paolo de faveri

<p>Ahahah Ernest, your answer made my day, thank you!<br /><em>...but be careful of reciprocity failure, it might get you.</em><br />OMG, I'm still holding my belly from laughing!!!</p>

This is the right side base of the famous Pont d'Arc, a natural stone

bridge spanning over the Ardeche River in France. Taken at dawn a few

months ago, this is a stitch of 4 verticals.<div></div>

<p>I just tried again and I was able to upload a picture this time. Seems ok now.</p>

<p>Paolo</p>

<p>Thanks for the suggestion Michael. I trie to upload different pictures to different galleries, photodrop included, but I've always got the very same error message about the "problem with the database".<br>

About older pictures already in the galleries I have noticed no problems about artifacts or pixelation, nor with sizes. And the slideshows seem to work properly as always. No, my only problem is that I can't upload photos anymore...</p>

<p>Paolo</p>

<p>Ok, I will send you the image, although i don't think the problem is referred to the image. In fact I also tried to upload another image, but got the same message. Then I tried to upload an image which is already in one of my galleries, and again I get the same error message. So it's quite obvious that it's not a problem about the image</p>

<p>Ok, I say again, for the third time: I did exactly the same thing as I did for the previous 600 images or so... and yes, the image is less than 1500 pixel width, it's actually 586w x 786h, it is a jpg saved at 72 dpi, a very very common jpg just exactly equal to all the other images I've been posting on this site for almost three years. So I don't think it's a problem with the image, even because the error message says something about a "problem with the database", please read below, that's the message I got:<br>

<br /> Problem with Your Input<br>

<br /> We had a problem processing your entry: There was a problem with the database<br>

<br /> Please back up using your browser, correct it, and resubmit your entry.<br>

Any suggestion about this error message? Thanks! Paolo<br>

P.S.: I also tried to upload another image, but got the same message. Then I tried to upload an image which is already in one of my galleries, and again I get the same error message. So it's quite obvious that it's not a problem about the image.</p>

<p>Hi Mikael,<br>

here's my setting:<br>

browser: Firefox 3.0.9 on Windows XP SP4<br>

the file is a jpg of 133 kb. This is nothing different from what I usually do for uploading a picture, but this time it seems like there's something wrong. I tried again just 5 minutes ago and got the very same message:</p>

 

 

<h2>Problem with Your Input</h2>

We had a problem processing your entry:

<ul>

There was a problem with the database

</ul>

 

Please back up using your browser, correct it, and resubmit your entry.

<br />

<br />

This is the very first time I see such message, after almost 600 pics posted in more than 3 years.

<br />

Paolo<br />

<!-- closes pnet-content div --> <!-- begin ad tag (tile=1) --><!-- Rubicon Project tag --> <!-- Site: Photo.net Zone: Photo US ROS Size: Leaderboard (728x90) --> <!-- PLACEMENT: Above the Fold -->

<p>I tried to upload a photo to my portfolio but it didn't work. Here's the message I got back from the system:</p>

<h2>Problem with Your Input</h2>

<p>We had a problem processing your entry:</p>

<ul>

There was a problem with the database

</ul>

<p>Please back up using your browser, correct it, and resubmit your entry.<br>

Never seen such a message before, so I just don't know what to do.<br>

Any suggestion?<br>

<br /> Thanks,<br /> Paolo</p>

<p>Thank you Gerry for visitng the site and for your feedback. I'm very pleased to hear that you like my images. Probably slowness issues I have experienced are due to momentary failure and/or overload of the server where my site is hosted.<br>

Paolo</p>

<p>Thank you Phil and Dennis for your feedback, that's appreciated.<br>

I agree with your suggestions and I'll implement them very soon.<br>

Just a great support, thanks again.<br>

Paolo</p>

<p>Thank you Nate and Chris, so it was not just my impression that images are loading slowly. Thanks also for your suggestions on how to improve usability, those are things I will certainly bear in mind for the next update - which means within a week or two... :-)<br>

Paolo</p>

<p >Hi everyone, <br />I have just performed a major update to my website, adding more than 200 pictures and entire new galleries. I checked and re-checked it out several times and I think everything just works fine, though sometimes I have the feeling as it is a bit slow. My internet connection though has just been horrible in the last days, so I can't really tell that for sure. Would you mind to have a look and let me know how it looks and works for you? </p>

<p ></p>

<p ><a href="http://www.paolodefaveri.com">www.paolodefaveri.com</a><br /><br />Thanks in advance, your support is highly appreciated. <br />Paolo </p>

<p>Metering when you have live view on works somewhat like having a spot meter on the ground glass of a view camera. It's just a wonderful feature if you see it like this: you do have a spot meter telling you exactly the exposure for the area included within the white box. That's where the metering difference come from: nothing wrong indeed, just two different metering, as the evaluative one take care of the entire frame as a whole.<br>

<br /> Cheers,<br>

Paolo</p>

<p>If you really want to get the best from your 21 MP sensor, stay away from any Canon wide angle zoom. None of them are able to resolve that incredibly dense sensor, particularly at borders. When I say none of them, I include the 17-40 and 16-35 II too. It seems like Canon has to rethink its entire line of wide angles soon, as their amazing newest bodies - both FF and APS-C - are all very demanding in terms of resolving power.<br>

AS you're primarily interested in landscape I think you won't mind about using MF lenses, so I suggest you to go with Zeiss 28mm (either f2 or f2,8) as moderate wide, and Nikon 14-24 for extreme wide. Using MF lenses on your 5DII will be very easy actually, as the wonderful live view feature with 10x magnification is just fantastic for finding perfect focus, no matter if your lens is MF or AF. I own a 50D and I always use live view at 10x for focusing my images, whatever the lens I have on.<br>

Cheers.<br>

Paolo</p>

<p>I would never make such big prints at ISO 3200 Chunmaya, whatever the camera is - yes, full frame too. I have a 50D since mid of October and I'm totally happy with it, however you cannot ask for micracles. Of course it all depends on what your acceptable limit is: for me, I would never print an Iso 3200 larger than A4, and I can assure you that at A4 quality is already very low. If you print very large at so high ISO you will print a lot of noise if you want to save details, or very little details if you want to cut off noise.</p>

<p>Paolo</p>

<p>Well, I have to disagree with all those members who stated that you should chose the 5D because of noise issues with the 50D. As far as I see from my own pictures, the 50D delivers stunning results up to 1600 Iso, as well as the 5D. Actually, I shoot a 50D since mid of October and wouldn't trade it with a 5D. The 5D was a good camera, but it's a 2005 camera and 3 years in digital photography are just like ages. The 50D gives you more pixels for larger prints or better crops, you have the amazing 3" LCD with the fantastic Live View feature that helps you in perfectly frame the image, and in finding perfect focus no matter if your lens is MF or AF. About the crop factor, bear in mind that many lenses performing averagely on a full frame camera will give you excellent results on a smaller sensor. And yes, I am speaking about all canon zooms, 16-35, 17-40, 24-105 are all performing poorly at the edges on a full frame, while they're all great lenses on a crop camera. About the lack of a true wide angle lens, well, there's actually plenty of choice out there, whether you choose Canon, or Sigma, Tokina, Tamron. Personally, I'd avoid the Canon 10-22: it's the most expensive of the band though not the better one. The Tokina 12-24 gives you a ff equivalent field of view of a 19-38, and it's tack sharp edge to edge from f5,6<br /> Paolo</p>

3 minutes<div></div>

<div></div>

Anson,

in fact I also stated that I want it MF. Honestly, USM AF and IS on a 13mm lens is totally a nonsense.

I do believe 1000 $ for a MF 13mm EF-S lens would be a fair price.

Anson, ebay listing is simply too much expensive. The Contax version of that lens is so rare and people is so crazy about that lens that the price became a totally nonsense. That's as simple as that. Zeiss is going to release a new version of the 21 mm Distagon with EF mount at a street price of 1399 $ (check their website). We will see then how the ebay listings will drop down once the new version will be available at that price.

So it's not a nonsense wishing to have an EF-S equivalent costing around 1000$.

<div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>