C&P Random Thread -
#6401
Senior Moderator
Thread Starter
http://www.flickr.com/photos/delobbo/?details=1
#6402
Race Director
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: South Florida
Age: 31
Posts: 18,278
Received 3,824 Likes
on
2,847 Posts
Stupid panda is coming up for me too.
Oh and I posted new pics in my thread
Oh and I posted new pics in my thread
#6403
Needs more Lemon Pledge
eh. they don't like that new view. they should just change whatever shortcut they are using to get to their flickr, to the "Edit" view, which is the old view.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/delobbo/?details=1
http://www.flickr.com/photos/delobbo/?details=1
#6404
Senior Moderator
Thread Starter
#6405
Senior Moderator
Thread Starter
<iframe width="853" height="480" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/qGxLkaCdpLc" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
#6406
Needs more Lemon Pledge
I found a few on google but did not know of anyone had one they recommend.
#6407
Senior Moderator
Thread Starter
oh ok. yeah I've never used anything like that.
#6408
I miss my 03 CL-S :(
Also noticed they took away all the maps stuff, apparently... Geotagging was a big part of flickr when it first started... Now they don't even show the little map on the photo pages. Lame.
#6409
Moderator
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Not Las Vegas (SF Bay Area)
Age: 40
Posts: 63,283
Received 2,795 Likes
on
1,989 Posts
Hmm haven't looked on the website but GPS is still there on the iOS app
#6410
Senior Moderator
Thread Starter
I don't see the little map but it looks like that's the only map-related thing they took away?
tfHCwvo.png
tfHCwvo.png
#6411
Hell, even when I did tagged images. I still had people asking, "where did you take this?".
The following users liked this post:
MWalsh9152 (05-25-2013)
#6412
Senior Moderator
Thread Starter
very true
#6413
Moderator
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Not Las Vegas (SF Bay Area)
Age: 40
Posts: 63,283
Received 2,795 Likes
on
1,989 Posts
#6414
I shoot people
The ONE time I turned the GPS mode on (just to make sure it works), took some photos with it, noticed the coordinates were tagged when I reviewed the photos on the LCD, I just assumed that when I uploaded the photos that the location would already there... But, no...
#6415
Senior Moderator
Thread Starter
#firstworldproblems
#6417
I shoot people
This chick is kinda sexy
(if you say you didn't keep your eyes looking up the skirt 75% of the time, you're lying )
(if you say you didn't keep your eyes looking up the skirt 75% of the time, you're lying )
#6418
Senior Moderator
Thread Starter
very informative
btw I watched it with the sound off
btw I watched it with the sound off
The following users liked this post:
is300eater (05-24-2013)
#6419
Senior Moderator
Thread Starter
very informative
btw I watched it with the sound off
btw I watched it with the sound off
The following users liked this post:
Mizouse (05-24-2013)
#6420
I shoot people
#6421
Moderator
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Not Las Vegas (SF Bay Area)
Age: 40
Posts: 63,283
Received 2,795 Likes
on
1,989 Posts
Informative enough that he posted twice.
#6422
Moderator
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Not Las Vegas (SF Bay Area)
Age: 40
Posts: 63,283
Received 2,795 Likes
on
1,989 Posts
For me the thumbnail is enough
#6423
Senior Moderator
Thread Starter
#6424
Got you all top off... she has a youtube channel...
And of course, she shoots Nikon for main body...
And of course, she shoots Nikon for main body...
Last edited by jupitersolo; 05-24-2013 at 04:08 PM.
#6425
Senior Moderator
Thread Starter
^^^ you have my attention........
this dude is being sued for taking these photos - they were noticed because they were in an exhibit
http://www.saulgallery.com/chronicle/svenson_2013.htm
http://www.courthousenews.com/2013/05/24/57929.htm
this dude is being sued for taking these photos - they were noticed because they were in an exhibit
http://www.saulgallery.com/chronicle/svenson_2013.htm
http://www.courthousenews.com/2013/05/24/57929.htm
Parents Blast Photographer for Telephoto Shots
By ADAM KLASFELD
MANHATTAN (CN) - A Manhattan photographer featured in this week's New Yorker magazine violated privacy by using a telephoto lens to shoot photos of people through the window of their apartment, a family claims in court.
