goldbergbarry
-
Posts
756 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Events
Downloads
Gallery
Store
Posts posted by goldbergbarry
-
-
<blockquote>
<p>I just built my own.<br />I have something like 10.5 TB scattered over 5 different disks, external and 1 internal, separated in space too.<br>
My internet is pretty reliable, but there are just too many times that it goes down - always at the worst possible moment - for me to be happy with on-line storage.<br>
Besides, I am just a little suspicious of who has access to what outside my own firewalls, etc.<br>
I used to make DVDs and still have backups there for my older stuff, but the files are too big now for that to be very practical, even if I were convinced of the archival qualities of DVDs (athough I have to confess, despite all the flutter, I've had only a couple of optical disks go bad in the last decade, and they were real bargain ones)</p>
</blockquote>
<p>I would still prefer to do what you did PLUS online backup. What happens if there is a disaster? My pictures are too valuable for me not to have redundant backup systems in-place.</p>
-
<p>Do what Dan said. Back up both locally and off-site. This gives you complete coverage in case anything goes wrong. Also be sure that your backups are happening automatically.</p>
<p>To those nay-sayers that say that online backups are bad, they really don't know what they are talking about. </p>
-
<p>Are you sure that you really want a DSLR? Sorry to question this as I know this was not the topic of this thread. Are you aware that while it is true that you can get amazing pictures from a DSLR under many different conditions, that the following is also true:</p>
<p>- It can be expensive. Buying an initial camera with a kit (i.e., standard) will cost at least $500. Add to that an extra battery, extra memory cards and a starter tripod which will cost another $100-$200. Most likely within a year, you will be itching to buy additional lenses, which can run from $50 - $2k, or more. And by then, you will want to upgrade to another camera (another $1k+).</p>
<p>- It will take a lot of work until you can take pictures as good as a P&S. Are you prepared to study and learn about photography. It is not as simple as just picking up a camera and shooting in automatic mode, which you could do however your P&S will probably take better pictures.</p>
<p>I only say all of this because in the thread, you said that the motive was your other half wanted better pictures and I did not see you mention that this is something that "you" really to do, other than to make her happy. You may be better off investing in a higher-end P&S for better pictures, as well as learning more about taking pictures. </p>
<p>I'll leave you with this last point of advice. While a higher-end camera can make it easier to take brilliant pictures, you can take amazing pictures with any camera. You may want first invest in learning how to take better pictures. Wish you the best.</p>
-
<p>Welcome to Photo.net! Like Jos was alluding to, since you are building up your portfolio, you should read up on composition. Editing in Photoshop is very time-consuming and can only go so far. </p>
<p>There is a lot to read on composition - think about what is in the picture, both the foreground and background. For example, the people in the background should not be there.</p>
<p>Here is a great tutorial - <a href="/learn/nature/ghopkins/comp1/index">http://www.photo.net/learn/nature/ghopkins/comp1/index</a></p>
-
<p>Since you signed up for Lynda, you should view these videos. They will help you through this:<br>
<br>
<br>
</p>
-
<p>You may want to consider viewing the forums in Trip Advisor for ideas. They are helpful whenever I plan a trip.</p>
-
<p>I agree with the OP that forum respondents should be kinder and gentler. Many them are a bit harsh although I am not sure if that was intended. The problem is that writing is very interpretative and tone is implied. </p>
<p>I also wish that posters would spend at least a few minutes doing a minimal amount of research. How many times have we seen requests for camera recommendations but the poster does not state their budget or how they want to use the camera, and frequently will not even reply to the questions on the thread asking for this information.</p>
-
<blockquote>
<p>I found that people use the RAW format instead of jpg.</p>
</blockquote>
<p> <br>
Not sure if this is true. This is an often debated topic. Many people swear that Raw is the only way to go, while many other people are perfectly content shooting in JPEG mode. <br>
<br>
I typically use JPEG only unless it is a special event that I am shooting where I want to be absolute sure that I get the most out of an image.<br>
<br>
Shooting Raw requires a faster computer, much more storage space both on your card and hard drive, and more skills. </p>
-
<p>Yes.</p>
-
<p>@Nick - this link is very helpful. Thanks for sharing!</p>
-
-
<p>@Wouter - what you said makes sense. I don't think that I would have been happy with anything else. I just ordered a SB700 to be delivered tomorrow. Thanks for your suggestion.</p>
-
<p>I have a Nikon SB600 that is going in for its second repair in two years. While the SB100 is a good unit, I am finding that it breaks way too easily so I need an alternatvive.</p>
<p>I am considering one of the cheaper flash units as a backup and am looking for suggestions. Since this is only a backup, I am hoping to keep this under $100. I am currently using this for high school wrestling as well as in-town group events such as parties and fashion shows for the schools. My camera is a D7100.</p>
<p>Please let me know if you have any suggestions. Thank you.</p>
-
