OT: Your input requested
tony cooper
input on which host - of the ones I've tried - displays the image the
best.
I took a photograph today ( courthouse.jpg) that I have uploaded to
three photo hosts. The image is straight out-of-the-camera and has
not been cropped, adjusted, manipulated, sharpened, etc. Out of the
camera, the image is 2000 x 3008. The three hosts do not require that
the image be resized to upload, but each scales it to their size.
The same photo is at:
Picasa
http://picasaweb.google.com/TonyCooper2130/Cassadaga?authkey=vLiJ3Znc84Y#5275338900259041346
scaled to 478 x 720
and PhotoBucket
http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f244/cooper213/CourtHouse.jpg
scaled to 531 x 800
and FileAve
http://tonycooper.fileave.com/CourtHouse.jpg
scaled to 581 x 874
I tried Photo.net, at Alan's suggestion, but found the site the
absolutely slowest site that I've ever tried. They do require
resizing to upload. I tried pBase before and wasn't that excited
about it.
This image was *not* chosen because of the aesthetic content. I just
selected an image from today's batch that had some detail and some
color.
If you are tired of nothing but posts on the Power of the P&S and the
gearhead discussions, maybe you'll take a minute and let me know if
either of the above represents the image better than the others.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
tony cooper
<larry...@shitstring.com> wrote:
>tony cooper wrote:
>
>> I've been trying to settle on a photo host, and I'd appreciate your
>> input on which host - of the ones I've tried - displays the image the
>> best.
>
>One word, "flickr" What's wrong with flickr? It is one of the best sites
>to host photos, other than your own site.
>
I don't care for it. No logical, compelling reason, but I don't care
for it. I have used it.
BÔwser
"tony cooper" <tony_co...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:iuhbj4lkia3s0o3i1...@4ax.com...
They all look OK, really, so I guess it depends on which site you like using
the best. I've been expirementing with creating my own web galleries, but so
far, I'm not enamoured with my results. Kinda kludgy, but it is
self-hosting...
Troy Piggins
Tried flickr? I have only just started using them, and uploading
of images is pretty easy compared to deviantart, the only other
image host I've tried.
--
Troy Piggins - I always appreciate critique
[SI] Shoot-In http://www.pbase.com/shootin
Alan Browne
> Picasa
> http://picasaweb.google.com/TonyCooper2130/Cassadaga?authkey=vLiJ3Znc84Y#5275338900259041346
> scaled to 478 x 720
See below for Picassa TOS/legal issues per a posting I put up in another
NG in Oct.
The Picassa rendering seems a bit cartoonish in the sky and there seems
to be a richer colouring of the (copper?) dome.
> and PhotoBucket
> http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f244/cooper213/CourtHouse.jpg
> scaled to 531 x 800
Seems okay. Less colour shift than Picassa.
>
> and FileAve
> http://tonycooper.fileave.com/CourtHouse.jpg
> scaled to 581 x 874
Nope ... downloaded full size. (Max OS X Safari). Colours are fine.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
PICASSA ISSUES
==============
The TOS you sign up to essentially grant Google the perpetual right to
grant any of their "customers" (other companies) use of your image at
terms between Google and the partner at no benefit to you.
This might not matter to you but it does mean that (eg) your courthouse
shot (using the full sized image that is now spinning on a Google disk
somewhere and for the foreseeable future) could appear in TIME magazine
and you would not only not get a fee for it, but not even credit. And
there is no way you could take it to court because to use Picassa is to
agree to the Google TOS.
PICASA (Google) TOS:
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
11.2 You agree that this licence includes a right for Google to make
such Content available to other companies, organizations or individuals
with whom Google has relationships for the provision of syndicated
services, and to use such Content in connection with the provision of
those services.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
IOW, where no casual person or entity visitor that visits the site can
legally use your images, Google or any of their 'customers' may without
any obligation to you. "Syndicated services" indeed!!
Stay away from Picasa!
John Doe
your input
tony cooper
I do suggest trying both PhotoBucket and FileAve. PhotoBucket has the
most bells and whistles. It does slideshows, albums, and single
images. Uploading is very simple, and links are provided to use with
one mouse-click. For a free host, it really is great.
FileAve offers one feature that PhotoBucket doesn't: the original
image is displayed at the scaled size, but there's a "+" click that
allows full-size view. Big enough for Alan to determine skin tones
*and* read the time from a tractor driver's watch. (go click the +
sign on the FileAve link above) Also dead simple uploads and direct
links. A better choice to display just one image. You can do an
index page. Some quirky rules on usage, though.
Neither puts ads (on single images) or other information on what the
viewer sees like Flickr does. In my opinion, nicer display in either
one than Flickr, Picasa or pBase for a single image. Both have
for-pay upgrades available. $40 annually for PhotoBucket.
I've tried several others and don't consider them worth mentioning.
I also use JAlbum - and like it a great deal - for send-to-the-family
galleries. (I have grandchildren) Not suitable for single images.
