XmanX: I'd like the ability to browse all apps on my phone and all websites on my computer without ever being hounded by the facebook or twitter logos.
I'm officially sick of the constant harassment by app/website designers to make me "Like" something or "Share" something. I'd like to once-and-for-all answer that with NO.
Apple should consider including these options in their Settings menu that a user can configure to never be bothered again to look at the logos of "f" and "t" in any app. I want to live a facebook-free and twitter-free online existence.
I reserve the right to revisit the issue if facebook and twitter started paying me.
I've tried to log onto the website for major newspapers not associated with facebook, only to be asked to log in with facebook and asked for permssions to access to my profile.
Granted our concerns for our individual privacy is outside of the scop of DP reviews, but I have concerns about what these sorts of things mean to the future of intellectual property rights for photographers.
Dvlee: Wll this mean that ALL images transmitted via Instagram will now be subject to facebook's users terms of service/rights grab as the images that are posted on facebook are?
Facebook is becoming so ubiquitous that it may become impossible to share our images anywhere without being subject to facebooks terms of service! I don't use instagram, so I;m not totaly up to speed on how it works, but this whole deal sounds a bit hinky to me.
Well my question is this, will facebook terms of service apply to Instagram images that are sent by other means, including e mail?
I have not seen any reports regarding this particular issue, but if Instagram maintains a database of all the images that have been transmitted via instagram then facebook now owns it. So if it turns that FB-ToS do apply, then all the images that have already been sent via instagram and resides on it's servers might now be subject to FB-ToS
mdruziak: Funny that they didn't buy the Kodak Gallery! haha
That would be a disaster!
The last thing we need is for facebook to set itself up as a stock photo business. It's already got the right to relicense billions of images that have been posted on facebook. If they should choose to exercise that right......
Wll this mean that ALL images transmitted via Instagram will now be subject to facebook's users terms of service/rights grab as the images that are posted on facebook are?
onlooker: Rubenski wrote:> Post processing this will always look fake because you miss the graduality of shooting wide open.
Wrong. These tools (that have been available in many forms for ages in Photoshop and other packages) require patience and a lot of work. Set up different distance masks (very carefully and patiently) and increase blur progressively. That way you will have graduality. Yes, it is possible, and no, it is not a "quick fix".
> these kind of tools are only made for the big crowd that will never make a really good picture anyway.
Such arrogance rarely indicates greatness, so I looked at your site. You should not be throwing stones at others.
To me doing something 'in camera' does not mean doing in camera digital processing of the raw images into stylized jpegs. To me its doing things like setting fstop, shutter speeds etc, selection of lens/zoom focal length, point of focus/hyperfocal point and depth of field,
The traditional meaning of 'in camera' also included lighting and external special fx. The point is the special effect is created at the time the exposure is taken.
I consider the built in special effects to be post processing even though they take place in the camera.
So instead of thinking of it as "in camera" perhaps it would be better to describe it as "RAW capture effects."
But Rubinski was spot on in one regard; I would rather be spending my time with camera in hand taking pictures than sitting in front of the computer doing post. I feel a greater sense of accomplishment when I get the effect I'm looking for at the moment of capture. I never use built in processing FX.
Dvlee: Expanding the resolution of images displayed on facebook only increases the likelyhood of those images being stolen by others for republication outside of facebook and/or commercial usage.
I am reluctant to post any images of any monetary value on facebook until facebook clarifies its privacy and usage policies and removes any clauses that allow them to resell the images.
While many will say that there is no evidence that facebook is actually reselling images, through the user agreement we have all granted fb the right to do so if it should choose to expand it's business in that direction.
Given the number of images that are posted on fb, such a move would be devestating to stock photographers , and anyone who earns income by providing visual content for online use.
The internet and companies like facebook and Google are always changing. Even though they are not actively engaged in reselling, the potential to do so exists.
DaytonR- Stock isn't what it used to be. Everybody wants content but nobody wants to pay for it. But nobody's making millions selling books either. That market's the same as photography..everyone wants books for cheap and Amazon sells them for cheap. It's not about quality anymore, it's all about quantity. If any of my images end up in books there in the $7.99 specials a Barnes and Noble LOL!!
I have a rule...don't go to great lengths and expense for cheap stock...save that for the clients who appreciate what goes into good photography. I can knock out decent sallable stock images without breaking a sweat! If I put my all into the work I expect fair compensation. Stock is a good way to keep busy when I'm not doing something for a real paying client.
My concerns about facebook is small compared to the threat that Pinterest poses to my usage/resale earnings.
@ Martyvis...I understand what you are saying. There has always been a pro/non pro market dynamic and they were able to exist side by side. It's not the non pros that are the problem, it's facebook.
