[Choc-Ful-A]

FWIW, I think hosting images on Fark is a big win overall. If nothing else, not getting all the browser cookies from every hosting site on the planet makes me happy. I have my browser setup to ask me each time a new webserver tries to set a cookie.

[Choc-Ful-A]

That makes sense, meaning that image which aren’t too big are just copied “as is”. But it’s worth noting that even in those cases, Fark will make a copy and host is on their servers. That’s good news for people with limited or unreliable hosting services.

But it also means you won’t be able to tell how many people saw your image in a contest by checking your hosting service traffic reports.

[Choc-Ful-A]

Mike clarified that the code to re-size the image would respect the JPEG quality level used in the posted image. So, for instance, if you post a 1700×1800 JPEG saved with compression set to “85%”, then the Fark cache re-hosting code would re-size it to 850×900 using the same compression setting of “85%” in the process.

Also, he clarified they they are using Image Magick, as well established program for the image manipulation. So if you want to see how it will work, you can visit the Image Magick website to read the docs or install a copy of the code and resize some images to test it.

[Choc-Ful-A]

The whole story is really, really cool! Congrats. And while I only know you virtually, based on what you’ve shared I have to say I think it’s a good break well deserved. I hope it snowballs to more goodness.

[Choc-Ful-A]

I agree, blurring the shadow will make them look more realistic, assuming that’s your goal…

Also a natural shadow will be a distorted version of the original shape, with the areas that are farther from the object throwing the shadow bigger than the other areas. So you can use what GIMP called the “perspective tool” to pull the shadow into a different shape making the far end wider/bigger until it looks right. And if you’re just learning, I’d recommend using GIMP over other free software. But that could turn into a religious argument so I’ll leave it alone. 🙂

[Choc-Ful-A]

I can’t believe the original contest was in 2008. Really, FIVE years ago, that seems impossible to me.

[Choc-Ful-A]

As it turns out, I chimed in when the second discussion linked in liguine‘s comment happened. Back then I was concerned that where the line between acceptable and
“too much change” was when it comes to selective alterations to the image. I think that’s still the issue. What’s “too much”?

[Choc-Ful-A]

I didn’t think we changed the rule to allow dodge/burn except when used to remove minute, incidental glitches in the photo. I thought the only local changes (meaning ones not applied to the entire image) were constrained to making very minor adjustments to unimportant, small elements on the page. Basically, that translates to allowing small corrections to “noise” in the photo locally, and lots of changes allowed globally.

I might be remembering it wrong though, so I’m glad someone asked so I can get it straight…

[Choc-Ful-A]

Pfft…noobs! 1 – 114! wheres my badge? LOL!

Those who’ve been around me here for a while had to have seen this coming… Of course, my “accomplishment” and NBD’s blatant boasting 😉 got me wondering – what is the record for having an entry in sequential places? No real surprise, it’s hard to beat 114 and NBD holds the record for longest streak. My measly 31st barely gets me on the top 25 list:

Rank   UserName          Place

----



1    I'm No Big Deal    114

2    Mopsy               96

3    olavf               94

4    SilverStag          86

5    sleeping            80

6    orionid             73

7    corsec67            69

8    Elsinore            63

9    swampa2             63

10    Ennuipoet           57

11    U-Man               57

12    soosh               55

13    MorningBreath       53

14    bucky_bacon         49

15    millera9            48

16    Ranger Joe          48

17    ravnostic           48

18    markie_farkie       41

19    harpo               36

20    idle_hands          36

21    veruca              34

22    BecauseISaidSo      31

23    monkeybort          30

24    Lord Ezekiel        19

25    Logomancer          18

That report only shows continuous stretches starting at #1. So if someone had 2-404 they wouldn’t be on the list at all, even though they had a longer set than anyone else.

[Choc-Ful-A]

Amazing accomplishment! From pondering whether or not to sell your camera to finishing a beautiful book. That’s quite a journey, so congrats are definitely in order!

I especially the pages with one color and one B&W photo. You picked photos where that distinction really adds another layer to the comparisons.

[Choc-Ful-A]

I appreciate the “congrats”, the ideas on how to handle this the next time AND the templates to make it easier.

There’s been a lot of stupid real life things to deal with (nothing horrible just annoying) that getting this news (and your feedback) was a pleasant diversion from the day to day.

[Choc-Ful-A]

I think people viewing content online have a responsibility to comply with whatever terms the owner requests. So if they didn’t honor your terms, then you should ask them do so. If they feel they are except for some reason, then they can explain their position and you can decide whether or not you agree. But yeah, I think you should contact the owners of the website that start the chain of re-use.

[Choc-Ful-A]

RAM prices are dropping way down lately. I was at Fry’s a couple of days ago, a local computer nerd retail haven, and they were selling Corsair Apple certified 8GB sticks for $44. That’s one stick of 8GB not two 4GB sticks. So shop around, it’s getting quite affordable to have lots or memory in your laptop, desktop and even your camera. The prices for SD cards is pretty low these days too.

[Choc-Ful-A]

FWIW, I don’t see anything but the most superficial comparisons between the two photos. And I personally don’t find either image compelling. They both make me wonder what’s going on. But not enough to do more than read a caption if there was one. So if just the photos posted I wouldn’t go searching for the backstory.

The weird blurred and distorted head of he cop in the forerground of the Vancouver photo is the most interesting thing about the photos to me.

[Choc-Ful-A]

Don’t think of it as just a macro lens. Think of it as a pretty-damned-sharp lens…

Problem is… I usually have my 70-200mm f/2.8 VR with me while hiking. Makes it very hard to justify a 1:1 macro, since I’ll only put it on for those shots where I have to go beyond 1:4 reproduction. Nikon patented a 70-200mm f/4 VR that has 1:2 reproduction… I really hope they make that, since I would definely swap that with the f/2.8 for the 1:2 capability.

When I bought my D80 it came with a kit lens that I really, really hated. It was something like an 18-55 VR lens that was designed for autofocus use only. A couple days later I bought a very inexpensive Tamron 70-300 lens that, as a bonus, switches to a 180-300 macro lens with a flip of a switch. It’s a cheap lens, it’s a slow lens, but I absolutely love it for hiking and even for indoor shooting with a tripod. And when I say cheap, I mean both it feels too light as if the parts were not going to last long, it’s not that sharp at 300mm, and the price was $120 at the time.

I was skeptical of it’s durability, but for that price I decided it was worth the gamble. That was the only lens I used on the D80 for a couple of years and it’s still what I use about 50-60% of the time now. And the lens is still working fine, even though the D80 went belly up recently.

[Author]

Posts