geoff_edwards

Hi I am having troubling uploading tif files to the company that makes my prints. Average size is 30Mb. He has said that my internet connection is too slow. Checking I have 5.5Mbs down and 3Mbs up. On a search it appears that 3Mbs is not bad at all some people have less than 1Mbs. My daughter has 20MBs down and 0.8Mbs up!

<p>Thanks Colin your suggestion worked, I now have my printer back in operation. After I had cleaned the roller the first sheet of paper that went through the printer had a dirty imprint where the roller had picked it up. I don't have the rear paper sheet attachment but have found one on eBay UK. Thanks once again Colin.</p>

<p>Thanks Colin, that's a relief. I'll try your suggestion for cleaning the pickup rubber although it does look clean.</p>

<p>Hi<br>

I have an Epson R2400 printer bought in 2006. Due to lack of space I didn't get to use it till 2015. I am unable to use the printer as it won't load paper. Previously, it had printed less than 30 A3 prints and they were superb. Now, I am reduced to loading paper via the front, the printer will handle normal thickness paper and it should not affect quality, but the quality is poor.<br>

So, as I have posted "paper feed problem and more" what has gone wrong? I have been in contact with Epson and they have advised me but the printer still will not load paper normally, they didn't ask me whether it load paper via the front or the back.<br>

Since the printer does record the number of prints Epson could confirm that my £500 spent on the printer has resulted in less than 40 A3 prints being made, it has of course been used to print A4 text and I do not know how much that would be. The printer is out of warranty as although I bought it in 2006 and didn't use it till 2015 the product is hardly value for money.<br>

OK, maybe there is some deterioration due to the printer not being used and I mean not being used, no cartridges were even fitted. I could find dates when I bought new cartridges from Amazon and possible confirm the date when I bought a set of cartridges from an eBay seller but so what Epson do not have to make an exception in my case. At the very least can the printer be repaired? And how much will that cost?<br>

Should the product deteriorate due to it not being put into use? Other users have had Epson printers and have had years of use, so I have been unlucky. Well, it looks like I will not be spending any more money on Epson products.<br>

At present, although I can feed normal thickness of paper from the front the quality is poor. Why is this? Should the paper be thicker?</p>

<p>Looking at other manufacturers' products and users commentsI am not keen to spend more money on a replacement A3 printer. I will probably end up buying an A4 printer and getting my archival quality prints from a fine art printer.<br>

In the mean time, can anyone help to advise me on adjusting the paper pick up issue and the loss of quality when using the front option to load paper?</p>

 

<p>Hi<br>

I have a Mamiya 67 and because of the costs of taking a photo I am considering replacing the camera with a digital equivalent. Is there one? <br>

My trouble is that I may encounter a situation where I may need high quality 67 or 54 and my film is still too cold to load and wasted if not used. Ideally a digital camera could replace my film camera but how much would it cost?</p>

<p>Hi this might be an old topic but the question is still relevant. I was told by a friend that they had a online image uploader refuse to accept a demand for a large print from their digital image as it was too small! <br>

I find with some of my photos that unless the photo is printed to a large size it will not be possible to see the detail! The link is to one of my favourites: <a href="http://www.freshfordmill.co.uk/autumn_colour_in_freshford.htm">http://www.freshfordmill.co.uk/autumn_colour_in_freshford.htm</a> It is only when one clicks on the link to a full size detail of the picture that one can see that the photo does have a lot more than one can see at the commonly suggested size. The print size which the detail provides is 19x14 inches or 48x36 cm but in a large room I would print so as to get 36x27 inches or 92x68 cm. viewing at about a yard away or just a bit smaller say A1 size. Unfortunately, I was stuck with the imagee size that the camera provided, so the quality will be lower than desired.<br>

So in summary I think that for complex images it may be best to print a much larger print than some recommend.</p>

<p>Hi<br>

I have Vegas Pro 10 64bit edition. Running on a Windows 7 Dell workstation. It was an upgrade from the entry level Sony Movie Studio HD production suite. It cost me less than 200 GBP for both programs. Pro 10 will burn to Bluray disks. Given the cost of the upgrade I think that Vegas is the better option. The Home Production suite is fine but I want to run Plural Eyes software so as to produce auto syncing over multilple video tracks.</p>