Photographer Arne Svenson's project and show are the subject of the second Talk of the Town article in next week's New Yorker magazine. The article by Raffi Khatchadourian does not mention the legal implications of how Svenson got the photos for his exhibit, "The Neighbors," at the Julie Saul Gallery through June in the Chelsea neighborhood.
Martha and Matthew Foster sued Svenson in New York County Court, on behalf of themselves and their minor children. The gallery is not a party to the complaint.
The Fosters live across the street from Svenson's studio, and say in their complaint that they had no inkling that he used them as his subjects for more than a year.
"On or about April 29, 2013, plaintiffs learned that an article had appeared in the Tribeca Citizen, a weekly news journal covering their neighborhood, which included a photograph of plaintiff Martha Foster holding her daughter Delaney inside their apartment," the complaint states.
Svenson intended to use the photo "in his May 9, 2013, exhibition at a Manhattan gallery," according to the complaint.
The Fosters say they learned later that Foster had been "surreptitiously photographing" them and other building residents for more than a year, starting in 2012.
Svenson may have taken "thousands of such unauthorized photographs" of his neighbors, the complaint states.
The Fosters say they did not consent to be photographed, and would have refused if asked.
They say they were "deeply distressed" to find that their "children's faces were clearly recognizable," potentially "compromising their safety and security."
"Plaintiffs were also greatly frightened and angered by defendant's utter disregard for their privacy and the privacy of their children," the complaint states. "Plaintiffs now fear that they must keep their shades drawn at all hours of the day in order to avoid telephoto photography by a neighbor who happens to be a professional photographer."
The Fosters claim that Svenson stands to profit handsomely from "The Neighbors." A bit of Internet research showed that a Los Angeles gallery's exhibition quoted pictures of the children at $5,000 to $7,500 apiece, according to the complaint.
"Upon information and belief, Svenson intends to sell five prints of 'Neighbors #6' and 'Neighbors #12' for a total of $50,000-$75,000," the complaint states.
"Neighbors #6 shows Martha Foster holding her son James, with her daughter Delaney standing beside her. Delaney is wearing a bathing suit and James is wearing a diaper.
"Neighbors #12 shows Martha Foster holding Delaney in her arms. Delaney is wearing a bathing suit."
Svenson's press statements demonstrate his "disregard" of privacy concerns, the Fosters say.
"For my subjects there is no question of privacy," Svenson said in a promotional statement, according to the complaint. "The neighbors don't know they are being photographed; I carefully shoot from the shadows of my home into theirs. I am not unlike the birder, quietly waiting for hours, watching for the flutter of a hand or the movement of a curtain as an indication that there is life within."
Martha Foster claims she told Foster that she does indeed have questions about her family's privacy.
"Greatly concerned for the safety and security of her children, plaintiff Martha Foster contacted Svenson on or about May 2, 2013, to express her concerns and attempted to resolve the situation amicably," the complaint states. "Defendant was unwilling to completely stop selling and displaying images of plaintiffs' children."
After this conversation, the Fosters retained attorneys and publicity for Svenson's project exploded, with NBC, CBS and ABC, the Washington Post, Los Angeles Times and New York Post lining up to profile the photographs, according to the complaint.
"These videos and articles include photographs that clearly picture plaintiffs' apartment building and many provide its address. 'Neighbors #12' continues to be displayed on a Facebook web page attributed to Svenson," the complaint states.
The Fosters seek actual and exemplary damages for intentional infliction of emotional distress and an injunction to stop the dissemination of the photographs.
They are represented by Richard Menaker with Menaker & Herrmann.
An attorney specializing in First Amendment issues said that case law generally permits photographing from public property with a non-magnifying lens, but shooting through windows into private spaces with a telephoto raises privacy concerns.
