Stock-Photos

I take that back. Down low in 342 is a satellite. Meteor streaks are tapered in brightness...often fainter at one or both ends. Satellite streaks are usually uniform in brightness unless they pass into the earth's shadow, which could cause a fade in brightness.

 

My meteor photography tips page: (not so mobile friendly)

 

Meteor Photography Tips - Perseid Meteor Showers Astrophotography

Correction: Faint "satellite" down low in 342

The streak in 186 is a satellite.

It's a longshot but try replacing the cable. One broken wire can cause all sorts of issues in a multi wire cable.

I could be wrong but I thought an F stop number indicates the ratio of light going into the front of the lens versus how much comes out the back. A 1.0 lens would be zero light loss. At F8, the light intensity is 8 time less intense as it exits as it was entering.

This cover of a no longer trusted magazine:

https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/natgeo_statue_liberty_sea_level.jpg

 

National Geographic’s Junk Science: How long will it take for sea level rise to reach midway up the Statue of Liberty?

In the past, before the photo.net makeover, I could make links directly to my galleries here on PN.

 

Now I cannot seem to access a URL to share my galleries elsewhere on the web.

 

Is it possible? Thanks in advance for any help.

 

If not, and photo.net has taken these gallery pages out of public access, it's a bad thing.

 

BTW all the new changes have left me less inclined to use PN...and less inclined to renew my subscription which i've have for 15+ years?

Social Media buttons toggle on/off portfolio and photo is coming. Apologies for delayed response.

Any chance anyone is setting up the option to opt out of the copyright infringing PINTEREST SHARE buttons?

The best aerial camera I have used so far is a sony NEX 6 mounted under a DJI F550. However with no gmbal, horizon was usually tilted. Not a practical set up.

 

The second best aerial camera I have used is came with my DJI Inspire 1 Pro. The camera is called the X5.

 

Having shot with SLR's then DSLR for a long time, I'm not super impressed with DJI's X5 camera because of color and exposure issues. Color casts and over saturated reds are so bad I'm forced to shoot DNG/JPG. Dynamic range also seems shallow. Highlights are often blown out.

 

DJI has a newer camera slung under the Inspire II, but from all I can tell image quality and color accuracy are still not on par with the big three camera makers.

I'd always buy my gear from B&H.

Amazon deceives customer in my opinion. The website tricks those who are not paying attention into signing on with Prime. Jeff Bezos has lost touch with his customers. He's shooting off rockets while his web people are tucking it to customers. He doesn't care. He's busy with politics and his newspaper.

 

https://topclassactions.com/lawsuit-settlements/lawsuit-news/308661-amazon-faces-prime-membership-class-action-lawsuit/

 

Every purchase I've made from B&H went smoothly. Returns are never a problem.

Here's the laterest terms of service that i now have a problem with.

We respect our users' intellectual property, and claim no copyright to anything posted on the site by our users. However, as a stipulation of using photo.net, we retain the right to keep and display anything posted by users on photo.net as part of the site indefinitely. If you are not prepared to accept this, please do not upload or contribute anything to photo.net.

I dont expect we'll see any response from the photo.net administrators. I put in a feedback complaint about the Pinterest issue but heard nothing back. In fact several months ago I saw that the person in charge of photo.net had actually pinned thousands of members images to Pinterest. I just don't understand it. Apparently photo.net does not need my membership fees any longer.

With the extreme changes to photo.net I'm finding the worst change seems to be that a pin-it button is now under all my photos as displayed on full page view. There seems to be no option to remove the pinterest button. Pinterest, and the placement of their button, facilitates some of the worst and most widespread copyright infringement anywhere on the internet. Pinterest users copy images at full size to Pinterest servers each time an image is "pinned" or "stolen".

 

Consider reading these articles:

http://www.pcworld.com/article/250700/what_you_should_know_about_pinterest_and_copyright.html

 

http://www.ipbrief.net/2015/08/31/pinterest-free-advertising-or-copyright-infringement-the-fight-of-a-photographer-to-protect-the-rights-of-his-industry/

 

I've been a paying photo.net member for 10+ years. I don't want photo.net facilitating and promoting Pinterest copyright infringement of my portfolio. I've spent may hours removing my images from Pinterest.

 

As a long time, paying user of photo.net I won't renew my membership unless photo.net gives me the option to remove the "pin-it" button.

 

Photographers who will respond with comments like "If you don't want your photos copied, don't post them online". Save it please. I publish my photos to photo.net. I don't pay photo.net membership fees to to have copyright infringement of my work promoted by photo.net.

 

Duplicating content on the web weakens the original and does not help photographers.

