dean_matsueda

You can definitely "roll your own" web publishing program but why reinvent the wheel

when there are a *ton* of free, open source and commerical software available for you to

use?

However, if you do go down the road of building out your own database, you might want

to start with some basics of designing databases. It's not just the fields you need to know

-- which is highly dependent on what information you want to display on your site -- but

also design concepts like "normalization"; primary and foreign keys; joins; and indexing.

For relatively simple web databases, this isn't rocket science and if you Google for article

and tutorials, I'm sure you'll find good stuff.

Tech book publisher, O'Reilly, has some good articles on database designing and on a

number of web scripting languages you'll need to know to connect to the database and

display the information.

www.oreilly.com

<img src="http://static.flickr.com/19/97821083_73bba48bfa.jpg">

<p>

Nikon F2as, 105mm lens + 27.5mm extension tube</p>

I have both cameras and when I'm running out the door, the F2as is the one I always take

with me when shooting 35mm. The 100% view is the main reason I bought it and I actually

like the heaviness of it -- it just feels solid in my hands. Plus... the F2's are the last of the

hand-built Nikons.

Are they worth almost 3x the price of an FM2n? That, you'll have to decide for yourself.

I have the Isolette III and a Certo Six (coupled-rangefinder) and I actually find the "guess-

focusing" method to be a lot faster. Then again, the Certo didn't have the brightest

rangerfinder in the world so, perhaps the slowness was due to having a harder time seeing

the rangefinder.

But y'know, I've seen some really wonderful results from the Russian copies and I wouldn't

necessarily count-out some of the "lesser known" folders, too -- Baldas; Voigtlaners; etc.

Robert, have you checked out CE Nelson's (Craig's) forum yet? You'll find some good

threads from folks posting pix from their favorite folders.

nelsonfoto.com/phpBB2

<p><em>However, I am keen to try and develop my camera skills, not my Photoshop

skills and think that at least one gallery dedicated to 'original' images could only help me

become a better photographer.</em></p>

<p>

Interesting but I fail to see how a manipulated image hinders one's learning to be a better

photographer. To me, this is a non-issue in this specific case. Photography, as we all

know, is a very involved, multi-dimensional process and it requires a lot of different skills

and creativity from the moment you visualize a shot to making a print or posting it

online.</p>

<p>

Personally, I try to keep my mind open to a diversity of different processes and hopefully,

I'll always be learning something new along the way to become a better photographer.</

p>

Great shot. Golden Gate Park?

I've been dreaming of finding a nice Rolleiflex 2.8 with a working light meter... they seem

wonderful to handle and obviously from your picture, they take equally wonderful images.

Hope you're having fun with it!

<p>

Hi robbie,<br>

If you're going to be starting a blog, hold-off on finding HTML templates. The typical blog

is more than a set of templates that you fill up with content -- it's a publishing system

that faciliates dynamic interaction with your visitors. So, with that, I'd start with finding a

blogging tool that you can use right now and one that has capabilities down the road to

serve as management system for your online photo gallery and perhaps, an e-commerce

system.</p>

<p>

Blogging tools come in two basic types: hosted solutions where you pay a monthly fee and

they take care of all the rest; and the host-yourself solution.</p>

<p>

If you're looking for something long-term, the host-yourself solution is probably a better

way to go because you may want to use it to manage the rest of your web site. It does

require a bit of geek-muscle in the beginning to get it running but once it's set, you're

good to go.</p>

<p>

Hosted Blogging Solutions:<br>

* typepad.com<br>

* wordpress.com<br>

* blogger.com<br>

* squarespace.com</p>

<p>

Host-it Yourself (free, open source blogging tools)</p>

* textpattern.com<br>

* wordpress.org</p>

<p>

HTH,<br>

..dean</p>

<p><em>I have been using GIMP (stupid, stupid, stupid name)...</em></p>

<p>

Yeah, it's weird name but that's kind of typical for open source software. But, the name is an

acronym: The GNU Image Manipulation Program. The GNU is from the GNU Project, one of, if

not the first, free and open source software distribution.</p>

<p>

Anyway, back on topic, it doesn't have all the features of Photoshop but it is a viable

alternative. I think if you have the time to learn it, there's no reason why you shouldn't use

it.</p>

<p><em>Thanks for the response so far. I have a Mamiya RB67 ProS.</em></p>

<p>

I have that exact model and a 180mm (non-C) lens, too. it's definitely coated for color film...