Troy Piggins
>* Troy Piggins wrote :
>>* tony cooper wrote :
>
> [---=| Quote block shrinked by t-prot: 28 lines snipped |=---]
Meant to mention to you, lately you've been posting links to
images on fileave and I can't see them or it takes a ridiculous
amount of time to open the page. I have given up even opening up
any links to fileave since.
tony cooper
Strange. FileAve opens immediately for me. Instant. The reason I
gave up on photo.net was that images take forever to open or don't
open at all, yet Alan recommends it. I have no idea why these
problems occur.
However, this is what I'm trying to learn by starting this thread.
I'd like to know what the viewer experiences. I don't think we can
take for granted what we see of our own stuff; we need the input of
others.
Ray Fischer
>I've been trying to settle on a photo host, and I'd appreciate your
>input on which host - of the ones I've tried - displays the image the
>best.
>
>I took a photograph today ( courthouse.jpg) that I have uploaded to
>three photo hosts. The image is straight out-of-the-camera and has
>not been cropped, adjusted, manipulated, sharpened, etc. Out of the
>camera, the image is 2000 x 3008. The three hosts do not require that
>the image be resized to upload, but each scales it to their size.
Smugmug let's you view photos at several different sizes. Not free,
but they are cheap. www.smugmug.com
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Troy Piggins
>>>
>>> I've tried several others and don't consider them worth mentioning.
>>>
>>> I also use JAlbum - and like it a great deal - for send-to-the-family
>>> galleries. (I have grandchildren) Not suitable for single images.
>>
>> Meant to mention to you, lately you've been posting links to
>> images on fileave and I can't see them or it takes a ridiculous
>> amount of time to open the page. I have given up even opening up
>> any links to fileave since.
>
> Strange. FileAve opens immediately for me. Instant. The reason I
> gave up on photo.net was that images take forever to open or don't
> open at all, yet Alan recommends it. I have no idea why these
> problems occur.
I assume it's a DNS and/or network thing. I'm in Aus. Pbase has
been quite slow for me lately too. Only noticed it recently with
the latest SI checking.
> However, this is what I'm trying to learn by starting this thread.
> I'd like to know what the viewer experiences. I don't think we can
> take for granted what we see of our own stuff; we need the input of
> others.
Yeah, that's why I mentioned it. Thought you'd appreciate that
sort of feedback.
tony cooper
The camera club I belong to uses SmugMug as a host. The winner of the
month's "Best in Category" (color or black and white) gets a one year
subscription.
I'm using free hosts until I win a SmugMug subscription. I approach
this with the same optimism that makes me save old belts because I may
lose enough inches around the middle that they'll fit again.
Jurgen
Snapfish is owned by HP and allows you to share or not share your photos
depending on your decisions. You can or your friends order prints, mugs,
photo books and canvas prints or not, as the choice my be.
Sure it's a commercial location hoping to sell photos but short of
hosting your own site (and how do you drive traffic there) this is a
neat solution.
Atheist Chaplain
or you could gain enough that you can hook two of them together :-)
That's one of my options ;-)
--
God made me an atheist. Who are you to question his wisdom?
N
ray
Assuming you have a room temperature IQ, why not a simple web host like
netfirms.com. Then you can set it up however you damned well please.
tony cooper
A cold front has moved into this area and it's in the high 60s in the
house today, so I think I can make the cut.
>why not a simple web host like
>netfirms.com. Then you can set it up however you damned well please.
--
Paul Furman
> * tony cooper wrote :
>> On Wed, 03 Dec 2008 14:00:20 +1000, Troy Piggins
>> <usene...@piggo.com> wrote:
>>
>> [---=| Quote block shrinked by t-prot: 33 lines snipped |=---]
>>>> I've tried several others and don't consider them worth mentioning.
>>>>
>>>> I also use JAlbum - and like it a great deal - for send-to-the-family
>>>> galleries. (I have grandchildren) Not suitable for single images.
>>> Meant to mention to you, lately you've been posting links to
>>> images on fileave and I can't see them or it takes a ridiculous
>>> amount of time to open the page. I have given up even opening up
>>> any links to fileave since.
>> Strange. FileAve opens immediately for me. Instant. The reason I
>> gave up on photo.net was that images take forever to open or don't
>> open at all, yet Alan recommends it. I have no idea why these
>> problems occur.
>
> I assume it's a DNS and/or network thing. I'm in Aus. Pbase has
> been quite slow for me lately too. Only noticed it recently with
> the latest SI checking.
I haven't noticed this time but frequently see slow loads on pbase. I
believe it's an overloaded server problem at high traffic hours there's
a lot of server side scripting probing the database & formatting the
pages. I had a big problem with my own php run site and fixed it by
calling and asking them to move it to a less overloaded shared server.
After 8 years of paying them monthly, they owed me that <g>.
>> However, this is what I'm trying to learn by starting this thread.
>> I'd like to know what the viewer experiences. I don't think we can
>> take for granted what we see of our own stuff; we need the input of
>> others.
>
> Yeah, that's why I mentioned it. Thought you'd appreciate that
> sort of feedback.
>
--
Paul Furman
www.edgehill.net
www.baynatives.com
all google groups messages filtered due to spam
Stephen Bishop
<larry...@shitstring.com> wrote:
>tony cooper wrote:
>
>> I've been trying to settle on a photo host, and I'd appreciate your
>> input on which host - of the ones I've tried - displays the image the
>> best.
>
>One word, "flickr" What's wrong with flickr? It is one of the best sites
>to host photos, other than your own site.