Svenson did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
By ADAM KLASFELD
MANHATTAN (CN) - A Manhattan photographer featured in this week's New Yorker magazine violated privacy by using a telephoto lens to shoot photos of people through the window of their apartment, a family claims in court.
Photographer Arne Svenson's project and show are the subject of the second Talk of the Town article in next week's New Yorker magazine. The article by Raffi Khatchadourian does not mention the legal implications of how Svenson got the photos for his exhibit, "The Neighbors," at the Julie Saul Gallery through June in the Chelsea neighborhood.
Martha and Matthew Foster sued Svenson in New York County Court, on behalf of themselves and their minor children. The gallery is not a party to the complaint.
The Fosters live across the street from Svenson's studio, and say in their complaint that they had no inkling that he used them as his subjects for more than a year.
"On or about April 29, 2013, plaintiffs learned that an article had appeared in the Tribeca Citizen, a weekly news journal covering their neighborhood, which included a photograph of plaintiff Martha Foster holding her daughter Delaney inside their apartment," the complaint states.
Svenson intended to use the photo "in his May 9, 2013, exhibition at a Manhattan gallery," according to the complaint.
The Fosters say they learned later that Foster had been "surreptitiously photographing" them and other building residents for more than a year, starting in 2012.
Svenson may have taken "thousands of such unauthorized photographs" of his neighbors, the complaint states.
The Fosters say they did not consent to be photographed, and would have refused if asked.
They say they were "deeply distressed" to find that their "children's faces were clearly recognizable," potentially "compromising their safety and security."
"Plaintiffs were also greatly frightened and angered by defendant's utter disregard for their privacy and the privacy of their children," the complaint states. "Plaintiffs now fear that they must keep their shades drawn at all hours of the day in order to avoid telephoto photography by a neighbor who happens to be a professional photographer."
The Fosters claim that Svenson stands to profit handsomely from "The Neighbors." A bit of Internet research showed that a Los Angeles gallery's exhibition quoted pictures of the children at $5,000 to $7,500 apiece, according to the complaint.
"Upon information and belief, Svenson intends to sell five prints of 'Neighbors #6' and 'Neighbors #12' for a total of $50,000-$75,000," the complaint states.
"Neighbors #6 shows Martha Foster holding her son James, with her daughter Delaney standing beside her. Delaney is wearing a bathing suit and James is wearing a diaper.
"Neighbors #12 shows Martha Foster holding Delaney in her arms. Delaney is wearing a bathing suit."
Svenson's press statements demonstrate his "disregard" of privacy concerns, the Fosters say.
"For my subjects there is no question of privacy," Svenson said in a promotional statement, according to the complaint. "The neighbors don't know they are being photographed; I carefully shoot from the shadows of my home into theirs. I am not unlike the birder, quietly waiting for hours, watching for the flutter of a hand or the movement of a curtain as an indication that there is life within."
Martha Foster claims she told Foster that she does indeed have questions about her family's privacy.
"Greatly concerned for the safety and security of her children, plaintiff Martha Foster contacted Svenson on or about May 2, 2013, to express her concerns and attempted to resolve the situation amicably," the complaint states. "Defendant was unwilling to completely stop selling and displaying images of plaintiffs' children."
After this conversation, the Fosters retained attorneys and publicity for Svenson's project exploded, with NBC, CBS and ABC, the Washington Post, Los Angeles Times and New York Post lining up to profile the photographs, according to the complaint.
"These videos and articles include photographs that clearly picture plaintiffs' apartment building and many provide its address. 'Neighbors #12' continues to be displayed on a Facebook web page attributed to Svenson," the complaint states.
The Fosters seek actual and exemplary damages for intentional infliction of emotional distress and an injunction to stop the dissemination of the photographs.
They are represented by Richard Menaker with Menaker & Herrmann.
An attorney specializing in First Amendment issues said that case law generally permits photographing from public property with a non-magnifying lens, but shooting through windows into private spaces with a telephoto raises privacy concerns.
Svenson did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
#6426
Senior Moderator
Thread Starter
so she talks about photography and such while wearing those outfits? LOL.... true definition of attention whore
#6427
I shoot people
Got you all top off... she has a youtube channel...
Underwater Photography Solutions - YouTube
And of course, she shoots Nikon for main body...
Underwater Photography Solutions - YouTube
And of course, she shoots Nikon for main body...
and she wears little to no makeup, which makes her even more sexier
#6428
^^^ you have my attention........
this dude is being sued for taking these photos - they were noticed because they were in an exhibit
http://www.saulgallery.com/chronicle/svenson_2013.htm
http://www.courthousenews.com/2013/05/24/57929.htm
this dude is being sued for taking these photos - they were noticed because they were in an exhibit
http://www.saulgallery.com/chronicle/svenson_2013.htm
http://www.courthousenews.com/2013/05/24/57929.htm
#6430
Senior Moderator
Thread Starter
#6431
Race Director
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: South Florida
Age: 31
Posts: 18,278
Received 3,824 Likes
on
2,847 Posts
WTF LOL ^
Finally getting my hands on the LR5 Beta!
I figured out why I couldn't access Adobe's website.
I'm so excited to use LR5!
Finally getting my hands on the LR5 Beta!
I figured out why I couldn't access Adobe's website.
I'm so excited to use LR5!
#6432
Race Director
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: South Florida
Age: 31
Posts: 18,278
Received 3,824 Likes
on
2,847 Posts
Cool website I just stumbled across...
http://photographyconcentrate.com/
And I learned that DNG files shouldn't be deleted when you look at them and go "wtf is that?" DELETE lol
And in case you're wondering what DNG files are...
http://photographyconcentrate.com/sh...u-convert-dng/
http://photographyconcentrate.com/
And I learned that DNG files shouldn't be deleted when you look at them and go "wtf is that?" DELETE lol
And in case you're wondering what DNG files are...
http://photographyconcentrate.com/sh...u-convert-dng/
#6433
Senior Moderator
Thread Starter
wow. I really enjoy doing nothing.
#6434
Moderator
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Not Las Vegas (SF Bay Area)
Age: 40
Posts: 63,283
Received 2,795 Likes
on
1,989 Posts
Welcome to my world...
#6435
Senior Moderator
Thread Starter
I love his attitude, yes it would be challenging, but not impossible. The attitude of an true inventor / innovator.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-11386_3-57...rketplace-q-a/
http://news.cnet.com/8301-11386_3-57...rketplace-q-a/
Sigma's new 18-35mm F1.8 DC HSM lens looks interesting, especially because of its wide aperture across the whole zoom range. But it's for APS-C sensor cameras only. [The f1.8 design offers a wider aperture even than the f2.8 setting that's generally the fastest available on full-frame zoom lenses, but smaller APS-C sensors have a deeper depth of view for a given angle of view. Going all the way to f1.8 means a smaller-frame SLR can better match a full-frame SLR when a photographer wants a shallow depth of field to blur out backgrounds.] Could you scale the design up to make a 27-53mm f1.8 for full-frame cameras, or would that be too bulky?
Yamaki: Yes, that lens would be very bulky, and it would be challenging to develop that lens for all mounts, especially for Nikon's smaller lens mount fit. Having said that, it does not mean it would be "impossible." We've made significant breakthroughs before and we'll continue to strive for that level of ongoing photographic advancement.
Yamaki: Yes, that lens would be very bulky, and it would be challenging to develop that lens for all mounts, especially for Nikon's smaller lens mount fit. Having said that, it does not mean it would be "impossible." We've made significant breakthroughs before and we'll continue to strive for that level of ongoing photographic advancement.
#6436
Senior Moderator
Thread Starter
#6437
I shoot people
Polaroid bare-bulb flash for $100?
http://www.lightingrumours.com/polar...and-nikon-4086
A flashgun has appeared called the Polaroid PL-135, a sub-$100 bare-bulb speedlight suitable for enthusiast photographers, available in the USA and UK.