took this shot last year with it but the later C and KL lens are supposed to be sharper:</p>

<img src="http://www.5oh.org/images/oc_2005.jpg" width="326" height="425">

Yes, I've been under the impression that pretty much all lens made from the late-40s - early

'50s onwards are coated. This is supposed to have conincided with the rising popularity of

color film.

Thanks, Larry, for checking. Both me and another software engineer wrote to KEH tonight

about this issue. From their reply, KEH is aware of this issue and they are trying to correct it.

Definitely a visual improvement but you know what? There's no way to link to a specific

camera that they have on sale anymore. At least, none that I can see how... can someone try

to verify this? I'm looking at the HTML source code and on specific product pages there's

what looks to be a huge session variable which I think keeps track of the user's movement

within their site.

If I may further express my two cents (and I don't mean this to belittle anyone's reponses

here)... I think the core issue is this:

The success of the world wide web and why it was even started was never about protecting

intellectual property or copyright. In fact, it was created for the exact opposite reason: to

freely share information.

To willingly destroy that ability to share information by, for example, disabling the right-

click feature via Javascript really doesn't do anything to deter someone who wants to steal

another person's image. What happens is that you end up frustrating honest users who are

by far, the majority of people who browse through this site.

Disclaimer: What sad and meager photos I have taken and uploaded to this site, no, I don't

care if someone uses it without my permission.

As someone else mentioned, if you have very strong feelings about how your work is used

-- i.e. you have problems with sharing (which is perfectly valid) -- DO NOT, under no

circumstances, post them on the web. If everyone followed this rule, maybe we'd all get

along much better... :-)

<p><em>Would be much more light sensitive, allowing you to shoot very high iso

without noise problems. And would capture the image detail of a much higher mp sensor!

</em></p>

<p>

I don't mean to rain on your parade and your idea is very nice but you just described the

characteristics of using a medium format film camera loaded with your choice of black and

white film.</p>

<p>

So I dunno... my gut feeling is that the demand is being already being met with already

existing (and very cheap) film cameras. :-) </p>

<p><em>I have been fondly remembering the days when I carried a second camera body

loaded with Tri-X.</em></p>

<p>

Just curious... any reason why you can't do this now? A couple hundred dollars (US) will get

you another good MF body back in your hands!</p>

<p><em>Simple measures can prevent this and with a site as large as this, with as many

images hosted here, it would make sense to provide that simple code to stop such

happenings.</em></p>

<p>

Disabling Control-click or Right-click to prevent the easiest way to download an image to

disk is a good thought but I'm not sure it's worth the effort. It's *trivial* to get-around that...

just turn-off Javascript in your browser's preference settings and anyone can easily download

images again. But, that's something for Brian to decide whether or not it's worth

implementing.</p>

Well, I don't think you're going to completely statisfy those who hate flash websites... and

yes, I'm one of them although I try to pragmatic about it.

First of all, if you're pleased with it, then that's all that really matters. But, you should be

aware of one thing:

* Google can't read the text on your all-Flash site. If you Google your name, you'll see that

it has a copy of your old site. You might want to check back in a couple of weeks to see if

it's updated but I'm pretty sure that all your new photos and content won't show up.

Because of this, I generally recommend that if you absolutely must use Flash, consider a

hybrid site. Use Flash to display your photos but use HTML to display information about

you, your business, and very importantly, contact information. That way, you can be sure

that all the major seach engines will correctly index your site.

Just my opinion: Agfa Isolette III or any MF Folder -- they're all small and light enough to

carry around anywhere I go.