<p>I've been flying the Inspire 1 Pro X5 since June. Hopefully this new Inspire camera will have better still image quality. I'm forced to shoot DNG and jpg since the jpgs are so bad. Dji might make decent flying machines but their cameras are not up to par with the established camera manufacturers.</p>

<p>To the original poster, I have four 5000's. They all exhibit flare, especially white spots against dark areas on overall dark images. I believe it's the nature of the beast and can be reduced a bit in photoshop. I see the green flare plainly below the leaf but that doesn't look "very bad" to me. <br>

I've included typical flare shot I see from my machines This shows the mount at the top where white clouds are adjacent. Some purple fringe is visible also.</p><div></div>

<p>I have Epson Premium photo paper glossy, 11x14. In the Epson printer options I set a user defined paper size at 11x14 but I cannot get the borderless option to turn on. The paper says on the package "borderless".</p>

<p>I've searched the web with no solution found. Have I wasted my money on this Epson paper? Online at the Epson site it says the 1430 will print borderless 11x14.</p>

<p>Thanks in advance for any help. I'm ready to toss this 11x14 paper out the window and the printer right behind it :-)</p>

<p>Since Epson sells 11x14 paper, you'd think they'd ship the printer/drivers all set up for 11x14. No, they don't.</p>

<p>If anyone can explain how I can print 11x14 borderless on the Epson 1430, I'll be forever in your debt.</p>

<p>Meanwhile I've sent Epson a customer support e-mail on this issue.</p>

<p>Here is a recent message I sent to photo.net regarding Pinterest's opt out code:<br>

"I am constantly finding the images I post on photo.net, illegally copied to pinterest.<br />I spend a lot of time having my photos removed from Pinterest via their copyright infringement form.<br>

Please incorporate code to prevent images on photo.net from being copied to Pinterest.<br />Please read this article:<br>

http://www.pcworld.com/article/250700/what_you_should_know_about_pinterest_and_copyright.html<br>

Pinterest is making it more difficult for photographer to find their content on Pinterest.<br />Pinterest has now made available "opt-out" code to prevent images from being pinned from sites that have the code. Flickr has incorperated the code and so should Photo.net.<br />Allowing photos to be copied at full size to the pinterest servers only helps Pinterest. It does NOT help photographers.<br>

Please, please,...please... incorporate the opt out code. I pay photo.net annual fees. Photo.net should do everything thay can to protect my copyright. I understand the I can turn off "pin" buttons on photo.net. I have done so but that does not stop the pinners.<br>

Thank you in advance.<br />Jim Harrington</p>

<p>There are those that might say "If you don't want your photos copied, don't post them on the internet. I could not disagree with that more.</p>

<p>If you want traffic to the site from search engines, you might want to put more words on the site. People search for words. If the words are not there, people will not find your site.</p>

<p>Big time photo buyers often go after images where the photographer has no clue about selling. That way they get images at bargain rates.</p>

<p>I try not to crop. I keep aspect ratio at 3:2 when I must crop. I sell prints via Zenfolio (harrington.zenfolio) and like to upload the the largest (dimension wize) files as I can. This allows for the largest, sharp prints.</p>

<p>I treat the photos I upload to stock agencies the same way.</p>

<p>I would not present an image cropped any specific way simply because 8x10" is a popular print size.</p>

<p>Consider asking them for their best offer. I sell rights to lots of my image found on Photo.net. Sometimes I refer to Dan Heller's pricing which is based on the image dimensions. The size at which which the image will be displayed is a big factor.<br /> No need need to send out files larger than needed. You need to ask the buyer about size. Size matters.<br /> http://www.danheller.com/cgi/orderform.pl?action=license-instructions</p>

<p>See the matrix on that page.</p>

<p>Sometimes the size and health of a <em>company</em> looking for rights should be a factor. In other words if it were Chanel, looking for the rights you might charge a premium.</p>

<p>Two weeks ago I sold rights to one of my aerial photos, found here on photo.net, for $350.00.</p>

<p>I was to be used as a two page spread in a local glossy magazine where about 7000 copies will be printed.</p>

<p>Good luck. I've had my 100-400L for a long time and it still works great.</p>

<p>I use nikonscan on Win 7 and did what Brooks said.</p>

<p>Matthew,<br /> I've owned the 100-400L original for several years. Never regretted purchasing it. It's built like a tank and image quality is superb. I'm sure the new version is even better. Lots of photos from mine here on my photo.net portfolio.</p>

<p>At B&H the old version is $1299 and the new version is $2199. Consider buying the old version and using the $900 difference towards a new body, a 6D maybe :-)</p>

<p>I have a 5D original and a 7D original. Noise is so much worse with my 7D<br /> I've tried Canons 1.4 extender and I was not happy with the sharpness drop, although others might be fine with it.</p>

<p>I should also include the fact that I use my 7D almost exclusively for telephoto. I use the 5D for virtually everything else.</p>

<p>I've been flying and making photographs with my multi-rotors since Sept of 2012. Most people I encounter while flying are very curious but I could <em>not</em> say "most people hate" drones at all.</p>

<p>Even made a web site offering services:<br /> <a href="http://www.aerialphoto123.com">www.AerilPhoto123.com</a></p>

<p>..and yes, I've heard from the FAA about it.</p>

<p>Also, the media loves stories that makes drones and their operators look bad. It's far less common for news stories about drones to be "positive". <strong>Bad news sells better than good news.</strong></p>

<p>Here's a link to some of my <a href="https://plus.google.com/photos/104688579048759425474/albums/6069783665598631601"><strong>drone aerial photography:</strong></a></p>

<p>I fly a Sony NEX 6 camera.</p>

<p>BTW drones are not silent and they can't listen as the OP seems to believe.</p><div></div>