It has the specifications of a typical aftermarket flash, but the flash tube protrudes from the head instead of sitting inside. This configuration allows for a “bare-bulb” effect, where the light is free to travel in all directions to fill a space, be it a room, a studio backdrop or a light-shaping tool such as a softbox. Think of it like the difference between a Maglite and a bare light bulb.
This new Polaroid PL-135 — a rebranded Triopo TR120 — is much cheaper than professional-grade bare-bulb equipment such as the Cheetah Light CL-180 or Quantum Qflash and, unlike those systems, runs on common AA batteries without needing a high voltage battery pack to operate. In fact, it is in some ways similar to the Sunpak 120J, a long-discontinued flashgun that still fetches high prices second-hand.
Two different models will be available — one for Canon and one for Nikon — supporting E-TTL and i-TTL automatic exposure control, respectively. There is also a manual power adjustment mode and a stroboscopic multi-flash feature. No high-speed sync (HSS), though.
In the flash body is an autofocus-assist lamp and an optical slave sensor. The head can swivel horizontally 360° and tilt vertically 90°. An optional external power source may be connected for longer battery life and faster flash recycle times. There is a Prontor-Compur (PC) port and a metal hotshoe foot for synchronisation.
The PL-135 purportedly comes with a reflector and diffusion panel but it is not clear whether other light-shaping accessories will be available. Click the following listings for further information.
Polaroid PL-135 for Canon E-TTL: USA – $99.99 / UK – £89.99
Polaroid PL-135 for Nikon i-TTL: USA – $99.99 / UK – £89.99
At the time of writing we haven’t seen any reference to the Polaroid PL-135 anywhere else, so caveat emptor. However, the UK listings are Fulfilled by Amazon so everything appears to be above board. We have contacted Polaroid for official confirmation and will update this article when they respond.
What do you think? Would you buy one?
It has the specifications of a typical aftermarket flash, but the flash tube protrudes from the head instead of sitting inside. This configuration allows for a “bare-bulb” effect, where the light is free to travel in all directions to fill a space, be it a room, a studio backdrop or a light-shaping tool such as a softbox. Think of it like the difference between a Maglite and a bare light bulb.
This new Polaroid PL-135 — a rebranded Triopo TR120 — is much cheaper than professional-grade bare-bulb equipment such as the Cheetah Light CL-180 or Quantum Qflash and, unlike those systems, runs on common AA batteries without needing a high voltage battery pack to operate. In fact, it is in some ways similar to the Sunpak 120J, a long-discontinued flashgun that still fetches high prices second-hand.
Two different models will be available — one for Canon and one for Nikon — supporting E-TTL and i-TTL automatic exposure control, respectively. There is also a manual power adjustment mode and a stroboscopic multi-flash feature. No high-speed sync (HSS), though.
In the flash body is an autofocus-assist lamp and an optical slave sensor. The head can swivel horizontally 360° and tilt vertically 90°. An optional external power source may be connected for longer battery life and faster flash recycle times. There is a Prontor-Compur (PC) port and a metal hotshoe foot for synchronisation.
The PL-135 purportedly comes with a reflector and diffusion panel but it is not clear whether other light-shaping accessories will be available. Click the following listings for further information.
Polaroid PL-135 for Canon E-TTL: USA – $99.99 / UK – £89.99
Polaroid PL-135 for Nikon i-TTL: USA – $99.99 / UK – £89.99
At the time of writing we haven’t seen any reference to the Polaroid PL-135 anywhere else, so caveat emptor. However, the UK listings are Fulfilled by Amazon so everything appears to be above board. We have contacted Polaroid for official confirmation and will update this article when they respond.
What do you think? Would you buy one?
#6438
Moderator
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Not Las Vegas (SF Bay Area)
Age: 40
Posts: 63,283
Received 2,795 Likes
on
1,989 Posts
For a $100 why not. How's the power?
#6439
Senior Moderator
Thread Starter
ooh.
#6440
Senior Moderator
Thread Starter
along similar lines of doing nothing.......... lol..
The following users liked this post:
Mizouse (05-30-2013)