I used to make 25% of my income from stock and it provided a steady cash flow in between assignments. Now I would have to spend 100% of my time shooting stock to earn less than half what I used to.
Even if most of the content comes from non professionals, the idea of selling other peoples work and not sharing the earnings is just plain wrong. Even an amateur would be upset to learn that someone was profiting from their work without their consent and a share of the profit. I know because this happened to me before I became professional. I was not too happy seeing my photo in a magazine ad without my permission. I had originally submitted the image for magazine photo contest.
Then I learned to read the fine print before submitting or posting anything.
psilore..You are quite correct. It's out choice and as I already stated above "I am reluctant to post any images of any monetary value on facebook."
But even if those of us who don't upload to facebook could potentially be impacted by the content that is uploaded by the many hundreds of thousands of talented non professional photographers who just want to share their images. THAT content could potentially undermine the value of all stock content, even that produced by professional stock photographers who do not upload to facebook.
It's not a matter of any one photographer's work being stolen. It's more a matter of the whole market for stock photography being flooded with cheap content. The stock market, which used to be lucrative, has already been undermined by royalty free and cheap content.
Svenson: Ok - I start to understand why Canon stopped at 22MP with their new 5DMKIII.In perfect conditions (studio?) you ou have an advantage of the 36MP - but on the street. Vibrance is missing, AF accuracy seems to be crucial with this amount of pixel...
@Svenson...because canon shot itself in the foot when it released the very pricey 1Ds 22mpx then shortly thereafter they gave us the 22mpx 5D for less than half the cost of the 1Ds. It turned out that many people considered the 5D superior to the 1Ds. The 5D became a big success for Canon. I don't know anyne who thought the 1Ds was worth the extra cost.
I suspect that Canon does not want to shoot itself in the foot again, so they just upgraded the 5D at the same mpx and is saving their monster mpx camera for later. I think we'll see that T4i, 7D, 60D(70D??) upgrades at the same mpx before we see somethng along the line of the D800.
I'm sure that Canon anticipated the D800 but I wonder if the price point caught them by surprise. With the 22mpx 5DIII selling for a higher price than Nikon new 36mpx D800, how will a 36+mpx Canon be priced? What will it have that will make it so special that will allow it to be priced higher than the 5DIII and be competitive against the D800?? Stay tuned
shakabra: One thing that I never ever understand in these camera reviews.....is that no one ever talks about PRINTING. I mean, you don't even need more than a 1 megapixel camera if all you do is post photos on the internet. All this tech talk and stupid arguing... and not one mention of the final output: THE PHOTOGRAPH!!! 10 years ago, no one ever argued about which film or chemicals were superior. Now look at you. You are all tech geeks yet you have all lost sight of what photography is all about. the D800 has 36 megapixels and not one mention of what the prints look like.
No one argued about which film or chemicals were superior? Then I guess you weren't really there.
The quality of images were more dependent upon the differences between film, chemical and papers than it was the cameras and lenses themselves. And anyone who wants to dispute me hasn't seen the images I shot on Technical Pan film processed in my own formulation of POTA (phenidone based) developer. The fine grain, sharpness and tonal range of images shot on a lowly Olympus OM1 produced prints of superior quality to images shot on conventional film on more expensive Nikons and Leicas.. The superior qualities of the film/chemical combination far outweighed the quality of the camera.
I was online arguing about film and chemicals before digital photography took hold. We argued alot.
gsum: I see Jessops have put the price of the D800 (not D800E) to £2599. Are they trying to commit retail suicide?
Isn't that in violation of Nikons Pro Pricing policy?
Expanding the resolution of images displayed on facebook only increases the likelyhood of those images being stolen by others for republication outside of facebook and/or commercial usage.
krebss: I hope everyone is AWARE OF THIS before sharing any or higher res images:
Directly from Facebook T&C:
1. For content that is covered by intellectual property rights, like photos and videos (IP content), you specifically give us the following permission, subject to your privacy and application settings: you grant us a non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, worldwide license to use any IP content that you post on or in connection with Facebook (IP License). This IP License ends when you delete your IP content or your account unless your content has been shared with others, and they have not deleted it.
Also-Sites like Zenfolio and YouTube enable an RSS feed so visitors can post a link to the image or gallery that displays a thumbnail image.
