berenos

<p>Steven, Thanks for your response.</p>

<p>I am not sure you have entirely understood the point, or read all the comments as some if your statements, besides being blunt, come a little bit out of the blue. Nowhere did I say I disagree with Facebook's privacy rights, or that I should consider quitting Facebook.</p>

 

<p>Thanks everyone for your replies.</p>

<p>I have sent them an email that they can leave it the way it is, but expressed my disappointment with the way they have shared it.</p>

<p>I disagree with Dan's point though, as this has nothing to do with licensing, but with sharing. I do understand the former, but with regards to the latter it seems that there is a grey zone. They get massive benefits from sharing other people's stories, videos, or photos, as it leads to engagement on their page. It's not as if I am parasitizing on their success. They are not that big.</p>

<p>Cheers,</p>

<p>C</p>

<p>Thanks very much Lex,</p>

<p>That example you list is hilarious and sad at the same time indeed!</p>

<p>I think sharing is great, and the more your or my updates get shared, the better for us. I don't understand how other photographers could object to having ther photos shared, when done properly. Overall, as yourself, I have so far, only experienced proper sharing etiquette on FB, therefore this surprise. And, as you point out, they should know better.</p>

<p>C</p>

<p>Thanks for your response Michael.</p>

<p>Alright, perhaps shafted was a little exaggerated.</p>

<p>The point was not me posting it unsolicited though (as far as I understand there is nothing wrong with that), it's them downloading a copyrighted photo, deleting the accompanying text, and then sharing it without proper attribution. Also, I should clarify, this was posted from my Facebook page, not my personal Facebook profile.</p>

<p>Up until now, I have never experienced this, and pages have also kept the hyperlink intact, hence my surprise. They have done this with other previous posts as well.</p>

<p>C</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I hope that this is the proper sub-forum for this question.</p>

<p>I have shared a recent (copyrighted and watermarked) photo of mine from my Facebook photography page to the wall of a leading outdoor magazine. They have subsequently downloaded and posted the picture. They have credited me (my name) but not hyperlinked to my facebook page (where I shared it from) nor to my webiste.</p>

<p>Normally sharing should benefit them (they get traffic and likes) and me (as hopefully people would click hrough to my page). Without hyperlinks no one is ever going to bother to type a name into google to find me.</p>

<p>I have contacted them about it, and it seems they are not going to add the hyperlink, but are willing to take it down. I do feel a little bit shafted. What is everyone's opinion about situations like this?<br>

<br />Thanks.</p>

<p>Camillo</p>

<p>Thanks so much Thili.<br>

I will look into the speed issues you described.<br>

I have deliberately chosen not to have a slideshow on the front page. Hopefully visitors will click through to the gallery of their choice, where slideshows are available. With slideshows on the main page I always feel it can do more harm than good. What's the point of showing people photographs of Switerland if all they were interested in were Scottish seascapes? <br>

Thanks so much for taking the time to comment, much appreciated.</p>

<p>Camillo</p>

<p>Hi green photog,<br>

Thanks for your time and feedback. I agree with you that the watermarks are large. I have never been a fan of watermarks and have not used them until recently. The reason I started using them is because I found out that quite a lot of my photographs I had posted on Flickr were posted on Tumblr or Facebook, almost always without hotlinks or appropriate attribution. Now it at least easier for people to see where they can reach me if they would wish too.<br>

I'll see what I can do with watermark tough. It should be small or transparent enough to be visible but not too distracting, which is a dificult trade-off..<br>

<br />Thanks again!</p>

<p>Camillo</p>

<p>Hi Jim,<br>

Thanks a lot for taking the time to have a look, and of course, your kind words. It's the first time I have attempted to set up a website, so I reckoned I would need all the help I could get.<br>

Cheers,<br>

Camillo</p>

<p>Daniel, thanks for the kind words. <br>

I had a look and I indeed noticed this exact problem when on a smaller screen. I think I have solved this now. Thanks a lot for pointing this out, I had not seen this myself!<br>

Kind regards,<br>

Camillo</p>

<p>Dear all,<br>

After many years where my only photography web presence was on sites such as here, Flcikr and 500px, I have finally decided to launch my won website. I have decided to only focus on landscapes, and the entire photo selection trajectory was quite brutal. Many photographs I always thought were good enough, failed to pass the critical sharpness cutoff now. But i also discovered some photographs which i never bothered to process. All in all it meant editing all photographs from scratch, of which the greatest amount of time was spent on cloning dust spots!<br>