<p>LR is an amazing product but it is not the tool for you. It would be best for you that you use another tool. </p>
-
<p>Wow! So it is the artist's responsibility to only collect fees only when they can catch people using their material? </p>
<p>So based on this premise, we can go ahead and stop paying for movies, music, books, or any other content, for as long as it takes the content creator to catch me? Pretty absurd in my view.</p>
-
<blockquote>
<p>I would get it back. I have ooccasionallyhad broken gear magically start working again after a few years of sitting in the closet. Of course I've also had working gear break after a few years of sitting in the closet.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>With salt water hitting the lens, you would need a lot of magic.</p>
-
<p>Paypal or cash is best. Checks can be canceled and credit cards can be reversed.</p>
<p>What is his near-perfect record? A rating of 96% is actually pretty bad.</p>
-
<p>I'm a but confused by your post. I'm not sure what you're asking.</p>
-
<p>This is absurd. I agree that the punishment needs to fit the crime but don't tell me that it is not stealing. If the world was the way that you want it to be, then there is no value is producing content, whether that be pictures, stories, movies, music, tv shows, fonts, software or anything else. If that was the case, why would anyone bother developing content if others can steal it with no repercussions? Just because the OP did not realize that his wife was stealing content does not make him innocent. I give the OP credit for trying to make it right, but the fact is that his wife used the image with obtaining the proper licenses. I am happy that Getty is protecting their IP, and the rights of the photographers who created the content.</p>
<p>I also did not realize that that the general public has made it abundantly clear that stealing content should be allowed, nor did I realize that they voted you as the spokesperson. </p>
-
<blockquote>
<p>Stealing is stealing, whether it's from Getty or YouTube. Case closed. Those tho like to throw stones live in a glass house.<br>
</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Agreed! Stealing is stealing.</p>
-
<blockquote>
<p>Don't throw out high and mighty accusations if you are guilty of the same thing in some other venue.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>You are arguing that stealing is fine since everyone else also steals, and that it is particularly okay to steal if you steal from a mega corporation. I am saying that stealing is wrong. I am not judging you as you are free to do whatever you want. But don't tell me that stealing is not illegal.</p>
<p>Also what accusations did I make, and how do you know that I am guilty of stealing from Youtube? We need to take the tone down a bit. PN is supposed to a friendly site where opposing views are encouraged. If you want a street fight, maybe you should go elsewhere. </p>
-
<blockquote>
<p>John, when's the last time you downloaded something from Youtube without paying a licensing fee ?</p>
</blockquote>
<p> <br>
I realize this was addressed to John but stealing is stealing. It does not matter is you are stealing it from a large mega-corporation or your local store. If you want to rationalize it so that you feel better, that is your choice. But it is stealing. If you tried to walk into your local store and take something without walking out, anyone would call that stealing. Why is this any different.</p>
-
<blockquote>
<p>This thread is unfortunately reinforcing all of the negative perceptions held by the general public about the inflated self- importance and intractability of photographers. No wonder the consumer side of the photography business is in a free fall.<br>
We're talking about bloggers with personal websites. There was no sale to be made in the first place. So you don't want someone who doesn't know any better to use your picture, ask them to take it down. I'm not talking about a major retail outlet taking a design from a Flickr user and making curtains and window displays without licensing and compensation</p>
</blockquote>
<p>So based on this, big corporations should pay however bloggers should be able to go to their local Walmart and take home whatever they want without paying for it. After it, it is only for a blogger who is not making money. </p>
<p>Sorry but this thinking is absurd. Stealing is stealing. Period.</p>
-
<p>Your wife did something that was illegal. Whether this was intentional or not really does not matter. I would not hire an attorney but explain to Getty that this was an innocent mistake and see if they are willing to negotiate. In the end though, you are going to need to pay.</p>
<p>I am sorry that you and your wife have to pay but I actually applaud Getty for what they are doing. Too many pictures are being stolen and used without proper licensing. By Getty doing this, it actually protects us small photographers.</p>
Sued by Getty images
in Business of Photography
Posted
<p>@Ima - it's obvious you have something against Getty. Getty has always gone after anyone who they catch using their licensed photo illegally. What is wrong with a company protecting what it owns. It is no different from you going to you local Walmart and walking out the door without paying for anything because you claim that you don't agree with Walmart's business practices. It is stealing. You really don't understand ethics, do you?</p>
<p>If you want to start your own site selling images, then go for it. I think that you have a great idea. Why even sell image licenses. You should just let people use your images and if you catch them using it, only then would you need to be "fairly compensated".</p>