Author Topic: Phototalk random thread  (Read 7019 times)

LEE

  • "Shut Up Jens" - Legs.
Re: Phototalk random thread
« Reply #50 on: April 11, 2018, 10:25:05 am »
Actually unconnected with the previous post, I'm re-evaluating all subs I pay, Adobe CC is one of them. I pay annual sub, paid monthly, I suspect that's a common way

Online chat:
I'd like to cancel my sub
agent: why?
Because I don't get value from it, I prefer a software purchase which I upgrade when I want the new features or support.
agent: would you like our special offer? Would that help? Three months free
So my current sub ends in July, that would mean it ends in Oct, what would my additional commitment be?
agent: nothing
So  come October I'm as free to cancel?
agent: Yes. Would you like to do it?
OK then, I'll have your special offer (and make a mark on my Calendar for September)

That is one weird special offer, but anyone else with a CC sub might like to try it.

I use Adobe Photoshop CS6, one of their older "Buy it on CD and use it as long as you like" approaches to software.  They can shove monthly subscriptions up their arse.

My next move will be to Luminar.

Being honest I only use about 5% of Photoshop's feature set, I rarely use a layer.  Most of my adjustments are in Lightroom/CameraRAW anyway.
Some people say I'm self-obsessed but that's enough about them.

Jaded

  • The Codfather
  • Formerly known as Jaded
Re: Phototalk random thread
« Reply #51 on: April 11, 2018, 08:08:39 pm »
I have Affinity Photo, bought for £25 at the Photography Show, ready for when CS6 no longer works. I already have their Illustrator kiiler, and I'm awaiting their launch of Affinity Publisher, in Spring. Then it will only be an Acrobat Pro replacement I'll be after and Adobe can swivel.
If you don't like your democracy, vote against it.

hellymedic

  • Just do it!
Re: Phototalk random thread
« Reply #52 on: May 08, 2018, 09:11:15 pm »
David has broken my Canon IXUS 70. I know it's ancient but:
I don't need lots of pixels.
I like having an optical viewfinder.
I can only manage a lightweight camera.

The camera still works but the lens cover mechanism is damaged as the aluminium ring on the nose got bent when the camera fell off a ledge when he was doing a selfie.

He admits he should have used a tripod.

I have the two leaves that close over the lens, a tiny spring, a plastic ring and the somewhat bent aluminium ring in a nice clean plastic bag.

barakta

  • Bastard lovechild of Yomiko Readman and Johnny 5
Re: Phototalk random thread
« Reply #53 on: May 08, 2018, 11:58:40 pm »
Could David be made responsible for obtaining a replacement of the same model or paying for repair?

Sounds very frustrating :(

hellymedic

  • Just do it!
Re: Phototalk random thread
« Reply #54 on: May 09, 2018, 12:48:21 am »
I doubt repair is economically feasible though I suspect it could be done by a willing volunteer with good lighting, magnification and micro-tools; the spring is about 3mm long and half a millimetre wide.
The same make and model starts from £15 + P&P on ebay.
All David's money originates in my bank account.

LEE

  • "Shut Up Jens" - Legs.
Re: Phototalk random thread
« Reply #55 on: May 09, 2018, 11:27:14 am »
I doubt repair is economically feasible though I suspect it could be done by a willing volunteer with good lighting, magnification and micro-tools; the spring is about 3mm long and half a millimetre wide.
The same make and model starts from £15 + P&P on ebay.
All David's money originates in my bank account.

If you're happy with that camera then £15 sounds like a bargain.  I think it's one of Canon's best designs and looks like it could have come out of the Porsche or Apple design studios.

7Mp is perfectly adequate.  What are you waiting for?

If you want a step up in quality then look at a used Canon S90.  No optical viewfinder but a lovely compact camera (I have the S120 , the final incarnation of that S-series compact body.  I also had the S70 but the S90 shrunk it all down significantly, it's quality.)
Some people say I'm self-obsessed but that's enough about them.

barakta

  • Bastard lovechild of Yomiko Readman and Johnny 5
Re: Phototalk random thread
« Reply #56 on: May 09, 2018, 11:32:36 am »
Sounds like a replacement on ebay is viable for you to get. I'd go for it as well.

Still sorry yours got wrecked and hope it doesn't happen again.

fruitcake

  • some kind of fruitcake
    • Bailey
Re: Phototalk random thread
« Reply #57 on: May 09, 2018, 12:15:32 pm »
Hellymedic,

I have a Canon Powershot A560 going spare. It's lightweight, it has optical viewfinder, a layout similar to your IXUS - and it takes AA batteries. Working. How about £10 posted? Let me know if you're interested.

LEE

  • "Shut Up Jens" - Legs.
Re: Phototalk random thread
« Reply #58 on: May 09, 2018, 12:19:01 pm »
Hellymedic,

I have a Canon Powershot 560 going spare. It's lightweight, it has optical viewfinder, a layout similar to your IXUS - and it takes AA batteries. Working. How about £10 posted? Let me know if you're interested.