>
Check out SmugMug. Their quality is much better than most.
Paul Bartram
"Troy Piggins" <usene...@piggo.com> wrote
> I assume it's a DNS and/or network thing. I'm in Aus. Pbase has
> been quite slow for me lately too.
Worth remembering that Australia is many time zones removed from major
servers in the US. For example, I access sites like pBase, Webaperture and
photoNet at the equivalent of 2 am their time, so the load is likely to be
light. And it matters to me, 'cos I'm stuck on dial-up!
Paul
Troy Piggins
>* Troy Piggins wrote :
You realise it's 2008, nearly 2009? I didn't think dialup still
existed :)
Paul Bartram
"Troy Piggins" <usene...@piggo.com> wrote
> You realise it's 2008, nearly 2009? I didn't think dialup still
> existed :)
Come to Australia, and be enlightened...
Paul
Chris H
<usene...@piggo.com> writes
>* Paul Bartram wrote :
>>* Troy Piggins wrote :
>>
>>> I assume it's a DNS and/or network thing. I'm in Aus. Pbase has
>>> been quite slow for me lately too.
>>
>> Worth remembering that Australia is many time zones removed from major
>> servers in the US. For example, I access sites like pBase, Webaperture and
>> photoNet at the equivalent of 2 am their time, so the load is likely to be
>> light. And it matters to me, 'cos I'm stuck on dial-up!
>
>You realise it's 2008, nearly 2009? I didn't think dialup still
>existed :)
It doesn't in large urban areas. In many places and I expect parts of
the US there is no ADSL. It only works within 3 miles (4km ) of the
exchange.
Cable broadband is different but if you live in a village of 4 houses
over 5 miles from any main road do you think they will lay in cable?
There are many places where dial up is the only option. (That or
satellite phone. )
--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
Chris H
Bartram <paul.b...@AT.OR.invalid> writes
Or many farms in Montana USA I would think.
Troy Piggins
>* Troy Piggins wrote :
>
>> You realise it's 2008, nearly 2009? I didn't think dialup still
>> existed :)
>
> Come to Australia, and be enlightened...
I live in Brisbane, mate ;) :)
tony cooper
>In message <49379f90$0$66501$c30e...@pit-reader.telstra.net>, Paul
>Bartram <paul.b...@AT.OR.invalid> writes
>>
>>"Troy Piggins" <usene...@piggo.com> wrote
>>
>>> You realise it's 2008, nearly 2009? I didn't think dialup still
>>> existed :)
>>
>>Come to Australia, and be enlightened...
>
>Or many farms in Montana USA I would think.
Rural areas like farms in Montana may not have access to cable, but
the internet can be accessed from satellite systems. Companies like
Dish TV provide television and internet service.
SMS
> Rural areas like farms in Montana may not have access to cable, but
> the internet can be accessed from satellite systems. Companies like
> Dish TV provide television and internet service.
True. I stayed at a motel in Gardiner MT, and they had free WiFi, but
they warned me that it wasn't too fast because it was via satellite. It
was okay, certainly a lot faster than dial-up, though slower than DSL.
Chris H
<tony_co...@earthlink.net> writes
A two way satellite link? Sounds good what sort of speeds do they get?
tony cooper
>In message <bjofj4lm0j2f88nsr...@4ax.com>, tony cooper
><tony_co...@earthlink.net> writes
>>On Thu, 4 Dec 2008 09:37:41 +0000, Chris H <ch...@phaedsys.org> wrote:
>>
>>>In message <49379f90$0$66501$c30e...@pit-reader.telstra.net>, Paul
>>>Bartram <paul.b...@AT.OR.invalid> writes
>>>>
>>>>"Troy Piggins" <usene...@piggo.com> wrote
>>>>
>>>>> You realise it's 2008, nearly 2009? I didn't think dialup still
>>>>> existed :)
>>>>
>>>>Come to Australia, and be enlightened...
>>>
>>>Or many farms in Montana USA I would think.
>>
>>Rural areas like farms in Montana may not have access to cable, but
>>the internet can be accessed from satellite systems. Companies like
>>Dish TV provide television and internet service.
>
>A two way satellite link? Sounds good what sort of speeds do they get?
My son has telephone, television signal, and internet service with a
dish receiver. The computer is connected to a phone jack. He uses
this because the cable companies have not provided cable to his area.
It's a newly developed area. It's just two miles from me, but his
house is in what was an orange grove two years ago.
I dunno about speed. I was using his computer last night to download
something to his computer, and the speed seemed comparable to my cable
internet service.
I know that companies - both cable and dish - advertise speed and that
people are concerned about it. I really don't see the point once you
are beyond dial-up service. I can't tell the difference when a page
opens a second or so faster with this service than that service.
On that download last night, which was fairly large, we started the
download and then went off and had coffee and helped the grandchildren
construct something out of Legos. When we got back, the download was
complete. We would have gone off for the coffee regardless of the
download time. I can't imagine sitting in front of the computer
watching something download and being impatient because it took a
minute too long.
rowan_w
wrote:
Do you honestly think that exchanging words on a computer screen with people in
this newsgroup is worth $120 a month?
LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I'd have to reconsider it even if it was free.
