grh

+1 on the above, except that the usual response to this problem is to hire a lawyer and attempt to negotiate a license after the fact. And fix your website.

I got sued by a lawyer without any notice to pay for using a Getty image on my business website.

 

I have used a photo from google that is without any watermark and Still available online.

 

Also, I wanna mention that only a small part of the photo has been used on my website and when I use Google reverse-search on the image "the one that is on my website" nothing will show up on google.

Also: freely available doesn't mean free. That applies to images, music, video, whatever. Unless a license is specifically granted, assume that someone owns it and you can't do whatever you want.

There's no defense for "I only used part of it". And TinEye/other tools may not work with partial images. Your excuse has no merit.

Or make us feel nothing like what you felt when you saw the scene, especially if you felt smelly, sweaty, nauseous, and thirsty because you hiked a long way to the scene. Then again, getting us to feel those things might be a great accomplishment and even tougher than awestruck.

Okay, that's both legitimate and pretty funny. :-D

One of the things that pull me to the Z6 is the in camera stabilizer, I like to shoot a lot with manual lens,

I appreciate that, but IS isn't necessarily going to fix bad technique. I use some manual lenses, and I'm not the most stable person. I'm forcing myself to improve my skills.

Have you tried a Z6, and found it advantageous in that area?

So my thinking would be that the shrubs in the reference image carry the same weight (and approximate size) as the dead branches in my shot as far as foreground objects, so I guess I'm having compositional trouble understanding why mine is not as good in that specific aspect.

Two comments:

The reference image has round, green things on a field of gold. I don't see anything comporable in yours. Stop looking at what you think is there, and look at texture, shape, color, size, definition. (Hint: the dead shrubs in your image have almost zero interest, aside from the left-most, near one.)

Better yet, turn the images upside down, and keep them there to do your analysis. Remove the context / paradigm from your visual and analyze what is really there. Not what you think is there.

I was thinking about picking up a used D850 at the end of the year upgrading from a D750, but from the price of the D850 used is around the same as the Z6 new, the Z7 is out of my price range and more camera than I think I will ever use.

If the Z7 is more camera than you need, then so is the D850. They're not that far apart.

I test-drove a D810 3 years ago, then bought the D750. I added a D850 this year for: truly silent shooting (I shoot classical music events) and flexibility in resolution (I often shoot at 24MP, not 47), and a bit better low light performance (I shoot a lot in dim light). I had the money, I had the need, I bought. If not for the silent mode, however, I'd have stayed with the D750. It's a great body.

A few more questions:

 

Will Sony continue to manufacture their XQD cards? Could they switch to CFexpress themselves entirely?

 

Are their current XQD cards expected to drop in prices in the following months?

 

Any information on when Nikon are expected to put out the firmware upgrade?

Sony doesn't even use XQD in their still cameras because there's no bandwidth requirement. Until we get 4K 60fps, or 6K or 8K, UHS-II will handle the data rates just fine.

The great thing about XQD (and PCI devices in general) is that buffering can be essentially dispensed with. Having watched a D4 in continuous mode basically never stop shooting RAW files, it's pretty clear what might be done.

XQD is the new MemoryStick. Good job, Sony.

No, no word on the FW patch. Still waiting and hoping for my D850.

Regarding your comparison, comment #10:

The reference image has layers, it has light and dark (hightlights and shadows), clear color variations, foreground interest (shrubs), a sky with variations (blue and clouds), and there are shape variances.

Your image puts the mountains so far back that nothing is really distinct. the dead trees aren't large enough to be interesting, and the sky is so gray that it loses interest. What you have is 3 bands of consistency. You could (as suggested) work in post to make each of those come to life. At the very least your tonal range should be expanded. Adding contrast and perhaps a touch of clarity to the sky will help to define the clouds. I don't think much can be done with the mountains due to their distance.

You say the two shots are similar, but they're not, aside from color palette. Study this. Then go study how to post-process landscape shots. Research composition. Learn about dodging and burning.

Above all, learn to make us feel what you felt when you saw the scene.

I would think the OP is asking about watermarking, which can be accomplished via a Lightroom feature, Photoshop/etc, or any of a number of other apps. Without further information about tools currently in use, it would be pointless to offer instruction, IMO.

