Stig Nygaard

Stig Nygaard

Lives in Denmark Copenhagen, Denmark
Has a website at http://www.rockland.dk/
Joined on Dec 4, 2006
About me:

Follow me on Google+. A great place to be as a photographer (even if you choose not to follow me anyway;-)):
https://plus.google.com/105584766690422580666

My "complete" gallery is at Flickr:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/stignygaard/

Try Stig's Flickr Fixr:
https://www.flickr.com/groups/flickrhacks/discuss/72157655601688753/
https://greasyfork.org/scripts/12008-stig-s-flickr-fixr

Comments

Total: 32, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »
In reply to:

Stig Nygaard: Well, don't care much about the VR headset support, but would be nice if Flickr was able to show Google Photospheres too like it's showing https://www.flickr.com/photos/rueike/14646855999

The "raw photo" looks the same as a Google Photosphere photo. So I guess the differences is just how the sphere-effect is "encoded" in the meta/exif-data. Anyone knows what format it is that Flickr currently supports?

I was wrong. Google photospheres does work! I just tried uploading one of my own, and it also worked before I added the Equirectangular tag:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/stignygaard/23655539285/

The reason I thought it didn't work was because I just tried some photospheres I found by searching Flickr. The required meta/exif data might have been stripped from these...

Direct link | Posted on Dec 10, 2015 at 16:30 UTC

Well, don't care much about the VR headset support, but would be nice if Flickr was able to show Google Photospheres too like it's showing https://www.flickr.com/photos/rueike/14646855999

The "raw photo" looks the same as a Google Photosphere photo. So I guess the differences is just how the sphere-effect is "encoded" in the meta/exif-data. Anyone knows what format it is that Flickr currently supports?

Direct link | Posted on Dec 10, 2015 at 09:30 UTC as 5th comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

Slobodan Blagojevic: The real question is why would I want to post larger? To make it more attractive for thieves to still it and/or print it?

There might not be anybody still reading comments to this old post, but I decided myself to do something about the missing larger-than-1024px browsing sizes for photos uploaded before March 2012. As a "provider" who wants to share my photos nice and big to friends, family and the world, my fix doesn't help much. But as a "consumer" who likes to see both older and new photos nice and big, I have made a fix for desktop browsers using a "userscript" (aka. Greasemonkey script). With some restrictions it works very very well. If curious, read more about Stig's Flickr Fixr at https://www.flickr.com/groups/flickrhacks/discuss/72157655601688753/ or go directly to Greasy Fork to install: https://greasyfork.org/scripts/12008-stig-s-flickr-fixr .
Requires some browser extension to run userscripts installed in browser. For example Greasemonkey for Firefox, Tampermonkey for Chrome or Safari, or Violentmonkey for Opera.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 16, 2015 at 12:36 UTC
On article Flickr brings back Pro account option (74 comments in total)
In reply to:

Stig Nygaard: But pro-users uploads from before March 2012 are still not made available to browse in 1600px and 2048px wide versions - Not even if you have been a paying pro-user for 10 years. 1024px are starting to look very small on some monitors :-/

@Samuel Jessop
Processing power to prepare 1600px and 2048px versions (and storage for them) are their excuse for not making them. But it is a very small price compared to the price for a PRO-subscription, and if you want a service to be taken seriously as a gallery for your photos, it should be a must to keep display-sizes updated to new monitor resolutions - in my opinion.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 24, 2015 at 06:25 UTC
On article Flickr brings back Pro account option (74 comments in total)
In reply to:

Ian: "...there’s no such thing as Flickr Pro, because today, with cameras as pervasive as they are, there is no such thing really as professional photographers..."
-Marisa Mayer, CEO, Yahoo, May 2013

So does this news mean that there are in fact "professional photographers"?

I couldn't resist...

Well, what is "pro" actually? By definition somebody who makes a living of something (or at least makes some money on it).
But here it's just a name for some level of service.
That doesn't make Marisa's comment less stupid, though ;-)

Direct link | Posted on Jul 23, 2015 at 20:33 UTC
On article Flickr brings back Pro account option (74 comments in total)
In reply to:

brumd: hmm.. 'improved stats' sounds a bit vague. I can see a graph with the title 'Source breakdown', but it's not very clear what it'll show exactly.

Many many years ago, as a pro-member, you had the possibility to see the referrer-URLs. I would love to see that functionality back. If that's the case, it is worth the €49.99 to me. Without it, no.

