Amazon Kindle Unlimited Offer: 1-Month For FREE!

Activity : All Comments

pj.morley

...Read More
Profile
  • Seems they are not in vogue anymore but you can still get them on eBay.
  • Does it need to be Firewire? Why not USB?
  • When a short piece is quoted from a longer sentence, sometimes the construction is lost so brackets might also be used to change an existing word into one that makes more sense in the selected text. Maybe to change tense or to correct grammar. However, to legitimately keep it as a quote, only the changed part is highlighted

    Doing this can add impact to the original quote which in its original form may have been relatively weak.

    Therefore

    "The author has provided us with a powerful plot and an unexpected and brilliant climax"

    becomes

    "... a powerful plot (with) an unexpected and brilliant climax"

    The ellipsis (...) at the beginning tells us there was more to the quote before this part but again it was probably removed for a better impact. After all it's the blurb that sells the book.

    I suppose it's the equivalent of a film trailer where they only show you the best bits. Then when you go to see the film it turns out be complete rubbish. Apart from the bits that were in the trailer.
  • Hi all, I've uploaded some black and white actions for PS in the download section of ePZ and they are waiting approval.

    If anybody would like them you can download them here. There are a few that emulate black and white emulsions and a few infrared... ish. I'm actually starting a blog on my website that will eventually have tutorials etc. I've just completed the first one which is about converting images to black and white.

    The blog is very early stages and isn't available from my main site yet until I add more content but you can download the actions now from

    http://pjmorley.com/blog/2007/12/28/black-and-white-effects/

    Happy new Year to All
  • I'm still interested in meeting at St Mary's lighthouse on the Sunday.
  • I would be interested too depending on when
  • email sent
  • Hi Wayne

    This is probably not the best forum for your type of question but the service you want does exist. I can probably help you out here if I have more details of your exact needs. If you provide contact details. Your PM doesn't work until you've been a member here for a month.
  • Pencil me in for that. If my wife isn't working I'll come along.
  • Just this minute ordered mine Smile

  • Quote:Sorry CB I'm right.

    Take any lens you like and position a subject so it has the same magnification and the DoF is the same. It is only because a wide angle lens gives less magnification that the DoF is apparently bigger.



    Since the distance to the subject has a direct effect on magnification and focal length of the lens also has a direct effect on magnification then you are both right.

    As far as I recall DoF is determined by several factors.

    Distance to subject
    Focal length
    Circle of confusion (related to film/sensor size)
    Aperture

    When you talk about achiveing the same magnification with a shorter focal length you have to get closer to the subject to do that resulting in a shallower depth of field. Mathematically the closer distance to achive that cancels out the focal length difference and you end up with the same dof.

    The same cancelling out effect occurs with different film sensor sizes too so if you really do have the time to sit and solve the equation before eadch shot you take all you need do is simply insert the crop factor into the equation to get the right answer.

    Or simply use the actual focal length of your lens and choose a figure for the circle of confusion for your sensor size. A commonly used figures is 1/1440 of the diagonal in milimetres.

    The reason compact digicams have so much depth of field is because the focal length of the zoom lens is very small at around 7-21 mm despite the confusing and misleading 35 mm conversion that it is 36-108mm (equivalent)

    But really.... even if you did work it out for every shot using the actual focal length and the coc for yor sensor (arbitrary anyway), the real test as someone said is to look at your photo, are you happy with the depth of field or not? If not then make adjustments with the aperture until it looks right to you. For greater depth of field use a smaller aperture (larger f number) and the opposite for shallower depth of field.

    Moving back and zooming in makes no difference because all you do is cancel out one action (distance to subject) with the other (changing focal length) and end up with the same dof for the same framing.

    Here are some suggested figures for the coc

    Full Frame (35mm) = 0.030046261
    x 1.6 crop (10D/20D etc.) = 0.018933006
    Most compact digicams with 8.8 x 6.6 sensor = 0.007638889

    Use the actual focal length of the lens and the suggested figures in the equation to make mathematical comparisons and see what effect changing things like aperture and focal length has.
  • Just a slightly different slant on things..