Too good to miss Hellymedic !!!  It's probably the same internal gubbins as your camera.
Some people say I'm self-obsessed but that's enough about them.

T42

  • Gaulois réfractaire
Re: Phototalk random thread
« Reply #59 on: May 17, 2018, 08:24:56 am »
Yup. I had an A590IS, much the same. I used it with a Gigapan - great fun: http://www.gigapan.com/gigapans/19485

There is/was quite a hacker community centred on these cameras - I think there was even firmware to be had that would turn out RAW files.
I dare eat all that may become a man.

But hold the oysters.

Torslanda

  • Professional Gobshite
  • Just a tart for retro kit . . .
    • John's Bikes
Re: Phototalk random thread
« Reply #60 on: May 20, 2018, 01:28:41 am »
Has ph*t*bucket given up trying to charge for 3rd party hosting?

I revisited my gallery thread and found all the pictures are visible again . . .
VELOMANCER

Well that's the more blunt way of putting it but as usual he's dead right.

Salvatore

  • Джон Спунър
    • Pics
Quote
et avec John, excellent lecteur de road-book, on s'en est sortis sans erreur

T42

  • Gaulois réfractaire
Re: Phototalk random thread
« Reply #62 on: May 20, 2018, 10:35:00 am »
The new setup isn't a bad deal.  $24 p.a. for 10 Gb is cheaper pro rata than PBase - I pay $22 p.a. for 2 Gb; but after 15 years of membership and over 3000 pics I haven't used up a Gb yet.

PBase is advert-free, mind you.
I dare eat all that may become a man.

But hold the oysters.

Re: Phototalk random thread
« Reply #63 on: May 21, 2018, 05:34:27 pm »
After many moons have passed without me setting up a formal, strategic photo backup, as I have already sold my soul to google I thought, why not use their backup? Allegedly "unlimited" storage for 1600x1200 (ie, ok to look at) I've pushed the button.

24 hours and 15,000 into 120,000 images it seems to be working ok. Amusingly, it is backing up all my RAW files, by converting them to jpg, providing duplicates of each although the converted jpg is more lossy and lower quality than the reduced in camera jpg.

Organisation wise, there is a folder structure, only the maximum granularity is a year, which is a shame, the date is from the EXIF as expected, rather than the folder it comes from.

So, a handy painless backstop against losing it all, but not much use for serious organisation. I wouldn't consider using it for a serious archive.

ETA - found the "Don't back up RAW file setting" now

LEE

  • "Shut Up Jens" - Legs.
Re: Phototalk random thread
« Reply #64 on: May 22, 2018, 12:26:24 am »
After many moons have passed without me setting up a formal, strategic photo backup, as I have already sold my soul to google I thought, why not use their backup? Allegedly "unlimited" storage for 1600x1200 (ie, ok to look at) I've pushed the button.

24 hours and 15,000 into 120,000 images it seems to be working ok. Amusingly, it is backing up all my RAW files, by converting them to jpg, providing duplicates of each although the converted jpg is more lossy and lower quality than the reduced in camera jpg.

Organisation wise, there is a folder structure, only the maximum granularity is a year, which is a shame, the date is from the EXIF as expected, rather than the folder it comes from.

So, a handy painless backstop against losing it all, but not much use for serious organisation. I wouldn't consider using it for a serious archive.

ETA - found the "Don't back up RAW file setting" now

Good tip, as a Google user I may give that a go.

I already backup to a couple of USB drives and keep one in the garage but, for free, 1600x1200 is the same resolution as my old 2Mp Fuji Finepix and I've printed 10x8 no problem off that. 

The beauty is that now I'd be backing up already cropped and edited images, from high-end cameras, at 2mp.  As a very last resort I'd be happy to have a 2Mp jpg copy of my edited images because, in reality, 1600 pixels is enough resolution for the human eye, for any size print (up to billboard size) when viewed at the optimum distance*.

* Zooming in on a monitor would quickly reveal a lack of detail of course but therein lies the problem with most camera reviews... "pixel-peeping" way beyond what is actually meaningful.
Some people say I'm self-obsessed but that's enough about them.

Re: Phototalk random thread
« Reply #65 on: May 22, 2018, 06:55:52 am »
OK. Well Well.

In Google photos, the image displays at 1600 x 1200 pixels. Behind the scenes, the file is held in Google drive. At original resolution. That's not to say that Mr Google won't work his way through these files in time, reducing the size on disk, but there you go.

I found this as I could see that the file size was similar in Drive to the local file (c 3-4Mb/file for a 4608 * 3456 file). So I downloaded and spent about 5 minutes pixel peeping and thinking this looks very much the same, before I had the nous to just check Image->File size.

fuaran

  • rothair gasta
Re: Phototalk random thread
« Reply #66 on: May 22, 2018, 12:22:51 pm »
Google Photos now gives unlimited storage for up to 16 megapixel resolution. Anything higher will get resized. It might also use a bit more JPEG compression, but you probably won't notice much difference.