 

<p>In relation to the usability of vari angle LCD screens further to my disappointment with the Panasonic camcorders that I bought I have found that Canon with its new 600D SLR has realised that there is an issue. Here is a quote from their sales literature:<br />"The EOS 600D’s 3” Vari-Angle LCD screen not only flips 175° and rotates 270° - it also has an incredible 1,040,000 dot resolution and 3:2 aspect ratio, offering incredible flexibility of shooting without compromising on quality. So whether you’re shooting across a crowd or from ground-level, you’ll capture the scene perfectly every time. Plus, the EOS 600D’s anti-reflective, water-repellent coating makes for easy viewing in bright light and from a variety of angles."<br>

<br />I haven't had a chance to handle one yet. I am wondering whether the highly glossy vari angle LCD screens on the Panasonic camcorders can be treated with something slightly abbrasive so as to reduce reflections?</p>

<p>@Jack Quote:</p>

 

<p>"It's swell to voice your opinion regarding this issue, but I would suggest doing it in an article format if you want to put forth only your perspective. Asking it in the form of a question will always result in differing opinions, many of which are just as legitimate as anyone else's.<br />Why ask for opinions then 'correct' most of what someone else says?<br />Statements like 'far superior' and 'proper' are just inflammatory to a lot of people."<br>

It is not "swell to voice my opinion regarding this issue" It is MY issue that has been raised if you have nothing to say on the issue then refrain from responding. All that I have raised is two queries on camcorder design: to repeat: is the multiangle LCD monitor usable? And are the camcorder controls accessible?</p>

 

<p>I am sorry Jack and Bill but my question was "Does camcorder design need a rethink?" It appears that this was misunderstood. In fact you are both, not deliberately, spoiling this thread. I was expecting people to discus multi angle LCD displays and their visibility and their ease of use. I am not a midget being 6 foot tall. So I should be able to use a camcorder or digital camera without undue problems. But are these manufacturers designing for adults or children?<br>

There will be some photographers who maybe thinking of getting into video and wonder whether they would be better off sticking with either a point and shoot camera like for example, the Canon SX10 20 30 etc or whether it is better to buy a camcorder. I own the SX10 and would be happy to buy an SX30 - which has HD 720. Or, even getting over 20MB still pictures and HD video by buying a Canon 5D Mark II except that my SX10 provides good still pictures. If most of your production<br>

I have stated that in my opinion, and bearing in mind the cameras that I have and with my knowledge of video cameras that for me a camcorder is a better option. If you don't have a medium or large format film camera then you are stuck with a digital camera, point and shoot or SLR camera. So my query Does Camcorder design need a rethink is relevant.<br>

There are two issues that I pointed out that should be particularly important to photographers, one is seeing what they are about to record the other is ease of use. SLR photographers will be bitterly disappointed by some camcorders as their multi-angle viewfinders are poor in bright sunllight -this may not be a problem with UK residents who are very lucky if they see the sun (not really relevantas it may be cold but the sun is shining:). Camcorders with proper viewfinders must cost more, so expect to pay more, do not complain.<br>

Never mind what I said about my cameras, but take my word for it that looking at what you are about to record on a Mamiya 67 is a real pleasure and also I recall my bright clear viewfinder on my Pentax Spotmatic 35mm film camera. Digital viewfinders are notably not as good IMHO. The reason being that the viewfinder itself is a pixel display - they are not glass.<br>

Let's resolve one issue SLR vs camcorder by refering the reader to: <a href="http://www.dvuser.co.uk/content.php?CID=246">http://www.dvuser.co.uk/content.php?CID=246</a> <br>

In fact I would query why call the video camera a camcorder except for the fact that the camcorder includes the recording mechanism. And what apart from a studio camera does not include a recorder in 2011? (Incidentally Bill search for SD 900 that's the SD card recorder. And why accept some youtube review as being an accurate review? I would prefer to review Amazon purchasers reviews. The only axe to grind is defending a poor purchase? Also beware, he who wants what would cost normally £20,000 for a camcorder for £400! <br>

The facts are that whatever manufacturer one chooses, a camcorder, an HD 1080 camcorder is cheaper, or not much more, than buying the benchmark Canon 5D Mark II and other high end still cameras with video capability. And I mean a semi-pro camcorder - which is capable of broadcast quality.</p>

 

<p>I am sorry Bill but I tend to disagree with you. The SD 900 has a three chip sensor and a Leica lens it is far superior to the Canon 5D which hasn't even got OIS. If I want high resolution still pictures I'll use my Mamiya 67 or my 5x4 Arca Swiss film cameras. The market for videocamcorders, or more correctly camcorders includes pros they are not toys for mums and dads. I have got a prime 20mm Canon lens and would like to add that to a camcorder, a proper camcorder not the Canon 5D. <br>

My choice would be a Panasonic AG-AF 100 its about £4,000 but it is a high definition 35 equivalent movie camera. My reason for posting the question is to give people an opportunity to think about camcorder design and in particular to publise the fact that some careful reconsideration of the functional aspects can be and should be made. Incidentally, I have a powerful Dell workstation with 13 GB of memory and Sony Vegas Pro so there is no problem editing full HD. And in case you missed it both the Panasonic SD 90 and the SD900 has 1902 x 1080 50P recording. Perhaps you need to have a good read of the specification of these camcorders before dismissing them. </p>

<p>After having been very pleased with my Canon SX10 I decided to buy a camcorder for HD video. The reasons being that although I particularly like the SX10's LCD monitor which can be moved to any convenient angle there aren't many DSLR cameras that have that facility. The drawback is that in strong lighting conditions it is best to use the viewfinder. I did think of buying a Canon 5D Mark II but didn't like the absence of the multi-angle monitor that the CAnon SX cameras have. I also think that it is expensive, especially as one could buy a pro camcorder for about the same price as the 5D. And I still have a Mamiya 67 for my landscape still photography :)<br>

I opted for two Panasonic camcorders the SD90 and the SD900, the latter has additional features one being a viewfinder in addition to the larger LCD screen and three sensors. The problem with these video camcorders is that there doesn't seem to have been enough attention given to the design; the features that make using them attractive or even possible have not been given enough thought! In bright light the LCD screens are virtually unusable. I dont know about other manufacturers but in the case of Panasonic's consumer camcorders the monitor screens are highly reflective due to a high gloss finish. <br>

Even using a screen hood or shade hardly helps as the problem is not ambient light but reflection of the camcorder user's check shirt and whatever else is directly behind the lens. I would have thought that it would be possible to alter the surface of the monitor screen to a dull finish similar to computer displays and TVs.<br>

Apart from the LCD screen, which under good viewing conditions can work very well the addition of an Electronic viewfinder (EV) is ommitted on the lower priced camcorders. In my opinion, at present, these camcorders are not suitable for outdoor use. One can hardly see what one is recording let alone use manual focus or exposure. Coming back to the EV in the case of the Panasonic SD900 the EV is good except for the lack of a rubber eyepiece! In use, in bright sunlight, one sees bright red as the sunlight penetrates the skin surrounding the user's eye! It's use is thus uncomfortable and hardly conducive to good photography. I have checked the SD900's manual and find no mention of a rubber eyecup, I suppose I'll just have to make one! I have already reread use of a horseblanket :)<br>

Finally, just because these modern camcorders can be made small in size doesn't mean that they should be, when to do so, means that the camcorder's controls can be almost too small to use. The SD90's On/Off button is tiny and close to the hinge of the LCD display, the SD900's On/Off button is higher, more central and larger. <br>

Incidentally, both these camcorders give excellent results! It is just the attention to detail that could make using them easier.</p>

<p>Hi<br>

I have an old Panasonic video camera a DS38 and a Canon Powershot SX10is I find the footage from the Canon is better than from the DS38. The Canon has what they call a Vario angle monitor which is very nice to use. I would like to buy a Canon 5D Mk II as well but don't like using a camera that does not have the vario display. The updated Canon Powershot the SX20 has HD video.<br>

