colinsouthern

<p>"Finally, as Patrick said, you should not have images in your gallery that you did not take yourself. It's kind of hard to work up any sympathy for you when you are complaining about not being able to do something that violates the site's Terms Of Use."</p>

<p>Section 2 of your TOU states: "You agree to upload and post only User Content that you have created <strong>or for which you have permission from the copyright holder</strong>."<br>

I have permission from the copyright holders to upload these images - I trust this will now make it considerably easier for you to "work up some sympathy for this issue that I'm complaining about"? Thought not.</p>

<p>"If you want that sort of thing, you will have to go elsewhere."</p>

<p>Best advice I've had in a long time - I'm out of here.</p>

<p>"I'm not sure this is a "security issue" that needs to be seen to as soon as possible. "</p>

<p>I'm sorry Patrick, but this is non-sensical; If someone has marked a folder as being hidden then there is ultimately only one reason for it - they don't want just anybody to be able to see them, and the glitch I've mentioned effectively totally circumvents that. It's very much a security issue - just as it would be if the system gave me access to 3 random files in a folder on your system that you hadn't granted me access to.</p>

<p>"As such, we have no real capabilities to make photos private."</p>

<p>Josh, this kind of response is disappointing (although I have to say not unexpected). It's hogwash - you DO have the capability - if not to make images private, then to at least not to display them at random if the user has indicated that they with that the gallery they are contained in should remain hidden. I appreciate that you're busy, but would it not be a better solution to simply initiate a permanant fix for the problem rather than just take the lazy approach and try to "talk around it"?</p>

<p>I've just noticed that the site displays 3 images (to the public) from folders on a members community page - even if the images are contained in a folder marked as being hidden.</p>

<p>Could we please get this security issue seen to ASAP - folders are marked hidden for a reason, and it's particularly inappropriate when it's a shot taken by someone else that's only there to demonstrate a processing technique, and yet the site implies that it's the members work.</p>

<p>As we speak, all three images currently showing on my member page are from hidden folders - one is a test shot of a family member, and the other two are shots belonging to other artists - none should be available to the public unless linked to directly.</p>

<p> </p>

"I am not dismissing the value of the internet in marketing and advertising: it however is passive and requires an initial ACTION on behalf of the prospect. "

Personally, I'd even go a step further and suggest that in tough times people probably SHOULD rely less on (what has become) an "internet over-saturation" in many areas and do as William and David suggested and start wearing out a few pairs of shoes.

In todays world - in my opinion - you STILL can't beat the personal touch! Cheers, Colin, photo.net/colin/southern

Hi Michael,

I'm not an iPhoto user - but I'd like to think that any converter would present the converted file in whatever format it was told to - probably a bit of a tangent as it's not really related to WB (although it can well be related to saturation levels if you convert a file to something wide (Adobe RGB or Prophoto), and then open it on something that assumes it's sRGB).

In terms of WB, all the camera does to a RAW file is tag the metadata with WB info - the application is free to interpret it - misinterpret it - or discard it altogether, although having said that, I'd be surprised if there was any change from a 5D in the way Canon have done it. Personally, I leave mine set to auto as a starting point, and it's usually very very close.

You might be able to make more progress doing some back to back tests with the 5D under controlled situations?

Metering modes are really nothing more nor nothing less than our instruction to the camera as to which parts of the scene should be considered when determining an exposure.

If you use evaluative metering then you're saying to the camera "consider the entire scene" - if you use partial metering then you're saying "the exposure of the middle bit is the most important" - and if you use centre-weighted average then you're saying "The whole scene is important, but more so the centre than the periphery". So correct exposure mode is always the first thing to consider.

Unfortunately, there's more to it than that. Built in metering isn't always that smart and (without going in to too much technical detail) it pretends that every scene is medium gray - and when it's not - then compensations need to be made - in short - if the scene is predominately white then it'll underexpose by around 2 stops, so you need to set EC (Exposure Compensation) to +2 to compensate. If the scene is predominantly black, then the camera will over expose by up to 2 stops, so you need to set EC to -2.

Hope this helps, Cheers, Colin, photo.net/photos/colinsouthern

Hi Michael,

I'm confused ...

At one point you say ...

"I shoot RAW."

and then, just when you thought it was safe to go back into the water ...

"the image seems to be AdobeRGB based even though I shoot in sRGB"

Which is it?

If you're shooting RAW (which seems the most likely) then a colourspace is only assigned & applied when you convert the file; It doesn't matter what you set the camera to (sRGB or AdobeRGB).