Someone should pay me to have to put up with the perpetual nonsense that people
spew here.
And now, back to something photography related:
Dear Resident-Troll,
Your reply is completely off-topic. Here are some (new & improved) topics that
befit this newsgroup. Please consider them for future discussions and posts:
1. P&S cameras can have more seamless zoom range than any DSLR glass in
existence. (E.g. 9mm f2.7 - 1248mm f/3.5.) There are now some excellent
wide-angle and telephoto (telextender) add-on lenses for many makes and models
of P&S cameras. Add either or both of these small additions to your photography
gear and, with some of the new super-zoom P&S cameras, you can far surpass any
range of focal-lengths and apertures that are available or will ever be made for
larger format cameras.
2. P&S cameras can have much wider apertures at longer focal lengths than any
DSLR glass in existence. (E.g. 549mm f/2.4 and 1248mm f/3.5) when used with
high-quality telextenders, which do not reduce the lens' original aperture one
bit. Following is a link to a hand-held taken image of a 432mm f/3.5 P&S lens
increased to an effective 2197mm f/3.5 lens by using two high-quality
teleconverters. To achieve that apparent focal-length the photographer also
added a small step of 1.7x digital zoom to take advantage of the RAW sensor's
slightly greater detail retention when upsampled directly in the camera for JPG
output. As opposed to trying to upsample a JPG image on the computer where those
finer RAW sensor details are already lost once it's left the camera's
processing. (Digital-zoom is not totally empty zoom, contrary to all the
net-parroting idiots online.) A HAND-HELD 2197mm f/3.5 image from a P&S camera
(downsized only, no crop):
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3141/3060429818_b01dbdb8ac_o.jpg Note that any
in-focus details are cleanly defined to the corners and there is no CA
whatsoever. If you study the EXIF data the author reduced contrast and
sharpening by 2-steps, which accounts for the slight softness overall. Any
decent photographer will handle those operations properly in editing with more
powerful tools and not allow a camera to do them for him. A full f/3.5 aperture
achieved at an effective focal-length of 2197mm (35mm equivalent). Only DSLRs
suffer from loss of aperture due to the manner in which their teleconverters
work. P&S cameras can also have higher quality full-frame 180-degree circular
fisheye and intermediate super-wide-angle views than any DSLR and its glass for
far less cost. Some excellent fish-eye adapters can be added to your P&S camera
which do not impart any chromatic aberration nor edge softness. When used with a
super-zoom P&S camera this allows you to seamlessly go from as wide as a 9mm (or
even wider) 35mm equivalent focal-length up to the wide-angle setting of the
camera's own lens.
3. P&S smaller sensor cameras can and do have wider dynamic range than larger
sensor cameras E.g. a 1/2.5" sized sensor can have a 10.3EV Dynamic Range vs. an
APS-C's typical 7.0-8.0EV Dynamic Range. One quick example:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3142/2861257547_9a7ceaf3a1_o.jpg
4. P&S cameras are cost efficient. Due to the smaller (but excellent) sensors
used in many of them today, the lenses for these cameras are much smaller.
Smaller lenses are easier to manufacture to exacting curvatures and are more
easily corrected for aberrations than larger glass used for DSLRs. This also
allows them to perform better at all apertures rather than DSLR glass which
usually performs well at only one aperture setting per lens. Side by side tests
prove that P&S glass can out-resolve even the best DSLR glass ever made. See
this side-by-side comparison for example
http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Canon_PowerShot_SX10_IS/outdoor_results.shtml
When adjusted for sensor size, the DSLR lens is creating 4.3x's the CA that the
P&S lens is creating, and the P&S lens is resolving almost 10x's the amount of
detail that the DSLR lens is resolving. A difficult to figure 20x P&S zoom lens
easily surpassing a much more easy to make 3x DSLR zoom lens. After all is said
and done you will spend anywhere from 1/10th to 1/50th the price on a P&S camera
that you would have to spend in order to get comparable performance in a DSLR
camera. To obtain the same focal-length ranges as that $340 SX10 camera with
DSLR glass that *might* approach or equal the P&S resolution, it would cost over
$6,500 to accomplish that (at the time of this writing). This isn't counting the
extra costs of a heavy-duty tripod required to make it functional at those
longer focal-lengths and a backpack to carry it all. Bringing that DSLR
investment to over 20 times the cost of a comparable P&S camera. When you buy a
DSLR you are investing in a body that will require expensive lenses, hand-grips,
external flash units, heavy tripods, more expensive larger filters, etc. etc.
The outrageous costs of owning a DSLR add up fast after that initial DSLR body
purchase. Camera companies count on this, all the way to their banks.
5. P&S cameras are lightweight and convenient. With just one P&S camera plus one
small wide-angle adapter and one small telephoto adapter weighing just a couple
pounds, you have the same amount of zoom range as would require over 15 pounds
of DSLR body + lenses. The P&S camera mentioned in the previous example is only
1.3 lbs. The DSLR + expensive lenses that *might* equal it in image quality
comes in at 9.6 lbs. of dead-weight to lug around all day (not counting the
massive and expensive tripod, et.al.) You can carry the whole P&S kit +
accessory lenses in one roomy pocket of a wind-breaker or jacket. The DSLR kit
would require a sturdy backpack. You also don't require a massive tripod. Large
tripods are required to stabilize the heavy and unbalanced mass of the larger
DSLR and its massive lenses. A P&S camera, being so light, can be used on some
of the most inexpensive, compact, and lightweight tripods with excellent
results.
6. P&S cameras are silent. For the more common snap-shooter/photographer, you
will not be barred from using your camera at public events, stage-performances,
and ceremonies. Or when trying to capture candid shots you won't so easily alert
all those within a block around, by the obnoxious clattering noise that your
DSLR is making, that you are capturing anyone's images. For the more dedicated
wildlife photographer a P&S camera will not endanger your life when
photographing potentially dangerous animals by alerting them to your presence.
7. Some P&S cameras can run the revolutionary CHDK software on them, which
allows for lightning-fast motion detection (literally, lightning fast 45ms
response time, able to capture lightning strikes automatically) so that you may
capture more elusive and shy animals (in still-frame and video) where any
evidence of your presence at all might prevent their appearance. Without the
need of carrying a tethered laptop along or any other hardware into remote
areas--which only limits your range, distance, and time allotted for bringing
back that one-of-a-kind image. It also allows for unattended time-lapse
photography for days and weeks at a time, so that you may capture those unusual
or intriguing subject-studies in nature. E.g. a rare slime-mold's propagation,
that you happened to find in a mountain-ravine, 10-days hike from the nearest
laptop or other time-lapse hardware. (The wealth of astounding new features that
CHDK brings to the creative-table of photography are too extensive to begin to
list them all here. See http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/CHDK )
8. P&S cameras can have shutter speeds up to 1/40,000th of a second. See:
http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/CameraFeatures Allowing you to capture fast subject
motion in nature (e.g. insect and hummingbird wings) WITHOUT the need of
artificial and image destroying flash, using available light alone. Nor will
their wing shapes be unnaturally distorted from the focal-plane shutter
distortions imparted in any fast moving objects, as when photographed with all
DSLRs. (See focal-plane-shutter-distortions example-image link in #10.)
9. P&S cameras can have full-frame flash-sync up to and including shutter-speeds
of 1/40,000th of a second. E.g.
http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/Samples:_High-Speed_Shutter_%26_Flash-Sync without
the use of any expensive and specialized focal-plane shutter flash-units that
must pulse their light-output for the full duration of the shutter's curtain to
pass slowly over the frame. The other downside to those kinds of flash units is
that the light-output is greatly reduced the faster the shutter speed. Any
shutter speed used that is faster than your camera's X-Sync speed is cutting off
some of the flash output. Not so when using a leaf-shutter. The full intensity
of the flash is recorded no matter the shutter speed used. Unless, as in the
case of CHDK capable cameras where the camera's shutter speed can even be faster
than the lightning-fast single burst from a flash unit. E.g. If the flash's
duration is 1/10,000 of a second, and your CHDK camera's shutter is set to
1/20,000 of a second, then it will only record half of that flash output. P&S
cameras also don't require any expensive and dedicated external flash unit. Any
of them may be used with any flash unit made by using an inexpensive
slave-trigger that can compensate for any automated pre-flash conditions.
Example: http://www.adorama.com/SZ23504.html
10. P&S cameras do not suffer from focal-plane shutter drawbacks and
limitations. Causing camera shake, moving-subject image distortions
(focal-plane-shutter distortions, e.g.
http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/chdk/images//4/46/Focalplane_shutter_distortions.jpg
do note the distorted tail-rotor too and its shadow on the ground, 90-degrees
from one another), last-century-slow flash-sync, obnoxiously loud slapping
mirrors and shutter curtains, shorter mechanical life, easily damaged, expensive
repair costs, etc.
11. When doing wildlife photography in remote and rugged areas and harsh
environments; or even when the amateur snap-shooter is trying to take their
vacation photos on a beach or dusty intersection on some city street; you're not
worrying about trying to change lenses in time to get that shot (fewer missed
shots), dropping one in the mud, lake, surf, or on concrete while you do; and
not worrying about ruining all the rest of your photos that day from having
gotten dust & crud on the sensor. For the adventurous photographer you're no
longer weighed down by many many extra pounds of unneeded glass, allowing you to
carry more of the important supplies, like food and water, allowing you to trek
much further than you've ever been able to travel before with your old D/SLR
bricks.
12. Smaller sensors and the larger apertures available at longer focal-lengths
allow for the deep DOF required for excellent macro-photography when using
normal macro or tele-macro lens arrangements. All done WITHOUT the need of any
image destroying, subject irritating, natural-look destroying flash. No DSLR on
the planet can compare in the quality of available-light macro photography that
can be accomplished with nearly any smaller-sensor P&S camera. (To clarify for
DSLR owners/promoters who don't even know basic photography principles: In order
to obtain the same DOF on a DSLR you'll need to stop down that lens greatly.
When you do then you have to use shutter speeds so slow that hand-held
macro-photography, even in full daylight, is all but impossible. Not even your
highest ISO is going to save you at times. The only solution for the DSLR user
is to resort to artificial flash which then ruins the subject and the image;
turning it into some staged, fake-looking, studio setup.)
