jannefoo: This is good business... for Getty. The photographer gets pennies after Getty's 80% slice.
I've been on Flickr for about 7 years or so. I've made $0 on my own. Getty contacted me yesterday and added 6 of my photos. I'll be joining and contributing the photos (and more in the future). If I don't make any money then I still lose nothing other than the little time it takes to fill out the online forms. If I make even $10 then I'll start calling myself a pro photographer since I am making money off of my photography. That'll be worth it. ;~)
"The E-mount that could do that would be a little different than the E-mount that we know today. But it is possible. Much of the lens geometry you see in the RX1 is what it would take to realize that design."So, lenses that recess well into the body to work on a full frame sensor are what we have with the 1 lens on the RX1. If they are thinking that they can build a FF NEX, for example, and have a new line of recessed lenses, I hope they realize that building it in a way that doesn't allow legacy glass will probably kill most of the excitement people will have for this camera.
Dailypix: I am not sure how to post an image. I used to post the url to the jpg but now the image does not show, just the link. What am I doing wrong?
There is a button you can click in above the text entry box that allows you to just post the URL to the image that is hosted elsewhere. It works just swell. I like it better because some people used to post full sized images previously and they'd show up full sized; now they are resized and users have the option to view the full size if they want it.
Also, if I link to the full size version of an image on Flickr then the EXIF data gets displayed. If I link to an individual sized version (e.g., width 1024) then the EXIF data is not displayed in the thread on the image. If this is an error from Flickr then that's probably that, but if if it's something easily fixed then that would be appreciated. Thanks.
You probably know of some of these issue I am reporting, but on the "recent forum activity" (e.g., pressing M on a forum) menu, I appreciate that you added a column for the forum. Unfortunately, clicking on the link to the forum or the link to the last post both result in a page not found error.
PhotoKhan: Where's the "My threads" link for each particular user. Is it gone?
I think you can just hit the M key when viewing a forum topic, for example. Try it.
EDIT: Doh, that just shows your forum activity. Ah well -- I like that better. ;~)
The "Recent Forum Activity" quick link in our profile menu on every page over on the right (avatar and name) provides a listing of all of my forum comments, but gone is the column that shows which forums the comment is posted in. I'd like to have that added back instead of just generically showing the comment thread titles. Thanks.
When viewing in Flat Mode, I wish the space between posts wasn't so great. That's the only big thing I'd like to see tweaked at this point.
From my experience on another forum, user rankings get abused. For example, if a person is reasonable and uses a Nikon but participates in a discussion on the Canon forum discussing the differences between the Canon 5D Mark III and the Nikon D600 then the Nikon user might contribute very factual information, yet this person will inevitably lose points by partisan participants who do not want to see negative information about their camera being mentioned.
Or, on my NEX forum, there are many discussions about the value of the touch screen on the 5N versus the lack of a touch screen on the NEX-7. People feel very strongly about it so I know, just as happens in political discussions on my other forum, that people rate down users who they disagree with even if the user is being very civil and contributing in a worthwhile manner. I would hate to see people who are valuable contributors being made to look like a troll just because they converse with people not wanting that information.
give me much more customization already!!!
Each shot makes me think about the event the person is competing in and shows some of the character of the participant. Nicely captured set.
Odd that pricing hasn't been announced when I was able to pre-order this lens on Amazon.com last week for my NEX at $399.
There must be something wrong with the voting system when the winning entry is only a 3.1 out of 5.
I used to be a purist about photography and post processing. But then I realized that the bokeh that a really nice Zeiss or Leica lens provides is actually artificial compared to what my eyes are really seeing. We see the dog and the background. Just because I buy a nice full frame camera and fast lens doesn't mean that I am now doing something authentic; rather, I am manipulating tools to give me a pleasant artificial look. Why not allow post processing if it can do the same trick? That being said, I prefer the nice equipment over the time spent post processing to get this effect.
SigmaDelta10: Sony boys and girls: the NEX 7 is nice. Yes, really.BUT... lenses should be black. They shouldn't look like perfume bottles.The NEX 7 is black. The cheap 18-55 is black. Black is beautiful. Give us black lenses.
I am just an amateur who understands exposure and I am learning composition and lighting to go with the technical stuff I've learned about photography. I also prefer silver lenses to go with my silver 5N. If silver is perfume bottles then I look goofy to you, but I like the look, so there's that. On the other hand, I don't care how I look and often put an ugly black Canon FDn 50/1.4 lens on my silver 5N. No big deal to me . . . it's the results I am after; not looking good taking the shots.
cptrios: Thanks! I've been waiting for this for ages now, and these results have me excited. Any idea when the 19mm might pop up?
The kit wide open corners doesn't look very good to me. Thanks for sharing these.
Jonathan Wilson: Hopefully it will be easier to access highest res images (at moment can be quite a few clicks). Ok I admit I like to pixel peep sometimes.
Not from the photostream. You have to first click the image to get the medium sized view and then you can right click to get the contextual menu that has original as an option. That's still a bit clunky.
For my top 10 finish I'd just like to thank the Academy.
maboleth: I can't stand FB's way of showing the images. LOUSY and drastic compression, reslizing the images for 1px so nothing is as sharp as it should be, etc.
So I ended up uploading 800px photographs to FB. They look good now but sometimes they suffer terrible compression. I don't know the reason why.
So, no, I think FB's image handling is horrible. Better than it used to be, but FAR from good. And I'm not a fan of their new lateral comments. It ruins the feeling of a photo. The first thing you see is not an image but comments, sponsors and likes. I guess that's what they wanted.
Lower quality is why I never understood the popularity of Instagram. Then again, the masses aren't serious about photography as much as they're serious about just having fun. Ah well.
javieralcivar: The post should be how many people will actually see your photos in Facebook vs Google+
Fb is fun to share my images with more people if that's my sole purpose, but Flickr and/or G+ are better for actually storing and backing up photos. Flickr and/or G+ are much better if you're even remotely serious about photography and viewing and critiquing photos or sharing images with people who shoot photos for quality. I am heavily invested into Flickr and I've love to switch to G+, but moving is really, really tough. Sigh.