"Many years ago" was also yesterday if you kept your pro-account all the way.
But yes, you can also see referers with the new stats...

Direct link | Posted on Jul 23, 2015 at 20:30 UTC
On article Flickr brings back Pro account option (74 comments in total)

But pro-users uploads from before March 2012 are still not made available to browse in 1600px and 2048px wide versions - Not even if you have been a paying pro-user for 10 years. 1024px are starting to look very small on some monitors :-/

Direct link | Posted on Jul 23, 2015 at 20:01 UTC as 26th comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

richardkra: Just give me back PicasaWeb.

I can still access Picasaweb using:
https://picasaweb.google.com/lh/myphotos?noredirect=1
I still use picasaweb for tagging, adding Creative Commons license and more...
But I wonder for how long I wil be able to do that ? :-/
(... and haven't tested yet if new uploads from Google Photos are available in picasaweb or if it's only the old stuff)

Direct link | Posted on May 29, 2015 at 07:32 UTC
In reply to:

steve_hoge: The animations look cool. But I don't think I have the Brooklyn hipster cred required to download it. And where's the desktop version?

Desktop version:
https://photos.google.com/

Direct link | Posted on May 29, 2015 at 07:29 UTC

In case someone wants something else but discussing if Mads Nissens winner photo is a political plot or stagged, you can find other examples of his work here:
http://politiken.dk/fotografier/ECE2543405/eskapister-guldgravere-indianere-og-homoseksuelle-i-eksil/
http://www.madsnissen.com/category/stories/
The first link is photos from his book "Amazonas".

Direct link | Posted on Feb 17, 2015 at 07:00 UTC as 64th comment | 6 replies
On article Adobe expands Photoshop and Lightroom offer (628 comments in total)
In reply to:

Cipher: Why are people saying it's $10 for life?

Read the FAQ: "When you purchase directly from Adobe, the cost of an annual membership will not go up during the first 12 months of your membership. It is possible that the cost of the month-to-month membership will increase, but if it does, you will be notified and given the opportunity to cancel."

Terms:"After the first 12 months, we will automatically renew your contract based on the current price of the offering."

Current price of the offering would mean if they upped the price to $25 a month, then that's the current price of the offering.

Yes Raist3d, if you insist on seeing the glass half-empty, you can say that. The intention with this plan has been explained several times by several official Adobe people, but the terms don't give any forever guarantee.
On the other hand, if you look at the glass half-full, I say it's a great offer, and if Adobe fundamentally change their pricing strategy in 5 years from now, I might stop my subscription then, but I have had 5 great years with a tool I love.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 22, 2013 at 06:59 UTC
On article Adobe expands Photoshop and Lightroom offer (628 comments in total)
In reply to:

Cipher: Why are people saying it's $10 for life?

Read the FAQ: "When you purchase directly from Adobe, the cost of an annual membership will not go up during the first 12 months of your membership. It is possible that the cost of the month-to-month membership will increase, but if it does, you will be notified and given the opportunity to cancel."

Terms:"After the first 12 months, we will automatically renew your contract based on the current price of the offering."

Current price of the offering would mean if they upped the price to $25 a month, then that's the current price of the offering.

It's an offer toll roll in on a special photographer plan that is supposed to continue having a special price. That is also after the 1st year. The guaranties ain't very concrete though, but in the words of a man from Adobe:

We are not providing a price lock – it might be $10.49 or $10.99 or still $9.99 in 2015 or 2016 or whatever based on inflation – but it is not an introductory price (like $29.99 for the complete plan, which goes up to $49.99 in year 2).

Source: http://terrywhite.com/photoshop-photographers-deal-open-everyone-blackfriday/#comment-1131609682

Direct link | Posted on Nov 22, 2013 at 05:48 UTC
On Connect post Tablets for photographers: Best options for on-the-go workflow (145 comments in total)

Don't care must about build-in cameras. More important that you can import from your camera or card-readers usb-port. Wi-fi only? Use your phone as a wi-fi hotspot, so don't see a big drawback there. Now I'll admit that I haven't read all the tablets reviews in this article, but looks like you primary look at the resolution when judging screens. I like to know how well the screen looks with colors, brightness and contrast. Though I don't imagine doing serious editing on a tablet, something that's not to far away from my calibrated screen at home is definitely still preferable.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 15, 2012 at 05:55 UTC as 70th comment
On article HDR for the Rest of Us (199 comments in total)

The first two examples from Oregon coast looks kind of okay, except they seems over-saturated to my eyes - especially the second one.
But the last panoramic example is clearly over-the-top for me. The clouds are weird, not bright enough, and the ground just much to saturated and contrastful. Looks artificial and not very pretty to me.
I do like the idea of HDR, but it is just so rare I see photos that actually looks nice when people tell the technique was used. If that is because it's actually technically difficult to make it natural looking HDR or if it is the photographers mind that play tricks when editing, I'm still to find out...