When a third party posts a link to that page on facebook, the thumbnail image will be displayed. All images, including RSS feeds will be stored on facebooks servers and facebook claims all these rights to any information that is stored on their servers. As a result they are claiming the usage rights to images posted by 3rd parties, who by virtue of the RSS feed have been granted the right to post the link and it's associated thumbnail on other websties. These individuals however do not have the right to grant any rights to another party except those implied rights to transfer and dsplay the RSS. That would include the right to transfer but not the right to sub-license. A sub license allows the licensee to sell the license to another party. Fb can't claim rights from 3rd parties who don't have the right to grant them.
In the language of "rights grabs" you will find a statement that says the photographer retains the full copyright,. Then the user agreement requires the copyright owner grant facebook all right normally afforded to the copyright owner.
Facebook does not need these permissions to distribute within it's own system. They are asking for more than they need.
Facebook holds the same position that a photo lab, copy center or print shop would in relation to the photographer. They do notunlimited usage rights in order to print distribute on behalf of the artist. They only need cpnfirmation that the photographer is the rightfull owner of the copyright.
As a printer I would have clients sign a "waiver" stating that the photographer was the copyright owner or had permission from the copyright holder to to reproduce the work. That's all facebook needs to distribute the work on facebook. It does not need the right to 'sub-license" or transfer the work."
profdeming: What a bitter disappointment this camera is. We waited three years for a sensor that has 22 instead of 21 MP? I can't believe the way people are swooning over this. Unless Canon comes out with a high resolution pretty quickly, they are going to lose a big market share to Nikon.
@ Michael_13...Have you ever worked with medium format? I've worked with 30, 60 and 80 megapixel medium format cameras and have long dreamed of the day I could afford to own one. The D800e steps into the range so one could afford to buy the camera and a bag full of lenses for the price of a medium format body alone.
What you're really saying is that you don't need more magapixels and for many photographers thats true.
Canon has already announced a couple of new hgh end cameras, each filling it's own special niche. I think they have more up their sleeves and will eventually fill that the high megapixel niche as well.
To each their own.
jimread: OK so one can get a 4ft X 3ft print off this, whose got the room to display it and whose got 16 gig of ram to process the files?
For many of my clients, 4x3 foot would be on the small side. And the way the prints are displayed, people like to get up close and examine the details.
22 mpx is more than enough for many photographers, but there are some clients who expect more and are willing to pay more. I can't afford to buy medium format system but when I need to I can rent one.
It would be nice to have a more affordable 35mm DSLR and right now that's the Nikon D800e.
I suspect that the rumored monster megapixel Canon is yet to be revealed , but with the 5DmkIII already at a price point higher than the D800e, a pixel count equal to the Nikon for a significantly higher price won't do. But if the monster megapixel camera is in the rumored 45 mpx range and priced in the 1Ds range, then it would fill the empty spece between the D800e and the low end medium format cameras.
christosd: Ι strongly believe that they planned to launch it on April 1st
Yeah,,,April Fools Day!
Dvlee: Isn't this just a variation of the technology that Fujifilm/Sigma cameras have been using for years? It sounds similar to the techniques of using individual sensors for each color and luminosity and then combining the data for a lower file size.
In any case, I like the concept of pixel bining to reduce noise and I can see this being of great use in APS-C and full frame DSLRs. But does it necessarily have to be built into the camera? I could see a process like this as part of Photoshop or Lightroom that could be applied to any high megapixel image.
I've been doing a process something like that just by using the conventional features in Photoshop in which I apply some noise reduction, which blurs the image slightly. Then I downrez and sharpen resulting in a smaller but less noisy image.
What I think is most interesting is they squeezed that many pixels into a small chip. I'm not at the least interested in a better cell phone camera.
Honestly I was never exactly clear on how the Fuji or Foveon sensors did their thing. At the time they first appeared on the scene the concept seemed promising but after I had the opportunity to try them out I did not see a noticable advantage in image quality over conventional sensors. I thought the Sigma and Fuji advertising were a bit desceptive.
The real question is the results...makes not difference at how they are arrived at. Will the lower rez pixel binned deliver less noise than a full rez image processed as I described?
commiebiker: yep, say goodbye to compact P&S cameras...the future has arrived
While hanging out in the local camera store, I was looking at the cameras that can connect to the internet and post a photo directly to facebook or send it as an mail. We joked that they should make a camera that can be used as a phone and surf the web.
It's clear that the technology in cell phones and P&Ss are on a collision course and that someday soon be indistinguishable from one another.
It's not so much that point and shoots will disappear, but rather camera stores will have to sell cell phones and phone salepeople will have to learn more about photography!
I'd like to see a comparison between the lower resolution "pixel binned" image and the full resolution file cleaned up with a dedicated noise reduction software or plugin. I've been getting great results with Topaz Denoise.
If a program like Denoise can clean up the image enough , I'd rather opt for the higher pixel count and fix the noise in post.