Stig Nygaard

Stig Nygaard

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

http://www.flickr.com/photos/stignygaard/
https://plus.google.com/+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: 42, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous123Next ›Last »
On article The Canon that can: Canon EOS 80D Review (677 comments in total)
In reply to:

BattleBrat: A step in the right direction, but given the size and weight, the fact there are no really good APSC lenses available, wouldn't one be better off going full frame?

No good APS-C lenses? They might not be L-build, but 10-22mm, 17-55mm, 15-85mm, 60mm. And some light bargain lenses 10-18mm, 18-135, 55-250 which might not be the ultimate best but still are very good.
Yes a pro(sumer) tele(zoom) taking advantage of the APS-C format for smaller size and weight would be nice to have added to the line-up. But I wouldn't say "no really good APSC lenses available".

Link | Posted on Apr 28, 2016 at 06:12 UTC
In reply to:

straylightrun: Why does it look so cheap for $250? I first thought it was some $30 budget model.

Do you really think it looks cheap? I have one, and I definitely don't think it looks or feels cheap.

Actually several of my friends who are not interested in photography - and usually not interested in bags or other stuff I carry or wear - have asked what bag it is, and where you can buy it. So it can't look that bad in practice :-)

Link | Posted on Apr 16, 2016 at 13:48 UTC
In reply to:

Angrymagpie: I've written my initial review when I bought the bag 3 months ago:
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/57122397

I'm enjoying it three months in. The slider turns out to be tight enough so far.
My biggest problem with the bag - apart from it being quite fancy-looking - is its inability to stand on its own. The bag keeps tilting frontward and occasionally falls over. One time, tragedy struck, when I was packing and wasn't paying attention to how stable the bag was sitting on my desk, it fell over and a lens fell out and hit the floor. This wouldn't have happened with my 7-million dollar home.
Yes indeed I could have had the lid of my bag closed - but I was packing and I only just left my bag for a few seconds to grab something else...
Peak Design has to do something to address this problem in my view!

I've noticed same balance problem. When I have my 13" laptop in the bag (which is pretty much only when traveling), the balance seems fine. But without a laptop in the laptop pocket, the bag also keeps tilting and falling frontward for me when standing on the ground. I'm considering trying to glue a pair of small "rubber-feets" in front of the bottom to prevent this.
Besides that, very happy with this bag.

Link | Posted on Apr 16, 2016 at 13:47 UTC
In reply to:

Stig Nygaard: New owners, it could get even worse. But it definitely also could get MUCH better. It really hurts thinking how bad it has been run by Yahoo. The site still has potential for so much more.

PS. Try Stig's Flickr Fixr. I was frustrated by the way Flickr had developed and had pretty much stopped using the service for a couple of years. But recently realized I couldn't find a satisfactory replacement. So now I'm trying to fix it myself instead ;-) https://www.flickr.com/groups/flickrhacks/discuss/72157655601688753/ (Mostly small things in the big picture, but it has made the site more fun for me again)

Forget being a new Instagram. Forget being a total backup-service. Be a gallery where people can keep and display their curated photos for life, and be a social site to discuss photos and photography (Good, those forums in groups needs some work - just a notification when somebody writes in a discussion you have participated is a completely non-existing thing). And bring back the fun. Make map a great tool again (it used to be a great exploring tool, but only latest uploads seems discoverable today in global searches). Bring back notes. Threat your users with respect. Don't think their older photos doesn't matter any more (Please update our uploads from before March 2012 to all available browsing sizes - 1024px is soo small on todays desktop monitors).

Link | Posted on Mar 30, 2016 at 06:33 UTC

New owners, it could get even worse. But it definitely also could get MUCH better. It really hurts thinking how bad it has been run by Yahoo. The site still has potential for so much more.

PS. Try Stig's Flickr Fixr. I was frustrated by the way Flickr had developed and had pretty much stopped using the service for a couple of years. But recently realized I couldn't find a satisfactory replacement. So now I'm trying to fix it myself instead ;-) https://www.flickr.com/groups/flickrhacks/discuss/72157655601688753/ (Mostly small things in the big picture, but it has made the site more fun for me again)

Link | Posted on Mar 30, 2016 at 06:08 UTC as 55th comment | 2 replies
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...

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?

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.

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.

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 ;-)

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...

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 :-/

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)

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/

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".

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.

Link | Posted on Nov 22, 2013 at 06:59 UTC
Total: 42, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous123Next ›Last »