Edit: Ups, there's a page 2 too... Sorry, don't like the examples on page 2. They definitely looks unnatural and HDRish in my opinion...

Direct link | Posted on Aug 28, 2012 at 05:48 UTC as 54th comment
In reply to:

Slobodan Blagojevic: The real question is why would I want to post larger? To make it more attractive for thieves to still it and/or print it?

Hi Mike Deerkoski,

Thanks so much for the answer. I will be patient for some time and keep my fingers crossed for you making the right decision to backfill :-)

Direct link | Posted on May 17, 2012 at 18:32 UTC
In reply to:

Slobodan Blagojevic: The real question is why would I want to post larger? To make it more attractive for thieves to still it and/or print it?

@maiaibing, I have been a paying customer since 2005. Recently renewed my account; It was just 5 days before they announced the new sizes (and that they would *only* be available for new uploads)... :-/

Direct link | Posted on May 17, 2012 at 12:39 UTC
In reply to:

Slobodan Blagojevic: The real question is why would I want to post larger? To make it more attractive for thieves to still it and/or print it?

Hi Mike Deerkoski...

Long comment - Part 2:

Do you know if this weird decision is like "forever ever", or do you think (or know?) that it might be reconsidered soon? I know for sure that I WANT all my photos available in display sizes larger than 1024px wide. I'm told the "replace feature" doesn't solve the problem, but even if it does, this will break any external "embeddings" of my photos, so I don't consider this a real option. That means that my option is to start re-upload all my photos again, meaning I will loose all faves, all comments, all notes, and have to start over reorganizing in Sets and Collections, etc. Wait, if I loose all this, why not start from complete scratch and evaluate other options than Flickr? Not saying I will choose another service, I haven't evaluated the alternatives yet. But if I will have to re-upload anyway, I would be stupid not to evaluate alternatives to Flickr.

I hope somebody at Flickr still are evaluating this stupid decision?

/Stig

Direct link | Posted on May 17, 2012 at 07:35 UTC
In reply to:

Slobodan Blagojevic: The real question is why would I want to post larger? To make it more attractive for thieves to still it and/or print it?

Hi Mike Deerkoski, "Engineering @ Flickr" (Maybe you shouldn't have told, because...;-)).

Long comment - Part 1:

I think I have been waiting two years for sizes bigger than 1024px on Flickr (besides my superbig and heavy originals). And finally you introduced 1600px and 2048px wide sizes not long ago. I was really REALLY happy,... for a few minutes... Then I realized, that the new sizes are only made for photos uploaded since March 1st, and Flickr do not have any plans to create the new sizes for my older photos. What?!?...

For me, my "old" photos are just as important as the newest uploads, and the only reason I didn't really considered moving to another service in the last two years was that I thought you sooner (and expected much sooner than now) or later would make those big sizes available. And I never thought about a possibility you could implement such a thing for new uploads only, it has never been the policy of Flickr to forget about the old customers.

/Stig

Direct link | Posted on May 17, 2012 at 07:34 UTC

Would have loved Raw support too, but 24mm/F2.0 in the wide sounds very nice compared to for example Canon D20 which is only 28mm/F3.9. For underwater photographer I think 24mm/F2.0 will be a BIG plus (and if the camera had Raw I had ordered it as soon as I can).

Direct link | Posted on May 8, 2012 at 05:36 UTC as 77th comment
In reply to:

semorg: There many bulb-base triggers for timelapse. They're all okay. However, I will not buy one, until they come up with a version that it triggers the canon camera via the USB where the actually exposure can be set shorter than 1/10 seconds instead of the bulb triggering.

https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=eu.chainfire.dslrcontroller

Direct link | Posted on May 1, 2012 at 17:50 UTC
Total: 32, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »