>

0

</td>

<td>

0

</td>

<td>

50

</td>

</tr>

</tbody>

</table>

<tbody>

<tr>

Ratings Given

</td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td>

</td>

<td>

1

</td>

<td>

2

</td>

<td>

3

</td>

<td>

4

</td>

<td>

5

</td>

<td>

6

</td>

<td>

7

</td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td>

Ratings

</td>

<td>

90

</td>

<td>

72

</td>

<td>

126

</td>

<td>

0

</td>

<td>

0

</td>

<td>

0

</td>

<td>

38

</td>

</tr>

</tbody>

</table>

November 28, 2010

If real cases matter, I would like to offer a few I just found by accident that make an interesting case.

Two "names" both registered on the same date. Neither apparently posts any images but both rate others shots. It would be foolish to assume I just happened to find the only two who do this.

When I looked at the "photos rated highest by this member", I found that all of the 7's in both cases were only of nudes and, IMHO, not very good ones at that!

Given that the "Top Rated Photos" and "Top Photographers" are driven by these charming little numbers that we have all come to love so much, it is clear that these two among who knows how many others, can easily cause great damage to these ratings. This would be especially true for newer members who haven't gone to great and obsessive lengths to cultivate huge stable of loyal followers. Their large numbers would dilute these spoilers but newer and less aggressive members can be shot down in flames.

I've emailed the identities of these "members" to Josh. But you might want to do a bit of investigating on images that seem to be getting strange ratings.

Once more, I'll make the case for full disclosure. If a rating, be it high or low, requires a comment a lot of this silliness will go away. If somebody cannot deal with honest criticism, they should go post on one of the funny forums. If you don't want a critique or rating you don't ask for one.

See below.

<tbody>

<tr>

Ratings Given

</td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td>

</td>

<td>

1

</td>

<td>

2

</td>

<td>

3

</td>

<td>

4

</td>

<td>

5

</td>

<td>

6

</td>

<td>

7

</td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td>

Ratings

</td>

<td>

72

</td>

<td>

0

</td>

<td>

0

</td>

<td>

0

</td>

<td>

0

</td>

<td>

0

</td>

<td>

50

</td>

</tr>

</tbody>

</table>

<tbody>

<tr>

Ratings Given

</td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td>

</td>

<td>

1

</td>

<td>

2

</td>

<td>

3

</td>

<td>

4

</td>

<td>

5

</td>

<td>

6

</td>

<td>

7

</td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td>

Ratings

</td>

<td>

90

</td>

<td>

72

</td>

<td>

126

</td>

<td>

0

</td>

<td>

0

</td>

<td>

0

</td>

<td>

38

</td>

</tr>

</tbody>

</table>

November 27, 2010

Just in case I was misunderstood, I am in favor of names on ratings. No anonymity.

Same opinion as Gregory Salva.

And the beat goes on...

November 24, 2010

If this thread is still alive.. There are some interesting pieces of fallout since I confronted a contributor on his post after getting a very terse and accusatory email from him. Since anyone reading the comments about that image could now see what he was doing I have now gotten some email contact showing that he has shared his suspicion and contempt with others.

A lot of folks quickly figured out that if you visit your page frequently (obsessively) you now can easily calculate the rating for each subsequent rater; (New average times number of raters) minus (previous average times the old number of raters) = the new raters score. I suspect that at least one of them is familiar enough with code to write the very simple program needed to monitor and record all of this silliness for them. There's, or will be, an ap for that!

Of course the sole reason for this bit of drama is driven by the desire to be a "top rated photographer" or to have a "top rated photo. If that somehow changes then the problem dies. If no ratings could be done anonymously it at least become more honest and reasonable.

If one only posts "critique only", no matter how wonderful the image is or complimentary the comments, there is no current way for it to be elevated on this forum. And so the sniping, sabotage and group voting will continue.

November 20, 2010

Another note on posting the frequency of each score vs. the average and the names: While I have forever, it seems, wanted accountability and no rating without explanation, the posting of names divorced from the score had some interesting consequences for me.

One of our self described "ratings whores" emailed me today, bitterly accusing me of giving him a "low score" on an image. He apparently sits and watches the changes in averages after the names begin to show and then tries to calculate, based on new "averages", what score any new raters have given him.

His email went further to imply that he felt that he had now discovered who was sabotaging his and other peoples ratings...! This lead to accusations which then started to get ugly.

He seems to be of the opinion that one should only give 6's and 7's and he doesn't like to get anything else. He appears to worship getting images posted on the "Best Photo" page which is, of course driven by the so popular but unqualified "ratings". (I think I gave his image a 5 or a 6..)

An exchange of emails culminated with me very patiently explaining to him (he's new to the country and there is a bit of a language barrier) what a scale is all about. I finally advised him that any spreading of rumors, implying that I gave ratings for anything other than for my opinion, could result in legal action.

That seemed to get his attention and he called me to apologize. I promised to not toss him into the lake tomorrow.

If the old two stage system were reinstated, which as Greg and others have pointed out allows eyeball statistics with median and means demonstrated, this bit of silliness might not happen. My only request would be to not allow anonymous ratings. That would take care of the trolls and jerks.

