whoz_the_man_huh
-
Posts
2,402 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Events
Downloads
Gallery
Store
Posts posted by whoz_the_man_huh
-
-
<p>Hi,</p>
<p>I'd like to dabble in this exciting genre.</p>
<p>Advice and experiences of any kind are welcome, though I'm looking for a few things in particular:<br>
<br /><br>
1. Tripod and tripod head recommendations for the D300 and, say, a one-kilogram lens. The lighter the gear the better, naturally.</p>
<p>2. HDR software recommendations.</p>
<p>3. Guidelines. Do I just shrink my ISO and aperture as far as they'll go? Is there a rule of thumb for gauging the over and under shots?<br>
<br /><br />Thanks,</p>
<p>Cal</p>
-
<p>Oh by the way, has the allotted time to edit a post been shortened recently? After publishing this topic I tried to edit it but was surprised to find I couldn't.</p>
-
<p>I find integrated chat attractive because I never log into Windows Live Messenger anymore.</p>
<p>Even if I did, the comfort of having your contacts and favorite pages to surf in one location is pleasant. In addition the convenience and speed of integrated chat may encourage communication and relationship development between photo.net members.</p>
-
<p>I agree, Ryan. Integrated chat, one on one or with multiple participants, would be awesome!</p>
-
<p>Right on, Per. I guess you're one of the good photographers I was referring to.</p>
-
<p>Obligatory rating could work although it feels a bit against the comfortable and positive nature of photo.net.</p>
-
<p>Josh, a lot of people would love more ratings, but how can this be accomplished easily?</p>
-
<p>Josh, Mike, Lex, what do you think about my silver bullet for mate rating? Has potential or should be dismissed?</p>
-
<p>Charles, I like 2) although I would never post my photos in such a forum.</p>
-
<p>We all know the admins and developers are too busy as is. But purely hypothetically, what features would you most like to see delivered by photo.net next?</p>
<p>I'll start.<br>
<br /><br /><br>
1) A second ratings summary that's limited to anonymous scores. Correct me if I'm wrong, but this is the mother of all answers for mutual backscratching. It's an overview of ratings that are, in general, more likely to be genuine.</p>
<p>Also, from a technical perspective, this may not be hard to accomplish. One extra condition added to one database query.</p>
<p>2) A page that lists which of your images have been marked as a favorite by others. Not that any of mine ever would. But good photographers may be interested by this feature.<br>
<br /><br /><br />Thanks,</p>
<p>Cal</p>
-
<p>I think Lex summed it all up with his American Idol analogy.</p>
-
<p>Wow. Thanks for the lucid and deep thoughts, Michael Y.</p>
-
<p>Lex, you are a photo analysis dynamo.</p>
-
<p>Thanks, Stamoulis.</p>
-
<p>Ryan, I bet you also like that Destiny's Child song. "Say Your Name".</p>
-
Thanks for the advice, Tim.
-
<p>Stamoulis, what do you mean they count? They're not reflected in either photo or photographer totals, correct?</p>
-
<p>What problem are you referring to, Michael Y?</p>
-
<p>Thanks for the sage advice, John.</p>
-
<p>Mike, I am curious.</p>
<p>Besides, I don't know if I should aim for more than mediocrity by photo.net's standards because, speaking honestly, the ability to attain excellence simply isn't there.</p>
-
<p>Outstanding post, Lex.</p>
<p>I think your thoughts should be published as a disclaimer that appears whenever a critique request is about to be submitted.</p>
-
<p>Excellent list, Mike. Except it's missing:<br>
<br /><br>
4) I'm just honest and you just stink.<br>
<br /><br>
That's the mindset of most people who drop 3 / 3 on me.</p>
-
<p>JDM, my apologies if this is repetitive.</p>
<p>My goal is merely to gauge whether most people's idea of 3 is closer to mediocre or disastrous.</p>
-
<p>Michael F, you misunderstood me. I meant mediocre in direct relation to the high standards of this site.</p>
Please Guide An HDR Newb
in The Digital Darkroom: Process, Technique & Printing
Posted
<p>Thanks, Dieter.</p>
<p>I'd rather spend money now than regret a thrifty but unsatisfying purchase later.</p>
<p>If I use the shutter delay (i.e., timer?), there's no need for the remote trigger, yeah?</p>