Anyhow, I have used Zenfolio to host my portfolio and I have played around with their templates until I found a layout/theme I liked.<br>

I would like advice, if possible, on the layout and ease of navigation. In addition, I would like your opinion on whether or not it bothers you, that in some cases, there are a couple of photographs from the same location and even taken in the same light.<br>

My site can be found on http://www.berenosphotography.co.uk<br>

Thanks in advance,<br>

Camillo</p>

<p>I have been shooting for 10 years, and I still haven't found my style. I don't think I ever will.</p>

<p>Just adding my 0.02£ here. I purchased the Velbon El Carmagne 540 Carbon Fiber and it has not let me down. I am 6'3 and it is obviously way too short, but I don't mind bending or sitting on my knees. I havd a Manfrotto 484RC2 ball gead and it isn extremely lightweight and small combo. I do have a Gitzo explorer and a gitzo ball head, but never seem to use, as most of my (attempts at) photography is done while hiking, backpacking or travelling. I must admit I mostly use wide and normal lenses, as my longest and heaviest lens is the 70-200L F4.</p>

<p>On a crop body I would, as mentioned before me, definitely opt for the EF-S 10-22, if the convenience of a zoom is required.</p>

<p>I second the suggestion for the 24-105. Perhaps a bit too expensive fr your budget, but once you have it, you won't regret it. Otherwise I also like my 28-105 3.5-4.5 for when I want to travel really light. But there are countless other options, but with if you have an EOS 5D I wouldn't opt for a cheaper and thus lower quality lens. You'll want the best you can afford.</p>

<p>I am not sure that setting the color space in camera when shooting RAW makes a difference. Isn't RAW just RAW?<br>

Of course, when exporting the file to any editing software as TIFF, Adobe RGB has the edge over sRGB.<br>

Correct me if I'm wrong.<br>

Me myself always shoot both RAW and the smallest JPG, which then can be used for quick emailing to friends or so. <br>

But there is no arguing about the flexibility RAW gives you. And with the batch processing possibilities in software such as f.i. Adobe Lightroom, it can be made reasonably easy.</p>

24-105L on my EOS 5D is what I currently use 99% of the time, and for what I use it for it is enough.

24-105L 4.0 on my 5D. I have used it on 99% of my pictures, the rest 50mm f/1.8. Before digital I used 20-35 f/3.5-4.5, 28-

105 f/3.5-4.5 almost equally often, and 50 f/1.8 for people. But the first two lenses are now unacceptably soft on digital. My

100mm macro sees very little action at the moment unfortunately.

It believe the eleventh commandment is: Always bring your tripod! But be sure to bring along a lightweight AND sturdy

tripod that folds small, otherwise you won't lug it around or use it. VR is not a substitute for a tripod, especially when light

gets really dim and you want to use a small aperture.

I regret all the trips where I left my tripod in the hotel, just because it was too large too lug around.

Because my father gave me his old EOS 650 with 50mm lens. And everyone else I knew had EOS bodies, making it easy

to borrow lenses.

Well, for people with less steady hand than one wishes for and for shooting in the golden hour of landscape photography, a

tripod seems indispensable to me. Even then, sometimes shots don't turn out as sharp as I've wished for.

I'm not Australian, but I believe you can download it from http://www.hdrsoft.com/download.html.

Hello Oleg,

I meant exposing such that the brightest parts will be overexposed by 1 or two stops give or take. In case autobracketing is

not possible, you can just vary the shutter speed but keeping aperture equal.

I am not an expert by any means, but I have recently started using digital blending instead of GND filters too. As I work

from a tripod in these occasions anyway, spotmetering for both foreground ans sky is too much of a hassle for me, as

often I try different compositions. What I do is just put my camera in manual mode, and autobracket. Depending on the

contrast, but mostly -2/0/+2 is sufficient. But sometimes even -1 and +1 is also enough. In case you really want to be

certain I do recommend spotmetering the darkest parts and the lightest spot, taking into consideration the usual exposure

compensation. I'm sure you'll work it out. Have fun.

I actually felt flattered by his comment on my last upload...

" and I'm noticing that through editing my photos aren't looking nearly as good as the ones my friends shoot"

 

Is this due to equipment or due to his/her better skills? There can be all sorts of reasons for this. Good photographers take

good pictures with bad cameras. Jack White also plays on the cheapest guitars, and he rocks. I'm not sure what you're

aiming at here, so I believe Shuo has said good things here.