I also find that shooting video on a camera is "less in your face" as one musician put it. The SX10 has stereo sound that is very acceptable.</p>

<p>Hi<br>

My video recorder has lost playback of sound and won't record programs and the sound now. I think I'll wait till Bluray is cheaper before updating my present recorder. But, an idea occurred to me. Is it possible to record TV programs directly to a modern video-camera? I am thinking of one of these SD card video-cameras. My television is a modern Toshiba, a Regza model C303<br>

Geoff</p>

<p>Hi<br>

I need to photograph a large double fronted shop window. The shop is in a very narrow street and even with a 20mm Canon lens I can't get it all in. If I take a couple of photos and stitch them together I can. But the resulting picture is in strong perspective. Ideally I'd like to photo the shopfront almost head on but there is just not enough room. One solution is to use a large tripod - I have one that extends to 11 feet -and photograph the shopfront in sections. I think I'd need at least two rows of three exposures making six images to stitch together. The street is also sloping so even if I had rails to move the tripod on to maintain a level shooting viewpoint I would be likely to have problems joining the images. I usually use Canon's Zoombrowser for stitching, I also have Photoshop SC3 (which I have little experience of using).<br>

Geoff</p>

<p>"It's the hypocrisy that chafes, here. I called the author a 'twit' because that cognitive dissonance - that juvenile embrace of immediate gratification without cost or thought to consequence - isn't what you'd expect from a person paid to think and write. Especially when they are paid by a company that, without the ability and demonstrated willingness to protect their copyrights and seek legal redress when infringed upon, wouldn't be able to meet their payroll. His paycheck doesn't bounce because his employer defends his copyrights. He celebrates that system with the smug observation that the same shouldn't be true for photographers"<br>

Exactly!</p>

<p>I agree with les- Ilka is right. Ifwe pay for our Cd's or LP's then although we are not allowed to copy them to another medium many people do not have any qualms in doing so. In the case of LP's I didn't agree in buying one that at some time in the future I would be no longer able to play it as the technology has moved on. In fact I have LP's that cannot be replaced by existing CD's. The cost of a CD is distributed not only to the artist but also to the retailer as well as the publisher. It may be illegal to copy a CD to another medium but ethically I don't see why I should have to pay anything more than a token amount to do so.<br>

How on Earth people think that printing high resolution images for their own use is Fair is beyond me, it's not as if they have paid some license fee; unless of course the photographer does not mind. If the photographer does mind then as mentioned before, some people will print the image for use in their home regardless. If the photographer doesn't want this then all he or she has to do is refrain from publishing high res images. Or only publish a section of a photo. For my own work, most of my images do not communicate my intentions or the magic of what I captured unless they are viewed at a certain size -as the image is not really revealed.<br>

But apart from these arguments there is a move afoot to deny our copyright in our images unless we can prove that we own those images. And as I understand it we would need to register all our images with the US Patents office at 45 USD an image to protect our work! This is applicable even if we are not US citizens. <a href="http://www.lettertothepm.co.uk/violation_berne_copyright_convention.htm">http://www.lettertothepm.co.uk/violation_berne_copyright_convention.htm</a><br>

Some pepople might believe that good photos can easily be taken just by buying a decent digital camera. And so for those who have an eye for a good picture this may be so, but the vast majority of good photos are only produced by professional or artisitic photographers and they should not be deprived of the remuneration that they are entitled to for their experience when they are promoting their work.</p>

<p>@Richard.<br>

"A large proportion of my Cd's and records were originally recorded before consumer mp3 players became available, and some pre-date cassette recorders. In other words, the original artists were releasing their material with no expectation that consumers would be able to run off a second high quality copy to play in the car or in a portable player. When the technology changed that's exactly what we all did, of course, and without compensating the artists in any way. Yet we get terribly upset when someone suggests doing something similar with photographs."<br>

We also didn't know that our LP's would become obsolete. I think that I am entitled to continue to use my musicical recordings by transferring them to a different medium. I wouldn't mind paying a small fee for doing so - preferably directly to the artist. I can't see how there is anything similar in the argument about copying music to another medium and printing photographs. Except that printing photos from a website is a change of medium. These people do not own a reproduction of the images like I own a CD or LP. At least one hopes that in the case of music it is owned by the person doing the copying to another medium. I haven't bought an itunes player yet.<br>

