aeon

Why not ban photography altogether??????????????

How can I tell if someone is an orphan.

that is the trick, you can assume the photo is an orphan if through a "suitable negligent search" you can't find the name of the author, so why people should find the author name if they can get the photo with negligence and at a nominal fee...

Happy birthday photoshop! I am a professional user since 1997, but started to use it for fun a couple of years before, I think was version 3. So long time...

what about an orphan photo which contains copyrighted subject?

As in brands names?

That'd be the problem of the user - orphan shot so presumably no recourse against an "unknown" photographer

It will turn out to be a huge revenue for that agency without too much expenses, I am sure will be "very very" smooth to access info about the usage and own remuneration if the author will find out some "improper" (I would add) usage of his own work. I think the internet community should do something to avoid this law to get in place. They can actually get info of the publisher on internet by ip address, but of course they wrote "will allow the commercial use of any photograph whose author cannot be identified through a suitably negligent search" this makes the big difference in earning. In the past negligence was punishable...

what about an orphan photo which contains copyrighted subject?

On internet as well as in real life, copyrights laws protect the right even if the author/creator use a pseudonym. And normally people don't care much about knowing real people's name. Pseudonyms are also used to be easy to remember or to get more attention from the public.

They should launch a new tv soap opera on the 26th february, so everyone will stay home

I find very convenient way to shoot macro (not sure if this technically is a macro but I actually don't care to have the subject projected at the original size in the sensor) when I am on the road, in a non studio setup, to use long tele 200 to 300 mm with image stabilizer and extension tube 25mm. The convenience is that you don't need to go very close to the subject (if its alive will not run away) and you can shoot handheld.

you can adjust your AF with microadjustments (specifically per each lens) and this image: http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/article...adjustment.html

I agree

Very well argumented opinion

lazy me

Megapixels do count!

I agree

I would stake my Canon 40D with 10MP against any point and shoot with the same number of pixels,

expecally at the higher ISO ratings.

Cleaner imaging, and less noise.

if you compare a smaller sensor p&s camera with 10mp and the 40d then you are right.

But if you compare 40d and 7d (I have both), same sensor size but the last one has 18mp and trust me it captures much clearer images and less noise.

It's a marketing strategy that has got out of hand and is probably is most responsible for the degradation in image quality as technology has "progressed".

Everything else being equal, whilst accepting that they usually are not, take two cameras with a the same size sensor, and the one with fewer pixels will give you a better picture. This is because fewer pixels on the sensor means bigger pixels, means better capture of light and less noise. Sure, theoretically you can't enlarge it as much as a the higher megapixel camera, but if the other camera is producing a rubbish image to start with, there is not a lot of point in enlarging it.

What should be highlighted for consumers is something like the MP/cm² pixel density that is used on the DPreview site as part of the camera description. The lower the number of mega pixels per square centimetre, the better the image is likely to be.

You are partly correct and partly wrong. It is true that more pixels in the same sized sensor get more noisy images, but less pixels means also less details, so quality of image is not only about noise, but also about sharpness. If you need to print, number of pixels are important, and new interpolation algorithms give much less noisy images than before. Also new technologies are implemented, for example Canon 7d has a smaller sensor than a full frame, has more pixels than previous cropped frame cameras, but noise is not a big deal because they also reduced the size and distance between the microlenses in front of the sensor, meaning less gaps between pixels then less noise and more details.

There's a good argument for shooting Raw+Jpeg

Depending on the "accuracy" of your cameras Jpeg rendition it can avail you of a "guideline" to processing your RAW files.

I'm happy with shooting both in my GF1 and MKII (both of which which are incredibly accurate) and often shoot B+W RAW+Jpeg

Following the Jpeg rendition is sometimes beneficial.

To dismiss the benefit of Jpeg as a guideline is foolish

even shooting only raw, what you see in the display of your camera is a rendition of that raw with the adjustments made by your settings. Is basically a jpg.

If you need the jpg guideline on a computer then I understand, but why use as guideline an image that has been generated with so poor customizable or standard settings?

My eye is always better than camera software, the last one can't judge and can't make artistic choices.

I prefer shooting only raw, and then use the tools I prefer to create the image, "for me" trusting camera software is a bit like giving artistic choice to a machine.