In terms of accurate colours then there are a number of things that you can do - some are more important than others:

1. Shoot RAW - colour correction is done with zero loss in RAW conversion (well in ACR anyway because it redefines the colorimetric interpretation references rather than scale the RB channels which is what happens once you get into photoshop)

2. Shoot (at a minimum) a grey card, preferably a colour chart

3. Calibrate your screen (D50 is the official standard, D65 is acceptable)

4. Profile your printer (if you do your own printing)

5. You can also profile your camera, but generally the results don't justify the effort involved.

So in other words Bill, we have not succeeded in answering all of her problems. The answers we have found only serve to raise a whole set of new questions. In some ways we feel we are as confused as ever, but we believe we are confused on a higher level and about more important things? :)

<P>

Cheers - <a href=http://www.photo.net/photos/colinsouthern>Colin</a>

<I><B>"I am still pretty confused. Sounds like there are different schools of thought on the subject. Still, very informative reading over the responses and the logic that suports each. I fly to Alaska in 22 hours. Adobe RGB or sRGB?"</I></B><P>

Dan - trust me - if you're shooting RAW then you can toss a coin - neither will have any effect what-so-ever on the RAW data.

As a side note, I should add that I think what Nikon has achieved is great, as it pushes the industry to new heights - BUT - I feel that often people get a little too hung up on the specs.

<P>

It's important to understand the specs so that we can understand the differences between cameras, but it's even more important to weight those specs in relation to the tpes of shooting that a prospective buyer intends to do with a camera. As a case in point, shooting a lot of landscape and seascapes these days, anything over ISO 100 is generally a waste.<P>

Cheers

Over the years there seems to be a better "synergy" of Canon & Sandisk -v- Nikon & Lexar, although in theory any CF card should work in any camera.

<p>

A <u>really</u> big issue these days though is fake cards - this is especially a problem for Sandisk, Kingston, and Sony. Never, ever buy CF cards off Ebay - approx 100% are fakes. Buy through the usual trusted outlets (B&H, Adorama, Amazon).

<p>

Cheers - <a href=http://www.photo.net/photos/colinsouthern>Colin</a>

For what it's worth, if you put 100 photographers in a room there are <i>very</i> few things that they'd all agree on - strangely, the superiority of doing colour to greyscale conversions during post processing seems to be one of them.

<P>

I'm sure there's a message there somewhere :)

<P>

Cheers - <a href=http://www.photo.net/photos/colinsouthern>Colin</a>

<B><I>Now I am back to pondering whether to upgrade to CS3 </i></b><P>

<P>

For what it's worth, I did - and I have no regrets. The enhancements to ACR alone made it worth it for me.

<P>

Cheers - <a href=http://www.photo.net/photos/colinsouthern>Colin</a>

<b><I>same question though... can it handle 1/250th?</B></I><P>

Yes. Besides, it won't let you select a faster shutter speed unless HSS is on.

<P>

Cheers - <a href=http://www.photo.net/photos/colinsouthern>Colin</a>

Canon's 1D3 is the closest. High ISO performance on both is such that you really can't see it unless you're printing an exceptionally large shot, or doing what every photographer does (examining every pixel at at least 100%!).

<p>

<i><b>If you're shooting RAW it doesn't matter. </b></i><p>

In a nutshell, correct. The only difference it makes is the changing of the first letter of the filename to an underscore.

"I am beyond help! :)"

Just go take some photos ...

... see you there! :)

"IMHO a pro photographer should only use pro gear and that only means a 1-series body."

Perhaps a better way of saying that might be to ask "why would a professional WANT to use anything other than professional tools"?

Hi Bill,

I took it to mean "would either of those two cameras help", as opposed to "which one of the two would help"? - if that, helps!

Cheers,

Colin

"I do confuse about the "medium class" brand new technology of 40D vs the "super class" old technology of 5D n 1DsM2"

In terms of "technology classes", the 5D isn't "super class" - it's basically just Canon's full-frame (but still pro-sumer) version of a 20D/30D, one generation behind the 40D.

1D series are a different league to 5D and 40D.

<b><i>(a) Expansion is set to OFF by default. Why?</i></b><p>

Because that's what the programmer decided to do - you're reading too much in to it :)

<p>

<b><i>Why would I not expand around the selected focus point? What is the drawback that makes the default OFF? </i></b><p>

Because it can result in the camera selecting the wrong plane of focus. Eg you're taking a portrait - AF point expansion is on - you point at the eyes, camera selects nose. No right or wrong, just different circumstances.

<p>

<i><b>I have upgraded firmware to 1.2.3, so now I can select AF point with the joystick. But I find it very unintuitive to go back to auto, if I want to go back from my selection of AF spot to Auto AF spot. What am I missing - is there a quick way? </i></b><p>

Press the top-right button with your thumb, and then press the joystick once or twice.

<p>

<i><b>© I have heard that noise is lowest in discrete ISO steps (100, 200, 400, 800, etc), and slightly higher in intermediate steps. Truth or urban myth?</b></i><p>

True. 100 / 200 / 400 / 800 / 1600 /3200 are amplifier gain changes, 50, 6400 and intermediate steps are done with software.

<p>

Cheers - <a href=http://www.photo.net/photos/colinsouthern>Colin</a>

<i>I don't however think I will call her now, as Nadine said because this could create a problem that may not exist.</i>

<p>

Nadine said that? Smart lady ;) (I knew I'd read it somewhere! :)

<p>

Cheers - <a href=http://www.photo.net/photos/colinsouthern>Colin</a>