13. P&S cameras include video, and some even provide for CD-quality stereo audio
recordings, so that you might capture those rare events in nature where a
still-frame alone could never prove all those "scientists" wrong. E.g. recording
the paw-drumming communication patterns of eusocial-living field-mice. With your
P&S video-capable camera in your pocket you won't miss that once-in-a-lifetime
chance to record some unexpected event, like the passage of a bright meteor in
the sky in daytime, a mid-air explosion, or any other newsworthy event. Imagine
the gaping hole in our history of the Hindenberg if there were no film cameras
there at the time. The mystery of how it exploded would have never been solved.
Or the amateur 8mm film of the shooting of President Kennedy. Your video-ready
P&S camera being with you all the time might capture something that will be a
valuable part of human history one day.
14. P&S cameras have 100% viewfinder coverage that exactly matches your final
image. No important bits lost, and no chance of ruining your composition by
trying to "guess" what will show up in the final image. With the ability to
overlay live RGB-histograms, and under/over-exposure area alerts (and dozens of
other important shooting data) directly on your electronic viewfinder display
you are also not going to guess if your exposure might be right this time. Nor
do you have to remove your eye from the view of your subject to check some
external LCD histogram display, ruining your chances of getting that perfect
shot when it happens.
15. P&S cameras can and do focus in lower-light (which is common in natural
settings) than any DSLRs in existence, due to electronic viewfinders and sensors
that can be increased in gain for framing and focusing purposes as light-levels
drop. Some P&S cameras can even take images (AND videos) in total darkness by
using IR illumination alone. (See: Sony) No other multi-purpose cameras are
capable of taking still-frame and videos of nocturnal wildlife as easily nor as
well. Shooting videos and still-frames of nocturnal animals in the total-dark,
without disturbing their natural behavior by the use of flash, from 90 ft. away
with a 549mm f/2.4 lens is not only possible, it's been done, many times, by
myself. (An interesting and true story: one wildlife photographer was nearly
stomped to death by an irate moose that attacked where it saw his camera's flash
come from.)
16. Without the need to use flash in all situations, and a P&S's nearly 100%
silent operation, you are not disturbing your wildlife, neither scaring it away
nor changing their natural behavior with your existence. Nor, as previously
mentioned, drawing its defensive behavior in your direction. You are recording
nature as it is, and should be, not some artificial human-changed distortion of
reality and nature.
17. Nature photography requires that the image be captured with the greatest
degree of accuracy possible. NO focal-plane shutter in existence, with its
inherent focal-plane-shutter distortions imparted on any moving subject will
EVER capture any moving subject in nature 100% accurately. A leaf-shutter or
electronic shutter, as is found in ALL P&S cameras, will capture your moving
subject in nature with 100% accuracy. Your P&S photography will no longer lead a
biologist nor other scientist down another DSLR-distorted path of non-reality.
18. Some P&S cameras have shutter-lag times that are even shorter than all the
popular DSLRs, due to the fact that they don't have to move those agonizingly
slow and loud mirrors and shutter curtains in time before the shot is recorded.
In the hands of an experienced photographer that will always rely on prefocusing
their camera, there is no hit & miss auto-focusing that happens on all
auto-focus systems, DSLRs included. This allows you to take advantage of the
faster shutter response times of P&S cameras. Any pro worth his salt knows that
if you really want to get every shot, you don't depend on automatic anything in
any camera.
19. An electronic viewfinder, as exists in all P&S cameras, can accurately relay
the camera's shutter-speed in real-time. Giving you a 100% accurate preview of
what your final subject is going to look like when shot at 3 seconds or
1/20,000th of a second. Your soft waterfall effects, or the crisp sharp outlines
of your stopped-motion hummingbird wings will be 100% accurately depicted in
your viewfinder before you even record the shot. What you see in a P&S camera is
truly what you get. You won't have to guess in advance at what shutter speed to
use to obtain those artistic effects or those scientifically accurate nature
studies that you require or that your client requires. When testing CHDK P&S
cameras that could have shutter speeds as fast as 1/40,000th of a second, I was
amazed that I could half-depress the shutter and watch in the viewfinder as a
Dremel-Drill's 30,000 rpm rotating disk was stopped in crisp detail in real
time, without ever having taken an example shot yet. Similarly true when
lowering shutter speeds for milky-water effects when shooting rapids and falls,
instantly seeing the effect in your viewfinder. Poor DSLR-trolls will never
realize what they are missing with their anciently slow focal-plane shutters and
wholly inaccurate optical viewfinders.
20. P&S cameras can obtain the very same bokeh (out of focus foreground and
background) as any DSLR by just increasing your focal length, through use of its
own built-in super-zoom lens or attaching a high-quality telextender on the
front. Just back up from your subject more than you usually would with a DSLR.
Framing and the included background is relative to the subject at the time and
has nothing at all to do with the kind of camera and lens in use. Your f/ratio
(which determines your depth-of-field), is a computation of focal-length divided
by aperture diameter. Increase the focal-length and you make your DOF shallower.
No different than opening up the aperture to accomplish the same. The two
methods are identically related where DOF is concerned.