    First of all lie if he asks.. get the job

    Now isn't always the way that if you get the job, you're just bound to fall pregnant within a week.

    If you don't get pregnant then your lie means nothing..

    And if you do get pregnant well that's great, after 2 years of trying.... you can't lose. What's he going to do? he's not allowed to sack you for it is he? Wink And if he does then you win again because not only will you have a baby to look forward to but you'll also have a bit of money from the unfair dismissal claim to decorate the nursery...

    Lie... he deserves it for even considering the question in the first place.
  • Of course the answer to all of these problems is a decent health education programme and government advice warning people of all the dangers of life.

    Lets look at some examples shall we..

    Smoking - actively encouraged in the 40's and 50's with advertising, vast amounts of revenue generated etc and millions of people addicted. A little later, studies show that smoking is bad for you. The response to this is hmmm .. lets's cover this up for a while then maybe raise even more revenue from it by taxing it a rate that smokers can just keep up with. We know smoking is bad for us whty isn't it banned???

    Financially it's better to to let people smoke, raise more money than it costs and in the process reduce the amount of pensions we have to pay.



    How about this?? Got to work on an egg, they are soooo... good for you. Hang on a minute, they're not so good, only eat two a week.. hang on a minute they are quite good, have another couple.


    Reduce weight by using sugar substitutes.. hang on a minute, that gives you cancer.

    The point is that governemnts and health authorities constantly tell us waht we should and shouldn't do to remain as healthy as possible, yet still they allow unhealthy practices to take place legally as long as it generates revenue (smoking and drinking)

    Let's allow as many fast food joints to open up where and when they like. Look at all the money we can generate from tax, rent, leases etc. Despite the fact that the 25% of the UK population is now obese, that doesn't matter.

    As a token gesture, there are campaigns to warn about the dangers of smoking, overeating etc. but in all honesty, they want people to continue because of the money it generates. That's why tax on cigarettes, alcohol etc. goes up just enough to still be affordable.

    To save even more money, we'll simply refuse to treat any of the problems generated by the unhealthy practices we allow everyone to carry out.

    So here we are with conflicting health advice and no comeback for following it.

    It's no wonder people are confused and simply decide to make their own decisions.


    Life carries risks and usually, better quality life carries more risks. We all pay more than enough to cover the costs of those risks and we are entitled to take risks and expect to be taken care of in the event of an illness or accident.

    But the money is diverted to other much more costly endeavours such as war, research into biochemical weapons and a multitude of other areas that are either secret or pointless.

    Anyway... that's just a rant that completely lost direction in the writing.
  • What is the position you are applying for? We need to know that for specific advice but generally...


    Be positive, if you already have the interview then you are more than half way there.

    Don't be late, give yourself plenty of time to find the venue. Be smart, keep eye contact, smile, firm handshake, don't fidget, never make jokes. You may have an excellent sense of humour but the interviewer might not appreciate it. Keep it formal etc.

    I interview on a regular basis and the one thing that stands out is enthusiasm and motivation. Having a real interest. I know these things have been said but they are worth repeating.

    It also pays to do some homework on the company and tell them some facts about themselves even if they don't ask the question. Work it in for example... you get the question..

    Q. Where do you see yourself in 5 years time? (a crap question but use it to your advantage)

    A. I see myself being experienced enough to lead a team of people and would like to develop new strategies for dealing with such and such. I see from the (state source of info i.e. company report, last weeks article in newspaper, tv/radio broadcast/company internet site etc.) that the company is very interested in "whatever" and that's an area I'm interested in and I would like to be involved with/develop etc. (Don't worry too much if you're not actually interested in that particular area because they probably won't hold you to it or even remember you said it, but it will hit the right note at the time)

    This shows that you have done some research on them and it impresses interviewers.

    Don't make answers up or waffle. if you don't know, say you don't know or ask them to rephrase the question or give you more info before giving the answer.

