Dustin McAmera

See also the other thread about the same news report:

I took my old Fuji to town and photographed nothing in particular for a couple of hours. They were setting up a fair for St Valentine's. The focus is annoyingly slow; the EVF doesn't have enough pixels, and the screen is tiny; the camera doesn't handle scenes with a wide range of brightness very well. Colours are quite bright. Details are poor when you look close. I'm not sure what sharpening is set here: maybe too much. I will take it out again, and try a wider range of settings. I expect it to be worse at high ISO; I had plenty of light here. I will say this for it; it has sat unused for a long time without its body going sticky.

You know that's just the forum member's choice who starts that thread every week? As a member, you can start threads of your own; just once ('A few pictures with my Nikon F3, which I took out after a long time'), or every week ('Swimsuit Saturday', 'Formal Friday') and whatever rules you like, as long as they're within the site's rules. Or I guess you could message the guy who runs Nikon Wednesday. Maybe not; it seems this is run by a small group of members, and is modeled on something that has quite a long history. So if you start your own thread, you're unlikely to get the same level of participation. But nothing to stop you doing it anyway.

Not Safe For Work, I believe: it means boobs (etc!) 🙀 That is, not fit to be viewed on your work computer. Wherever I have worked, the issue would be less that you were looking at boobs than that it wasn't work.

It's not really the airlines. They wouldn't want their reputations sullied with such squalid methods. These guys are organised crime, hoping someone will be dumb enough to phone one of their numbers and be talked into giving away their bank details for a hefty 'booking fee'. I'm trying hard not to blame India. I mean, nobody - *nobody* - could call me an imperialist, but this internet spam wouldn't have happened in Queen Victoria's time.

Are you a depressed spammer? 😒 Phone this number for moral support and advice: +99 123 456789. Please have your bank details handy..💷💶💵

Reporting the scammers and spammers worked this morning, but the spammers stay logged in and are able to post again, it seems, while the system gets round to hiding them. So they are able to build up their posts until they don't get hidden. You could maybe increase the threshold number of posts (to something like 25 or 50!)? There's another form of that phone-number spam, being done on profile pages (in fact, there's a lot of spam profile-pages, because there's no Report button on a profile page). An example is user bellsouth1002. Also, I see people logged in who have been banned as spammers days ago. Why does banning them not stop them logging in? When we had this problem at Camera-wiki, we had a ban that blocked their username from logging in, and also stopped any login or account creation at their IP address. That wasn't as much help as it should be - I understand people can conceal their real IP address. We became concerned at the buildup of banned usernames. We had a made-up user called Spammer, and there was a procedure for merging the real spammer into that user, then the real spammer's username was deleted. Merging first meant the spammer's IP address was retained in the banned list, and meant the wiki could keep a complete history of the changes to articles (with spam actions listed as by the user 'Spammer').

There's more than one way. To add a photo to one of the themed galleries, go to the gallery you want to add to. At the top of any page, under Explore, click Gallery, and choose one of the catgories. At the top right is a green button 'Add images'. Once you click that, you'll be guided as to whether you want to add your images in a gallery of your own, or just a single image in the category you chose; and there's some options about copyright etc. If you only want to post your picture in a discussion thread, you can click in the Reply box at the bottom of the thread, and as it opens up, at the bottom of the box is a pale-grey strip with 'drag files here to attach, or choose files'. I think if you add them as attachments like this, that thread is the only place they'll appear. You can't later use them in a gallery, without uploading again. Incidentally, if you have your photos at Instagram or Flickr, you can just paste the url of the page where they're hosted there, and photo.net will turn that into an embedded link showing the picture; again, only within that discussion thread.

(Forget I spoke!)

Selenium is an element, yes, but the selenium cell is an assembly, which can indeed die. I only half-understand this. The resistance of selenium decreases when it is illuminated. Somehow (don't ask me!) this means that if you have a layer of selenium illuminated on one side, it generates a small voltage between the dark and light sides. So a selenium cell is made as a robust metal plate as the backing and one electrode, on which the thin layer of selenium is (somehow) applied. On top of that is a thin, transparent conductive layer, and electrodes are attached on top of that, at the edge. The transparent conductive layer is needed for the voltage from the whole area to reach the upper electrodes. I found this page by Ian Partridge, who offers to replace the cell in some Weston meters: https://ian-partridge.com/cells.html He says the cells fail when lacquer applied to protect that top layer fails; dries up and cracks, letting oxygen get at the selenium.

I'm going to phone the number and ask them politely to stop.

If the spam report thing works at all, one report per spammer is supposed to be enough, but it needs to be before they have got properly started. I need to get outdoors soon too. Maybe a filter against strings of numbers in the subject? Obviously Leica will then bring out the M123467...

Ooer missus!

The Borg have adapted to our phasers; we need to rotate the polarity.

