17 posts • joined 15 Aug 2011
Re: As far as I am concerned
Even if the image is of you, you do not own the copyright to the photo. The copyright always rests with the photographer. In the US, the photographer has great leeway in how that photo gets used. They could sell it as a print, include it in a photo coffee book and do a variety of other things with "your" photo. As long as it was taken in a place where you have no expectation of privacy and doesn't violate any laws, there's not anything you can say about it. The only thing they cannot do without your written consent is use it for commercial purposes (i.e., in an ad).
Re: Wait a minute
I don't know about other countries, but here in the US I'm 99% sure that if a company sends you unsolicited merchandise, you are under NO obligation to return the item or send it back. Otherwise you'd be forced to bear the burden of paying to return something you never requested in the first place.
Re: No problem for me.
No major problems with the upgrade here to Xubuntu 14.04. The only glitch I ran into was a problem where Xfce didn't want to let me change my wallpaper. I'm not sure exactly what I did to fix it, but I think I mostly just logged off and back on the session and it magically went back to normal.
The same is true for us photographers. I have multiple backups and edited versions of a single file. While I can search for images in Lightroom, for example, I rarely use that feature. I have carefully organized my photos using a number of criteria that make sense to me.
Only rarely do I search for anything on my computer.
So far, our oldest written surviving communication seems to be cave drawings, followed by the written word chiseled on rock tablets. At least it lasts longer than archival paper. Maybe the aliens will head for the caves when they arrive on post-apocalyptic earth?
Just a moment on camera battery advice
There's some sensible advice in this piece, but I'd hasten to add a clarification regarding camera batteries. If the gifted camera is a DSLR, with their correspondingly large batteries, it is unlikely that anyone would wear it down in a day. Those behemoths can easily fire off a couple thousand shots before expiring, and even most pros are unlikely to do so in a single day.
However, if the camera in question is a point-and-shoot or one of the newer compact, mirrorless cameras (such as my Fujifilm X-E2), you're looking at an upper limit of around 300-350 snaps before the battery is depleted - fewer if you're shooting in cold conditions. That might still be more than a typical snapper uses in a day, but for ardent shutterbugs it may not be nearly enough. Fortunately, third-party spares (like the Wasabi batteries) are generally cheap and reliable. Spend the tiny amount of extra cash and stock up!
Re: Not just games
I'm one of apparently 3 people on the planet that remembers the name Duffy Moon. I've lifted some heavy rocks with his inspiration...
Anything that promotes film usage...
... is a good thing in my book. Even Lomography, with it's overpriced "hipster" (whatever that means) cameras, has played a significant role in the film resurgence. I was an early adopter of digital cameras, having been given a Kodak DC40 (we're talking about 1/3 of a megapixel as I recall, with a serial interface and limited to scant internal memory) in the late 90s. I've owned a succession of digital cameras since that time and continue to shoot more than my share of digipixels.
But a few years ago I discovered the Holga, then "graduated" to a plethora of assorted toy and more serious medium format cameras. I started using my trusty old Konica TC-X again - an SLR I bought in '87 when I was taking a high school photography class. Today I've got a small arsenal of film cameras that includes everything from 110 cameras (yes, they're making 110 film again) to instant cameras old and new (like the handy little Fujifilm Instax Mini 8). So many, in fact, that I'm having to thin out my collection a bit.
Film will always be a niche market, but there's been a growing interest in the medium for the past several years. Interestingly, a lot of the momentum comes from young people who have used digital their entire lives. Then they discover this archaic medium where you don't get to see your photos until later. There's a sense of mystery and anticipation. And your pictures have a different kind of look - a look old dudes try to simulate with expensive Photoshop plugins. And, relative to the cost of buying a high-end DSLR every few years, film can be relatively inexpensive, especially if you develop your own b&w. You get a new "sensor" with every roll you run though a 40+ year old camera.
It's a shame I don't have a 3D printer. But I've already given my wife my Christmas wish list, which includes a hopeful request for a Holga 120 pinhole camera.