21. P&S cameras will have perfectly fine noise-free images at lower ISOs with
just as much resolution as any DSLR camera. Experienced Pros grew up on ISO25
and ISO64 film all their lives. They won't even care if their P&S camera can't
go above ISO400 without noise. An added bonus is that the P&S camera can have
larger apertures at longer focal-lengths than any DSLR in existence. The time
when you really need a fast lens to prevent camera-shake that gets amplified at
those focal-lengths. Even at low ISOs you can take perfectly fine hand-held
images at super-zoom settings. Whereas the DSLR, with its very small apertures
at long focal lengths require ISOs above 3200 to obtain the same results. They
need high ISOs, you don't. If you really require low-noise high ISOs, there are
some excellent models of Fuji P&S cameras that do have noise-free images up to
ISO1600 and more.
22. Don't for one minute think that the price of your camera will in any way
determine the quality of your photography. Any of the newer cameras of around
$100 or more are plenty good for nearly any talented photographer today. IF they
have talent to begin with. A REAL pro can take an award winning photograph with
a cardboard Brownie Box Camera made a century ago. If you can't take excellent
photos on a P&S camera then you won't be able to get good photos on a DSLR
either. Never blame your inability to obtain a good photograph on the kind of
camera that you own. Those who claim they NEED a DSLR are only fooling
themselves and all others. These are the same people that buy a new camera every
year, each time thinking, "Oh, if I only had the right camera, a better camera,
better lenses, faster lenses, then I will be a great photographer!" If they just
throw enough money at their hobby then the talent-fairy will come by one day,
after just the right offering to the DSLR gods was made, and bestow them with
something that they never had in the first place--talent. Camera company's love
these people. They'll never be able to get a camera that will make their
photography better, because they never were a good photographer to begin with.
They're forever searching for that more expensive camera that might one day come
included with that new "talent in a box" feature. The irony is that they'll
never look in the mirror to see what the real problem has been all along.
They'll NEVER become good photographers. Perhaps this is why these
self-proclaimed "pros" hate P&S cameras so much. P&S cameras instantly reveal to
them their piss-poor photography skills. It also reveals the harsh reality that
all the wealth in the world won't make them any better at photography. It's
difficult for them to face the truth.
23. Have you ever had the fun of showing some of your exceptional P&S
photography to some self-proclaimed "Pro" who uses $30,000 worth of camera gear.
They are so impressed that they must know how you did it. You smile and tell
them, "Oh, I just use a $150 P&S camera." Don't you just love the look on their
face? A half-life of self-doubt, the realization of all that lost money, and a
sadness just courses through every fiber of their being. Wondering why they
can't get photographs as good after they spent all that time and money. Get good
on your P&S camera and you too can enjoy this fun experience.
24. Did we mention portability yet? I think we did, but it is worth mentioning
the importance of this a few times. A camera in your pocket that is instantly
ready to get any shot during any part of the day will get more award-winning
photographs than that DSLR gear that's sitting back at home, collecting dust,
and waiting to be loaded up into that expensive back-pack or camera bag, hoping
that you'll lug it around again some day.
25. A good P&S camera is a good theft deterrent. When traveling you are not
advertising to the world that you are carrying $20,000 around with you. That's
like having a sign on your back saying, "PLEASE MUG ME! I'M THIS STUPID AND I
DESERVE IT!" Keep a small P&S camera in your pocket and only take it out when
needed. You'll have a better chance of returning home with all your photos. And
should you accidentally lose your P&S camera you're not out $20,000. They are
inexpensive to replace.
There are many more reasons to add to this list but this should be more than
enough for even the most unaware person to realize that P&S cameras are just
better, all around. No doubt about it.
The phenomenon of everyone yelling "You NEED a DSLR!" can be summed up in just
one short phrase:
"If even 5 billion people are saying and doing a foolish thing, it remains a
foolish thing."
Chris Malcolm
> I've been trying to settle on a photo host, and I'd appreciate your
> input on which host - of the ones I've tried - displays the image the
> best.
> I took a photograph today ( courthouse.jpg) that I have uploaded to
If you pay the small fee required to upgrade a Flickr account to what
they call a "pro" account there is no compression or resizing of your
images, you can upload whatever size you like and whoever you are to
permit can see it in its original untouched full size.
>
> --
> Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
--
Chris Malcolm
Paul Bartram
> "Troy Piggins" <usene...@piggo.com> wrote
>>* Paul Bartram wrote :
>> Come to Australia, and be enlightened...
> I live in Brisbane, mate ;) :)
You have my sympathies. I used to live there, but have now moved to Gympie
(176 Km north, for non-Aussies.) As far as I can see, there is no cable
anywhere along the coast from Brisbane to Cairns (1760 Km) and I'm not even
sure about Cairns itself. ADSL is available in towns along the way, but can
be patchy where phone lines are old (and is much more expensive than
American users are used to.) It doesn't work out along the highway. Only
scattered wireless areas exist, and satellite is for rich people.
Australia is way behind the rest of the world, partly due to the vast size,
and partly to appalling political bungling over the years.
Paul
Ron Hunter
> In message <200812041...@usenet.piggo.com>, Troy Piggins
> <usene...@piggo.com> writes
>> * Paul Bartram wrote :
>>> * Troy Piggins wrote :
>>>
>>>> I assume it's a DNS and/or network thing. I'm in Aus. Pbase has
>>>> been quite slow for me lately too.