Re: Phototalk random thread
« Reply #67 on: May 24, 2018, 09:55:47 pm »
OK. Well Well.

In Google photos, the image displays at 1600 x 1200 pixels. Behind the scenes, the file is held in Google drive. At original resolution. That's not to say that Mr Google won't work his way through these files in time, reducing the size on disk, but there you go.

I found this as I could see that the file size was similar in Drive to the local file (c 3-4Mb/file for a 4608 * 3456 file). So I downloaded and spent about 5 minutes pixel peeping and thinking this looks very much the same, before I had the nous to just check Image->File size.

Update.

Yes, Mr Google has worked his way through reducing jpg file size to c.200kb, which I suppose was to be expected.

Unfortunately he is also busy trying to make albums and other photo niceties out of my stash. Rather a LOT of them (from what is, I suppose, rather a lot of photos). Once you get over the spookiness of identifying the locations from the image (not exif/GPS  or phone trace) - including some pretty obscure places and the slight fun of sifting through images over the years, it gets tedious dismissing 30 or more suggested albumations at a time.

hellymedic

  • Just do it!
Re: Phototalk random thread
« Reply #68 on: May 30, 2018, 08:56:47 pm »

ElyDave

  • Royal and Ancient Polar Bear Society member 263583
Re: Phototalk random thread
« Reply #69 on: May 30, 2018, 10:54:23 pm »
WOT new camera?

I have a ten year service award, a bit of offshore bonus already earned and a bit more coming up.  Enough after tax to buy a new camera to record this year's tour to Islay and the west coast back down across the SOlway firth.

I'm torn between about three cameras at the moment of similar price range.
- olympus OMD EM 10 - in solver of course to match my old 35mm OM10
- Panasonic GX80 - liked for compactness
- panasonic G7 - perhaps a bit on the chunky side, but good reviews

As an outlier also the Canon EOS M50 at the next price bracket, recommended for the larger sensor size by an airport duty free salesman

Pros - micro 4/3 have more lenses available, and more compact, but perhaps poorer low light/landscape performance vs the canons?
I'm looking for an upgrade from my current Lumix P&S high zoom model I use for work, keen to take better photos, partic landscape/cityscape/parks and gardens

Thoughts?
“Procrastination is the thief of time, collar him.” –Charles Dickens

LEE

  • "Shut Up Jens" - Legs.
Re: Phototalk random thread
« Reply #70 on: May 30, 2018, 11:33:37 pm »
Found in the loft...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/in-pictures-43782267

They may have stumbled upon a goldmine.

1 - They look like really excellent photos

2 - Similar Vivian Maier prints now sell for thousands each.
Some people say I'm self-obsessed but that's enough about them.

LEE

  • "Shut Up Jens" - Legs.
Re: Phototalk random thread
« Reply #71 on: May 30, 2018, 11:40:54 pm »
WOT new camera?

I have a ten year service award, a bit of offshore bonus already earned and a bit more coming up.  Enough after tax to buy a new camera to record this year's tour to Islay and the west coast back down across the SOlway firth.

I'm torn between about three cameras at the moment of similar price range.
- olympus OMD EM 10 - in solver of course to match my old 35mm OM10
- Panasonic GX80 - liked for compactness
- panasonic G7 - perhaps a bit on the chunky side, but good reviews

As an outlier also the Canon EOS M50 at the next price bracket, recommended for the larger sensor size by an airport duty free salesman

Pros - micro 4/3 have more lenses available, and more compact, but perhaps poorer low light/landscape performance vs the canons?
I'm looking for an upgrade from my current Lumix P&S high zoom model I use for work, keen to take better photos, partic landscape/cityscape/parks and gardens

Thoughts?

Olympus for me (The Mk3).  I don't think you can go wrong with any of them but the Olympus looks so pretty.
Some people say I'm self-obsessed but that's enough about them.

Jaded

  • The Codfather
  • Formerly known as Jaded
Re: Phototalk random thread
« Reply #72 on: May 31, 2018, 12:25:15 am »
Oly. All the way.
If you don't like your democracy, vote against it.

Re: Phototalk random thread
« Reply #73 on: May 31, 2018, 12:53:05 am »
I had an endowment mature recently - I am trying *very* hard to resist the temptation of an OM-D E-M5ii, especially as Olympus have a cashback promotion until the end of July ...

Re: Phototalk random thread
« Reply #74 on: May 31, 2018, 06:16:33 am »
Worth mentioning that even with the cashback, HDew are substantially less https://www.hdewcameras.co.uk/olympus-om-d-e-m5-mk-ii-body-black-2996-p.asp