Personally, I can listen to music on the radio and can listen to a complete recording. I could record that music to my hard disk recorder but would prefer in the case of music I liked to buy a CD and that is exactly what I do. I also buy stock photos for use on my websites.</p>

<p>I thik Ilkka's right to remind us that the NYT blog article is insensitive to photographers' rights. If the article wasn't in a blog it would be outrageous for a newspaper journalist to suggest that people decorate their homes with copyright images.<br>

One would have thought that the writer could have at least suggested that buying prints from a photographer provides for archival quality full resolution prints.</p>

<p>Well if the photographer posted a full res image I could understand their annoyance, but surely that's unwise? To publish on a public site is surely going to result in some people printing off images for their own use. It is a shame that many photographers only publish rather small images to the web. I am prepared to publish larger images on my own websites but still not to their full resolution.<br>

Les could take up sculpture, but then a photographer could take photos of his sculpture and publish them as original works.</p>

<p>Thanks guys I had the same problem and was starting to go even more mad than usual! Incidentally I have an 4180 Epson Photo.</p>

Edward it seems that something is going on at a higher level. I thought that "IP" meant Internet Provider but it means Intellectual Property as well. US Congress rubberstamps IP enforcement bill. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/09/29/us_congress_passes_ip_piracy_bill/

I don't know how Edward. But there is a major security threat to everyone from the existence of the Internet. There are simply collosal costs involved in managing spam and worse. Maybe, that is what was actually at the back of the minds of the people who drafted the suggested law.

 

That basically there is a need to ensure that images are identifiable and so we will be forced to either lose our rights or comply.

 

The root problem is that civilisation is based on property and managing that property. Stealing is not a difficult concept when it applies to someone taking your apple and eating it without your consent although it is not a hanging offence! Consent is required to share property and we can sell or license property. The trouble is that accepting that people can be selfish and possibly ignorant leads to the notion that the theft of intellectual property eg. someone's music or a photograph is not regarded as "really stealing". Apparently vast numbers of people "share" music without any sense of unease whatsoever.

 

There are vested interests in protecting intellectual property including: Microsoft and the other major software developers, manufacturers of machines for domestic and industrial and military use, the pharmaceutical industry and others.

 

It is in their interests and ours to protect intellectual property and at the heart of this protection is copyright and patent law. I think that we need to get the Big Boys involved not just to protect us from exploitation but to bring if not the Internet but its use under greater control.

Is the answer Edward to make it mandatory to include ID with any image posted on the web. Then the situation

would be that if someone posted an image on the web that had no ID they would have broken the law and the

browser could prevent it showing.

 

It is a peculier thing, the web, as although everything that can be seen can only be accessed by typing in

an "address" that address, or URL, is not enough to trace all publishers.

Edward it doesn't seem that there is an way to protect work other than by signing up for a service that can trace it

like

Digimarc. There is also Tineye which is free at present The Digimarc Professional service with tracking costs

499USD a year to

protect work and includes tracing up to 5,000 images a year. I suppose as a professional this would be ok but for

others it is unrealistic.

 

I bought a program that slices up the image into as many random rectangles as one wants and the image can't be

printed from a web by right clicking as only a small part is printed. But a dedicated jigsaw lover could do so! And

anyway, what about Print Screen.

 

Any image on the web is not going to be anywhere near as high in quality as a full size print from the original but

could still be copied. I suppose that's why so many great photos are only published on the web as small images.

when the web could be a wonderful way to view pictures. I suppose another way is allow a stockphoto service to

protect your work and provide a modest income. Or perhaps to pay a print burea to print your work with signature and

provide a receipt that would provide proof of full legal ownership. Posted from, on date by somebod, paid by

somebod. . .There is an aircraft photo service that provides aerial photos of land which does provide photos for court

cases involving boundary and other disputes. At least with getting your photos professionally printed provided you did

this before releasing them for publication I would have thought that a high level of protection could be provided.