November 17, 2010

Since I posted it/them on 11/11 and 11/3, in Top Rated Photos I tried "Past Week" and then "Past Month. This is then for; Birds, Past Month, "Recent Ratings (average)"

November 17, 2010

Ooops forgot to send the other link. Here you'll see photos that are less than the 5.8 average that are posted on my two shots.

November 17, 2010

Thanks Josh. Don't mean to flip you the bird.. but these are my latest

http://www.photo.net/photo/11935571

http://www.photo.net/photo/11896452

November 17, 2010

"That is a perfectly reasonable way to view ratings. However, my reply would be that anyone who feels that way would be better served to work within the critique system."

Another consideration; "Top rated photos" suggests that those with the highest numbers are superior to those of lesser ratings. Wouldn't it be more accurate if there was some meaning attached to those numbers. Many of those "Top Rated" are outstanding but others... looks like the rw's are at work.

BTW, when I just now looked at the Birds category I found images that had lower average ratings than some of my own for the same period. Did I miss some preference setting or something?

Thanks,

November 17, 2010

But what good is the number if there is no understanding of why it was given? Was it beauty, subject, shock value or just because the poster is a member of a mutual admiration society? You know better than I do that there are self described "ratings whores" (one of them described himself to me that way) here who, when they post even mediocre images are given higher marks than those posted by newcomers or less aggressive members. This is simply because the rw's post short, often cut and paste, comments on as many images as possible thereby cultivating a loyal stable of obedient responders. "Oh, it's ---'s image, it must be a great image". Please don't get me wrong, I'm generally content with the feedback I get or I wouldn't be paying to be here and even giving gift memberships to some really great photographers who were not going to stay because of the petty ratings they got. Again, I think the latest changes are a real improvement and thank you for your hard work. I wonder, though, if you're doing all of this as some sort of penance for misdeeds in a previous life. Would you like that scotch delivered to home or PO Box...?

November 17, 2010

Tomek makes a lot of interesting points. However, I wonder if they reflect the intended goal of this forum; to share and help our fellow photographers develop their skills.

If we must have a number, I think the mean is the simplest and easiest number for most folks to understand and the inclusion of the names is a real step in the right direction of ferreting out the "cheaters and trolls".

The inclusion of names goes further in that direction. It at least requires some level of accountability but is still pretty useless. A naked number tells little or nothing about why the rater picked that number. The older, two part system, at least gave some idea of what the rater meant.

I would love to see a system where no number could be assigned (anon or not) unless the rater first offered a written critique.

I try to be a player, using the rules de jure, on the rating portion but while trying to be conscientious I find myself going back and changing numbers after a deeper consideration.

What I like, and what I try to do takes a lot more time but I think it goes more in the direction of what this forum is about. When I see something about an image that might improve it I often; download the image, adjust it, upload it and include it in my critique. Often it sparks a really great exchange of ideas. Here's a recent example

http://www.photo.net/photo/11939130

Incidentally, even though this takes a lot more time, it doesn't seem to figure into the algorithm of what qualifies as a "Golden Critiquer"....

November 16, 2010

Yeah Josh and team.

Good and getting even better.

Guess we'll have to seek out an address for that skotch...

September 8, 2010

My two cents;

I liked the two levels as it gave me the latitude to say, with numbers, "Wow that was a great capture but gee I think you might have done better on the focus, contrast, pp etc." or vice versa. So, I would vote to bring that part back. I'm thinking that the term "Originality" may not be the right term. Maybe something like Subject or Content.

As We have discussed numerous times, I think the idea of anonymity is well targeted to the self-described "ratings whores" who's cadre of followers often rate their images on reputation instead of the quality of the image. As long as I can both rate and comment on the post, I'm happy.

Regardless, this revision reflects a lot of thought and time, and I thank you for that.

April 3, 2009

This has go to be the funniest "strip" yet! So, with way too much time on my hands, I off my own contorted contribution containing controversial comical comments; Mamaiya you Leica Rollie aroun Olympus wi da Brownie, Smena da Lomo guys knock Yashica out o' ya. I Canon unnerstan da Hassebald guy (he’s needin some Minoxodil), he Sigma me ta Contax Ricoh an his Sony ta put Nik on da Kyoceragoround wi Ep son. Zeiss I say is Zorki idea. Casio FED up wi dis Zero Image, Holga phone! Sam sung on da Alpa guys cuz Panasonic Fujin on their Pentaxes. Sanyo say “don Benq on it”. BTW, Hew lett Broncica take da Voigtlander to Kiev to see da Vivitars and Kodaks

37, did I miss any" I gotta go

February 9, 2009

If you have time, Anza Borrego State Park (the biggest of all CA state parks) is just up the road from the Salton Sea and has a much different feel and nature than Joshua Tree. Lots of opportunities there, you might even bag a big horn. About J tree, it's really big too and the South entrance, like Cottonwood Springs, is much higher and has totally different variety than the low lands in the North. If you are into old buildings, Keys Ranch, near Jumbo Rocks, is a good choice but is usually only a ranger lead operation.

Sign In

Profiles

Forums

Blogs

Events

Downloads

Gallery

Store

Posts posted by steveshinn