Dude, that's my funky* retro Fuji you're dissing. Mine has a respectable history. I used it in the lab for a piece of work where I used an image-analysis extension of SPSS to measure things in the image. At the time it felt pretty advanced. I had no budget to buy me a camera, and this was the best one I could afford. *Seriously: it has a 1GB IBM Microdrive: a one-inch wide hard disc!

This is a 'derived work'. This earlier thread is relevant: In that thread, I said 'Photographing artworks is always tricky. If I were an art student, I might photograph artworks to help my memory of them, if the gallery even allowed that. I wouldn't think of reworking or publishing the pictures without permission. On the street, it's often impossible to photograph a scene without an artwork being in view, and an artwork may be an essential part of a place. That's different from the museum, because we own the public space; Henry Moore doesn't get to forbid us from photographing the High Street when one of his things is put there. But even then, I'll check with myself that my picture is 'of the High Street', not just of the sculpture. I might still take a tourist picture of the scuplture, for my own memory, but I wouldn't publish it.' That said, I can find a couple of my own pictures where I photographed one of the public sculptures in my city for the purpose of discussing/mocking it.

+1 for that! 'Probationer', then 'Member'. (then 'Regular', 'Veteran',.. ooh and there could be badges!)

The article was about people being nostalgic for the early 21st century, and using cameras from then as talismans of their youth. Time moves so fast for the young; when you're twenty, ten years ago is like the stone age. Then suddenly you're thirty, and you realise you remember your dad being as old as you are now, and the ten years between those moments went like nothing. I have my family's 620 Brownie box camera which I remember from holidays in my early childhood, and my grandparents' slightly more upmarket model. I'm glad to have them, and I'm glad I know how to use cameras like that. There might be some element of nostalia in that. I have my own Canon AE-1 too, and still use it from time to time. But nostalgia can't explain why I seek out older cameras, and ones that were never familiar to my parents or grandparents. I can see how an early digital would be interesting for someone who has got used to (say) an iphone. Imagine not having a rear-facing camera too! Imagine dealing with that slow autofocus all the time! My current camera is an EOS M50 from 2018. My second oldest digital is a Fuji from 2002 - I spent the intervening years on film cameras. I still have that Fuji though, and it takes AA batteries, so I'm fully equipped for some digital nostalgia. Not looking forward to that slow focus though.

I think Flickr accounts could do what you need. I worked at the university here for some years. A colleague involved in research in some area of building materials science wanted to set up a shared space where he and contacts at other universities could put photographs of samples, sites etc for any of them to use. He ended up setting up a Flickr account. I think he started it as a free one; but free accounts have since become more restricted: I think they're limited to 1000 items now. A Pro account is unrestricted but costs about 72 dollars per year (I'd forgotten it was that much!) I'm not sure what Flickr think about users sharing an account: if I remember right, that's what my colleague was proposing to do. There would be nothing to stop you having an account each, keeping your stuff limited to friends and family, and posting it to a shared private group. That might mean a 1000-items limit wouldn't be a problem for some or all of you. It would take some coordination to get everyone's account set up, everyone tagged as friends by everyone else, and then set up the group.

It is odd: I see in the Member Albums all (all the ones I looked at) had both a Comments tab and a Review tab. That included people listed as Pro and as Members. If you specifically *want* review of a particular photo (not just wondering why that tab hasn't appeared for you), then there's the 'Seeking critique' forum: https://www.photo.net/forums/forum/53-seeking-critique/

Did one of these this morning. Doesn't take effect immediately, so dont be discouraged!

'Black-and-white is better than colour' is an old conversation, isn't it? 'Film is better than digital' is another one. First you asked and other posters answered; yes there are. Then you moved the goalposts: to be good isn't enough: Really? So.. Vivian Maier never sold any photos and died poor; what a lousy photographer she must have been. Don't be told what you should admire by the rich and the art museums. Decide for yourself what photographs are good. If you prefer black-and-white, go ahead and work with it and look at it, but don't tell everyone else what they may like.

The image just posted is (in my browser) displayed as 828 wide x 793 tall. In the first positive version posted, I think there's a dark stripe at the top that has been included. They've cropped the bottom and anti-cropped the top: included some of the black gap between frames in the scan. I think that would be enough to throw out auto settings of colour densities, wouldn't it?

..except that if the selenium cell dies, those cameras are much less usable. I have a Trip, but my favourite camera of that type is my FED Mikron, a copy of the Konica Eye. It does full auto exposure, or manual aperture at a fixed 1/30 second, which I guess is intended for flash. Without the meter cell working, that would be the only way of shooting. Whereas my FED 4 has a non-coupled selenium cell, which has died while in my care; but the rest of the camera works just the same. I wouldn't use that meter, partly for not trusting it and partly for the reasons Rodeo Joe mentioned.