<p>One (of many) way to do this:</p>

<ol>

<li>open up your first image in Photoshop</li>

<li>open up your second<//li>

<li>using the Move tool (keyboard shortcut: press the "v" key) and drag and drop the

image of your second photo on top of your first photo</li>

<li>repeat for any other images you want to composite</li>

<li>make sure you have the layers palette visible; each image is on a separate layer that

you can move around independently</li>

<li>you'll probably want to resize your window to fit all the image so go to Image ===>

Canvas Size and enter width and height values accordingly</li>

</ol>

<p>

Hope that helps to get you started...</p>

If you want to increase traffic to your site, try blogging and if you aren't already, start

reading other people's blogs that interest you.

1) keeping a regularly updated blog on your site will give people a reason to visit and

revisit your site if they find what you have to say interesting or relevant to their world. All

these people will not necessarily need a wedding photographer but word-of-mouth to

friends and family who might one day be looking for one, might help.

2) as you read other people's blog, you may find yourself participating and leaving

comments. This is a *great* opportunity to leave your website address with your

comments. This in turn will help raise your ranking in Google because the more web sites

that point to your site, the higher your ranking will be.

Bas and Barry: How do you guys know this? Do you have access to one of the developer kits

with an Intel processor and have ran Photoshop on them? I dunno... you might be right as I

haven't seen PS run on an Intel Mac but until then, I'd like to see some benchmarks on

running Photoshop CS2 on a new MacBook vs. a G4.

The MacBooks won't be shipping until February -- probably mid-February if you compare

when Dell will shipping their dual-core Intel laptops -- so you'll probably have to wait

until then to hear or read any reviews.

But if you're going to get a Mac, I might suggest getting the G4 Powerbook over the

MacBook for two reasons:

1) Photoshop; the latest version doesn't run natively on the Intel architecture of the

MacBook. It runs under software emulation and while the speed seems to be decent, if you

spend a significant amount of time using Photoshop everyday, the performance might be a

problem.

2) Generally speaking, it's a good idea to wait until the Revision 2 -- second generation --

of any new hardware. Minor problems in the first generation will be found and usually

they're fixed by the second generation. This is not a hard and fast rule, but this is a major

change for the Macintosh so unless you're the type that must have the latest and greatest,

you might want to wait... at least until the reviews come in.

Yeah, I love a well-built, heavy camera, too... as someone else mentioned, it just feels right.

I was in a store looking for a digital camera and I complained to a sales-dude that all the

cameras felt so small and fragile in my hands... didn't they have any camera bodies not built

with lots of plastic? Sales-dude looked at me as if I was nuts. "Well, most people want a

small, light camera... blah blah blah..." I think we both rolled our eyes at each other. :)

But if want *really* heavy, try carrying a Mamiya RB or RZ kit around... a 7-pound camera is

not really meant for traveling, I've learned.

That's cool, Shun... our values, in terms of cameras, are perhaps not the same. I love my

Powerbook but in two years, I'll have to stop using it and buy a new one and I'm totally fine

with that. Ah... but my 30 year old Nikon... yes, it's a tool to take photographs but I think

if you look a little deeper, it's much more than that.

Like you and just about every member in PN, we love photography. And with that, comes a

certain affinity for our "tools". Further, I think that there's something about a camera -- it's

workmanship, the way it was built; the fact that it'll probably still be usable 30 years from

now (provided film still exists...); its history -- makes it very special in my eyes.

But then again, I'm an overly-romantic fool... :)

<p>

<em>Replacement cost will be so low that it is not really worthwhile to repair any

more.</em></p>

<p>

In all due respect, Shun, I feel that's a sad statement. The reason why I like like shooting

my F2AS is because it such a jewel of a camera. When it needs a CLA or if something

breaks, I'm not going to just throw it away and buy a new one. Perhaps I'm over-

romantizing my F2, but I have too much respect for the craftsmanship and its history to be

so cavalier about it.</p>

<p>

I have no problem replacing my computer every couple of years but in my opinion, my F2

is worthy of a better fate than in the garbage bin of history.</p>