I miss two things in this discussion that are important factors for me:

1 - With film you could buy a body and know you would be using it for many years. I loved working with my FM's and knowing my equipment through and through. In the digi era you are almost forced to buy a new body every 2-3 years, re-learning where all the different buttons are etc.

2 - dust dust dust dust dust DUST, I hate dust !, instead of having a bit of dust on one frame that you could just clean, now the dust is on the sensor....so on every single shot ....

but,...I'm playing music off cd's (or harddrive) and my FM's are in a box somewhere, gathering......

1 with the film you are forced to buy rolls of film, chemicals, paper or pay the lab fees.

2 true but what about overall sharpness? seems to be impossible to have a perfect flat film inside your camera.

It's very simple Raw captures more data than Jpg so you'll be able to adjust things better when postprocessing.

technically should be more correct to say that raw file does not capture but just contains the data captured from the sensor, raw is not an image file because it doesn't contain any image, it contains just the values in numbers that the sensor captured. It does not even has a gamma corrected color space, is just linear values. to generate an image from it, you need to use a software that creates an image (conceptually same as the negative contains densities and then through development and print you get the image). Jpg file is created by the camera built in software with the color settings you setup on your menus. It is generated from the original data of the sensor, but clamped to fit in a 8 bit file format and so all the extra data is lost forever (conceptually more similar to an instant polaroid)

"There is a lot of support there that "real photographers" get the shot right in the camera without doing post-processing."

The amount of post processing that for example Ansel Adams (I guess I can safely assume everyone thinks he is a "real" photographer, whatever that means) did in the darkroom was immense. Visible in the difference he got in prints off the same negatives over the years. (read Ansel Adams' The Print)

The only difference is that we do it in a "digital darkroom" nowadays. Much more possibilities to get the final print right and I am very happy I no longer have to use an old fashioned darkroom.

Agree in full, with the advantage that raw file will be always the same and you can make copies of it, and the original data is all contained and not clamped as it happen on chemically processing negative. That is why you get higher dynamic range on digital than film.

thanks tingnongnoi, I went long time ago at Central Lard Prao on Pahonyothin and opposite side shops, but I couldn't remember the name of that road and how to go there, I will surely go next time.

Sunny Valentine I agree with you, I was looking for neutral grey 2 and 4 and i found them at capa, and I haven't found yet the skylight (i use it already on some lens) that even if is possible to remove the blue/purple tint in photoshop, I still prefer to get it right on the lens.

not sure but you can give a try to the shops in chinatown, is a small building with many photography shops, most of them deal with old cameras and new too. I can't remember the place name but you should find it easily, should be located in chalean krung intersection, right behind that kind of underground market.

Fotofile MBK, Capa Fortune Town 2nd Floor. And the store in the first small Soi left off Charown Krung when coming from Saphan Taksin BTS station, to name a few.

Thanks Sunny Valentine, I found the filters i was looking for at capa at fortune, though they don't have a big selection of brands and filters type, I still can't find some. Fotofile has much less, the employee answered me "we have only uv, polarizer".

Hi everyone I would appreciate if someone can suggest a shop to buy lens filters, most of the shops in bangkok they only have protection, uv, polarizer, and if ask some other name they do strange faces and they repeat they have only protection, uv, polarizer.

Do they promote anti-scam and more safety policies? That would be a big enhancement to promote tourism on the long run.

if we stop eating meat possibly we can change the climate to be more friendly, I don't expect governments to stop this madness.

UPDATE: Camera has been sold, Lens still available

The captain informed passengers before landing that the windshield cracked and one of the four engines stopped.

To be perfectly honest I'd rather hear that after we'd landed.

Seconded; apart from that how on earth is it possible that those 2 (completely different) problems occurred at the same moment ? What has an engine that stopped has to do with a cracked window ?

LaoPo

maybe that huge bird hit the windshield and then slipped right inside the engine

The lens price looks a little steep, as Fotofile have a new one,

albeit unboxed, for B16000.

Having said that it is a nice combination if you buy both, exactly what I am using these days.

new without box seems a very limited amount of items, maybe one, the normal price is 23000 to 25000.