We already have such a photo sharing forum
It's called Flickr. And they don't degrade all of your photos when you upload them.
Re: Slight confusion here
If you really think that the faith grounded in fact amounts to "hearsay," then on what grounds do you accept any claims about ancient history, since you weren't there to obtain an eyewitness account?
I'm guessing you probably would attribute Plato's "Apology" to Plato (and, indirectly, to the teachings of Socrates), even though you never met the man and most likely are relying on a 20th century English translation of his work to read it. Absolute skepticism about every ancient claim will leave you with nothing meaningful to say about it.
Re: You what?
The potential resolution really depends on the capabilities of the scanning device. A drum scanner can eke out tremendous amount of data from a 35mm or medium format negative, even though typical consumer scanners don't come close. And while not exactly square, tabular grain films like T-Max are rectangular.
Re: it's dead Jim
For some people, using film is whimsy. But there's some serious photography being done by talented people on medium and large format, in particular. Just search Flickr or Google+ for "medium format" and take a look at some of the work you find there. I don't see how anyone could look at the serious photography still shot on film in 2013, and pronounce it dead. A lot of younger people are rediscovering film and some will shoot with nothing else!
Sure there are the hipsters who buy a plastic Holga, shoot a roll and then move on to something more interesting and trendy. (There's nothing wrong with shooting Holgas, mind you - I still use mine.) On the other hand, the cost of quality, vintage camera gear keeps climbing. There's clearly a demand for it. I've been back to film for around 3-4 years now, and have no intention of quitting. As long as there's a sufficient market, film will be the preferred medium of a sizable niche market.
Film Isn't Dead
I can't speak to the future of Kodak. It's clear they've made some poor decisions, and their future remains a giant question mark. But as the assertion that "people still aren't buying old fashioned film... well, that just ain't so. I shoot both digital and film, and I've got a freezer full of film. I typically shoot a roll or two a week. Fuji, Ilford and some lesser known names are still pumping out film in a variety of formats. A company in Europe just recently released a brand new b&w emulsion.
Just because it's a niche doesn't mean the craft of analog photography is dead. Take a look at Flickr and you'll notice dozen of groups specifically dedicated to shooting all manner of film and film cameras. Several of these groups are extremely active. There's also an active web forum called APUG (Analog Photographers User Group), which generates at least 1500+ posts over a typical weekend. Then you have Lomography selling their (admittedly plasticy) cameras online and in various brick and mortar locations around the world. On top of that, in the last couple of years 110 film has gone back into production after being abandoned by the major film companies. And the Impossible Project has similarly taken up the instant film market for Polaroid cameras.
There's a lot going on in film today!
Re: Good old silver halide negs will still be readable in 50 years - USB? I doubt it.
I shoot a good deal of film these days, as well as digital imagery. And I'm inclined to agree that my negatives are far more likely to survive the next century intact than are the ones and zeroes that reside on today's digital storage mediums.
You're Welcome, Mr. Zuckerberg
I said goodbye over a month ago, and my daily distraction level has greatly decreased.
So far, so good
As long as they continue to respect the difference between a public and a private post shared only with intended circles, I don't have a problem with the current business model. I moved from Facebook (although I keep a foot over there for my slower friends), precisely because of the control I have over my content. If Google wants to keep people like me, they'll continue to respect that content in private circles remains that way.
I also added value...
...by canceling my account. Making opt-in the default is a bad idea. You'd think they'd have learned from Facebook.
- Boffins attempt to prove the UNIVERSE IS JUST A HOLOGRAM
- Review Raspberry Pi B+: PHWOAR, get a load of those pins
- Review Reg man looks through a Glass, darkly: Google's toy ploy or killer tech specs?
- MEN WANTED to satisfy town full of yearning BRAZILIAN HOTNESS
- +Comment 'Stop dissing Google or quit': OK, I quit, says Code Club co-founder