>>> Worth remembering that Australia is many time zones removed from major
>>> servers in the US. For example, I access sites like pBase, Webaperture and
>>> photoNet at the equivalent of 2 am their time, so the load is likely to be
>>> light. And it matters to me, 'cos I'm stuck on dial-up!
>> You realise it's 2008, nearly 2009? I didn't think dialup still
>> existed :)
>
> It doesn't in large urban areas. In many places and I expect parts of
> the US there is no ADSL. It only works within 3 miles (4km ) of the
> exchange.
>
> Cable broadband is different but if you live in a village of 4 houses
> over 5 miles from any main road do you think they will lay in cable?
>
> There are many places where dial up is the only option. (That or
> satellite phone. )
Vast areas of the US are quite distant from any substantial city. For
those, only dialup and satellite service is available. There are some
tests using power lines for internet service, but these are in cities,
and don't seem to be working out as economically feasible.
Ron Hunter
Yes, they do, but usually at a price 3-5 times what dialup costs.
mianileng
I guess it depends on what one uses an internet connection for.
My ISP offers two ADSL speeds - 256 kbps with unlimited data
transfer and 2 Mbps with various limits on monthly transfer
depending on the price one is willing to pay, and unlimited
transfer from 2 - 8 am. I use the latter plan and downloaded a
4.3 GB Linux distro in one 2-8 am session. It would take two
whole days and nights to download the same file at 256 kbps.
Now that we've strayed this far from the thread subject, I'm
curious about the tariffs ADSL users in other places pay for
their internet connections. I live in a remote corner of India
where there's only a single ISP. The 256 kbps plan costs the
equivalent of 15 USD per month and I pay 10 USD for my 2 Mbps
connection with a 2.5 GB monthly cap. How does this compare with
the rates in places like Australia, the US, UK, Germany, etc.?
Tzortzakakis Dimitrios
Ο "mianileng" <mian...@invalid.invalid> έγραψε στο μήνυμα
news:ghemno$l4q$1...@news.motzarella.org...
I pay 30 euros for every 2 months, and it's an 1Mbps DSL connection, with
unlimited time and data thresholds.
(I'm living in Crete,an island in the south of Greece, in Iraklion, one of
the major cities, ca.180,000 residents).
My holiday house, in Vori, in the south of the same prefecture, supports
only a dialup connection, and when I go there, I use this connection with an
ancient 1.8 GHz celeron. Vori is quite a large village, betweem 2 towns,
Mires and Tympaki, with ca.1800 residents. my sister has a student's DSL
connection, for 120 euros a year IIRC w/2Mbs. Both connections are from the
state tel/internet provider, ote www.ote.gr , www.otenet.gr
--
Tzortzakakis Dimitrios
major in electrical engineering
mechanized infantry reservist
hordad AT otenet DOT gr
>
Alan Browne
> I guess it depends on what one uses an internet connection for.
> My ISP offers two ADSL speeds - 256 kbps with unlimited data
> transfer and 2 Mbps with various limits on monthly transfer
> depending on the price one is willing to pay, and unlimited
> transfer from 2 - 8 am. I use the latter plan and downloaded a
> 4.3 GB Linux distro in one 2-8 am session. It would take two
> whole days and nights to download the same file at 256 kbps.
With a cable modem I get 6.5 Mbps DL and 100 kbps UL for about
$30/month; Max 20 GB down and max 10 (I think) up per month, then a
surcharge. Rarely seen it. Downtime is very rare and I've never seen
congestion.
I DL'd Fedora 10 with BitTorrent in under 2 hours (4.1 GB) last week
with an average rate around 5 Mbps (I throttled it a bit so I could
browse in the meantime...)
Over the same cable I get television and telephone (separate IP path for
phone; battery backup) + 100 minutes North American long distance ($2.95).
~$100 per month for all of the above.
Same co. offers up to 60 Mbps service (cable modem) and has deployed 100
Mbps in some areas as a test. YP4WYG.
--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
-- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out.
Paul Bartram
"mianileng" <mian...@invalid.invalid> wrote
> I live in a remote corner of India where there's only a single ISP. The
> 256 kbps plan costs the equivalent of 15 USD per month and I pay 10 USD
> for my 2 Mbps connection with a 2.5 GB monthly cap. How does this compare
> with the rates in places like Australia, the US, UK, Germany, etc.?
Which underlines my feelings that Australia is one of the most overpriced
places on earth for broadband. You *can* find carriers that offer ADSL at
the lower end of the speed scale for $30 or even $20 a month, but at those
prices the data limits are ridiculous, 1 Gb a month and if you're lucky
another 1 Gb for use in the middle of the night.
One heavily advertised outfit (aiming at the hard of thinking) offers 256
Kbps for $10 a month (big letters) with a whopping 75 Mb of data included
(and that's only if you have your phone with them too!) Great if you only
use it to read your email...
Like I've said before, Osama bin Laden probably has better Internet in his
cave than I do in a medium sized Queensland town!
Paul
Ron Hunter
up, with no limit on bytes sent, or received. That 4.3GB distro would
take about 2 hours.
Faster rates, up to 30mbps, are available for those with more money to
spend.