I'm sure they do. There will always be thieves.

 

 

I know I'm just opening myself up for abuse putting this out there, but maybe it will be a lesson learned from me for someone.

I DL'ed a pirated version of CS4, and literally about an hour later I received an e-mail with the title: Notice of Action under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (this was a full page e-mail, but I won't bore everyone with legal details, plus some of it may be considered private information)

They knew what software I was downloading, my name/address/IP - everything. They provided me with a case#, and listed this "warning"(?) as evidence #xxxxxxxx. So - pirating software isn't what it was back even a couple years ago.

BTW - I'm still kind of sitting on the edge of my seat waiting for more documentation to come, or someone to summons me or something. Haven't heard anything - but definately consider it lesson learn.

 

^
I've DL'd everyone version of Photoshop and just about everything out there and I haven't gotten this before. Of course my company has a license for PS I'm just too lazy to get the serials.

 

 

We kind of did, I guess, it was just back and forth.
I forgot about it till you mentioned it.

I don't understand your argument in this post though. It's Canon who makes the camera firmware that does the sensor -> DNG step. I don't see how writing a DNG straight to the card (rather than raw) reveals any more than it would if I handed you a DNG file rather than a RAW file.

Your prior argument (which I forgot about) made sense, and brings up some interesting questions:
1) Has DNG changed in format yet?
2) Do we lose anything going from RAW to DNG?

In theory lightroom could make canon's cameras look better if they didn't
have to hack away at the CR2 (CR3?) better. Doesn't canon get annoyed hearing lightroom say, 'okay, this kind of works with the 7D, but it's probably not as good as it could be?' And have people use it anyway?

- Frank

 

Hah! I can count the number of people I know who don't pirate on one hand.
Anyway, don't get me started.

- Frank

 

I see what you're saying and think getting a DNG file out of the camera would be good. But it would be a much bigger file. DNG = RAW+XMP. I don't think Canon's care about what they might say. I know I hear many, many say that the NEF files look much better using NX, NX2. But I like the workflow with LR and Bridge. I might buy it when the put out v3.

One other thing is that DNG is Adobe's baby, hard to see Canon or Nikon coming to terms with that.

 

the (first) fruit of all my panoramic madness... got one of mine on the cover of this book which is the result of a contest by CBS to "Capture my Chicago".

http://www.pedimentbooks.com/capture-my-chicago

^^(see small pic of book)

great for the coffee table!

 

congratulations
that's pretty cool, nice shot, what floor you shooting from?

 

^danke - I believe it was 32 or so..

 

 

Great job! Congrats.

 

You're a badass, Rubin!! Congratulations!

 

Congrats! Looks great.

 

thanks

correction it was from the 39th floor..

 

That's awesome, Rubin. Congrats man.

 

^danks

Attn: Chicago people - my winning cover shot is scheduled to be featured tonight on CBS2 news at 10PM. Tune in if you can! (It was supposedly featured on the 5 and 6pm news as well.)

 

39th floor, hmmm. I don't know if Vancouver has any buildings publicly accessible that tall, I should look into that. and I would not have thought of doing a pano from there, I would have tried to get single shots probably. it always helps to see what and how others compose shots and subjects to get some inspiration. thanks srika.

 

That's totally awesome about the cover. I am in awe.

- Frank

 

here is the official announcement:
http://www.capturemychicago.com/news/229

 

BTW, am I correct in assuming the cover shot was from the Prudential building?

 

 

wide gamut is really nice.

 

Awesome, Rubin! It is a great shot and congrats on the cover.

Was there any prize (money or otherwise)?

 

That's awesome Rubin! Congrats!

 

^thanks

no money or prizes.... in fact, I have to shell out to buy the book for myself! you could say that's sh*tty but it doesn't bother me one bit, I'm just happy this photo was given some life!

 

hmm... my college is playing at UC davis for volleyball

think i might go there and flex my 1DmkIIn's muscles

 

im so rusty, i dont think anything came out.


and it didnt help that it was such terrible lighting. it was like shooting in a cave.

1/250th was about the proper exposure @ iso3200 @ 2.8

 

I was mistaken - I do get a $200 gift card (likely to Amazon). I'll take it!

 

nice

 

Oh great, while I was shooting pics at a halloween party, I noticed the rear joystick wasn't working right on my 40D. It wouldn't go left or down, which made reviewing pics a pain. I took a closer look today and apparently someone (probably me) splashed a drink on it.

Doesn't appear to be any other damage. I'll have to send it in I guess (though I could use a sensor cleaning on it anyway) tho I don't have a backup body. Fighting (weakly) the urge to get the 7D since the high ISO pics on it look pretty good from what I've seen.....

- Frank

 

Maybe if it dries out it'll start working again. I've had that happen with remotes I've spilled stuff on. In the meantime, you can still use the wheel to review pics.

 

No good. The only thing I can't do is zoom in and scroll around the picture. Oh, and selecting focus point is more annoying now.

- Frank

 

my 40D joystick stopped working too... but for some reason it started working again

 

i shouldve just used the 40D last night, iso3200 is better on the 40D
and these images are purposely underexposed.

 

review of flash diffuser coverage, worth a look I think..

http://photo-tips-online.com/test/fl...rame-coverage/

 

Interesting.

 

I don't understand the fascination with off-camera flash, for nightclub work at least. Out of all the off-camera shots I see (many are doing it) - probably about 10% look "really good" to me. If not processed correctly, these shots have a consistent tendency to make people look markedly WORSE than they do in real life. This is the direct opposite of what you want to do with people photos! (imo). Off-camera flash accentuates blemishes and rough spots in skin, other naturally occurring divots and such, it brings out wrinkles by casting strange shadows around them, and while the ultimate intent is to produce a "natural" look, most of the time it fails. If people want to do this, they need to understand more about post-processing specifically about smoothing skin (but not over-smoothing, something else which most people who try it have a tendency to do). /rambling

 

You're rarely able to bounce either, are you? Do you use a diffuser or just direct fill?