The OP did not mention theft (misappropriation) or ownership. If that is of concern (I'll add here) don't post your images online. Ever.

You lose nothing by using the widest color space available: AdobeRGB when shooting RAW, ProPhotoRGB when editing in LR/PS/whatever. Export to sRGB always for labs and social media, for JPGs and PNGs.

Print work usually required CMYK, but I'm not sure how that overlaps the versions of RGB. I just stay as wide as possible in an attempt to avoid conversion problems.

With all due respect, you want an NVME device for scratch space, and a large SSD for workspace. Save the spinny drives for long-term storage.

I have a 4TB RAID 1 volume on my windows system for my main LR catalog, and a 1TB SSD for things I"m working on. I boot from a 1TB NVME with lots of empty scratch space. I move folders back between the SSD and spinny as needed. Both get backed up to another server.

I grew up in Albuquerque, and have been going back to the Albuquerque International Balloon Fiesta for several years now. Here are some shots taken with a Nikon D5100 (crop sensor), ISO 3200, 1/100s @ f/5. I can't comment on film (never used it, never will) but this might give you a reference point for deciding what to do.

FWIW, glows are awesome. Enjoy your time.

<p>ZF uses MPix and MPix Pro (in the US), both of which are owned by Miller's Lab.<br>

Some folks swear by Nation's or Bay Photo. There's also Whitehouse, Pound's, ProDPI, and others. Most of these are pro labs and don't work with consumers.</p>

<p>Good question. Some folks use eBay as a storefront; there's no reason you should/could not. Another choice might be Amazon, although I don't know how that works, but I've purchased items (fixed price) from Europe and China.<br>

It's not clear that eBay, in and of itself, is going to help your market exposure. You probably need a website and blog for that, and use something like eBay as a fulfillment channel. (1) folks find you, (2) they like your work, (3) they want to purchase something. eBay may or may not help with (1) and (2).<br>

IMO.</p>

<p>Highly recommend "Understanding Exposure" by Bryan Peterson, and playing on dofmaster.com to understand how various parameters affect the depth of field. There's more to it than just focal length.</p>

<p>Going to express an different opinion than what Kent reports above. Primes, <em>even on a Nikon</em>(really?), provide more function for a reason. Most of the Nikkor lenses are reported as doing very well at 2.0 or 2.2.<br>

But I can't replicate a 50 f/1.8 using a 24-70 f/2.8. It's not possible. That's why an 85 f/1.8 is on my short list.</p>

<p>The new Sigma 50 f/1.4 Art lens is getting rave reviews. YMMV.</p>

<p>If you are on Windows...<br>

If you told LR to "Delete the images and remove from LR" then the folder has been moved to your recycle bin. You'll need to go there and recover it (using Windows Explorer). Once you do that you can Import the original images from that folder and just "Add" them to LR (instead of "Copy" or "Move").<br /><br />Your edits are probably gone, but at least you'll have the originals.<br>

What is unclear is why removing the images from a collection would delete them. It doesn't work that way on my system. All "delete" does is remove the image from the collection. You have to be working in the actual folder to completely remove the image from LR.<br /><br />Good luck.</p>

<p>The word you're looking for is "diffusion". You'll want to control highlights, as well.</p>

<p>There was a recent session on tabletop photography on CreativeLive (Tabletop 101) and I just got an email this morning from PN about a commercial photography class. I would recommend investing time in a course to get a better feel for what equipment makes sense for your products and situation.</p>

<p>The D7000 holds it's own quite well in low-light situations. But it sounds to me as if you're not real sure what you're doing with respect to lenses and exposure.</p>

<p>Since FX lenses can be used on a DX body, I'd suggest acquiring glass first and learning to use it. The body can wait, and you can still make money using a crop-sensor body. And frankly, talk of a D3 or D4 seems quite premature. A really expensive body is not going to make you an amazing photographer.</p>

<p>What Colin said. You point to your catalog(s) and it will upgrade and create a new LR5-specific catalog. Your old one will be untouched. Your new one will be found in the same location as the old.</p>

<p>Nothing else will be moved/altered/affected.</p>

<p>I've gone through this twice now: 3 -> 4 and 4-> 5, as well as 3 -> 5 on a laptop. It works a treat.</p>