    And as someone said, ride out the silences. When you have finished speaking then stop. Sometimes an interviewer will purposely leave a pause to see your response.. Ride it out and wait for them to speak.

    And it may surprise you to know that often, the interviewers themselves are nervous because they don't want to make a fool of thesleves by asking stupid questions.. Very often they do ask a stupid question.
  • Hi Derek

    I can't find an email address for you drop me a line at pauljm (at) lineone.net

    Cheers

    John
  • I'm looking for someone experienced in programming with php to help me with a website project I have started that is photography related.

    It would be paid work on a temporary and ad hoc basis however, if the right person comes along I'd be prepared to negotiate a good deal.

    Please email me for more details

    Regards

    John
  • Apparently the *ist DS does support rear curtain flash. I'm not familiar with the camera so you'll need to search the menu or manual but try looking for 'rear' curtain rather than 'second' curtain.
  • Sorry, I'll have to give it a miss this time. My wife's working all day Sunday so I'll be child minding..
  • Me too. It's not something I'd go for if they expect me to pay them to supply images. Even microstock agencies don't expect you to pay them Wink
  • Thanks. I'll get back asap with a definite answer.
  • I'm interested. Not definite yet though. Is it a day thing or are people staying overnight somewhere?
  • I don't believe in ghosts and if I saw one I still wouldn't believe in ghosts. I would try and come up with a logical explanation to explain what had happened. If I couldn't then I'd think of it as unexplained but not supernatural.

    It's true that the human mind abhors unexplained sensation and will invent an experience in order to explain it. That's why we see shapes in the dark that can spring to life, hear words in meaningless sound, see patterns in randomness etc.

    Also, how can you be absolutely 100% sure that she hasn't heard the story about your son's experience?

    My little lad is 5 and he sometimes says things that I would have sworn he couldn't have had knowledge of but he obviously has. For example he knows stuff about his dead grandparents and even claimed to recognise his nana when he saw a photo of her. Now I cannot be absolutely sure he hasn't seen that photo before but I'm sure he must have, as well as over hearing stories about his grandparents.

    My wife has on occassion been amazed at some things he knows and has been ready to believe that there is something supernatural until I recount a conversation I may have had with him when she wasn't there.. For example I told him his grandad was called Albert but was known by the name of Dave.

    The next time he heard the name Albert, he promptly said, "my grandad is called Albert but he's dead". Of course my wife immediatley suspected something a little more supernatural
  • True Wink

    A simple slip of the keys. But let's not draw any more attention to it. lol

    I'm actually quite surprised at my success considering how anti microstock I was.
  • Hmmm.. maybe but if you were to do a search on this subject, I was strongly opposed to microstock initially. But then I decided to look into it before forming an opinion. It's easy to go with knee jerk reaction opinions on this sort of subject without having any experience of it.

    This is why I found this thread interesting because opinions tend to be polarised between those who think it's the devil's work and see it as a threat but know little about it and those that have tried it or at least looked at it seriously and consider it be a viable means of selling images. I currently have almost 400 images spread over various microstock sites and I'm doing OK with it without referrals which account for a tiny proportion of my earnings.

    I'm not defending or advocating microstock. It's not for everyone. I simply make the information available for people to make up their own mind.

    Objective? Maybe it's difficult to see how I could be since I have committed myself to this model but I considered the options available for me and chose to go with. Anyone else is free to do the same. If someone registers via my site then yep.. I get a referral fee. That's the business. In addition, epz may get some business their way from the link back to here on my site, either by becoming a subscriber to e2 or clicking on the google ads here.

    As for advertisng. Well.... everyone with a link to their own website in their profile is advertising in one way or another whether it's offering a service such as weddings, PR, selling prints or offering training courses and links to their stock photos on Alamy for example Wink

    I'm not suggesting that you are trying to influence or push people into buying your services by having your website link in your profile but it could be seen as advertising possibly Wink
  • Not a lot. Around 10% average for the sale of each photo Wink But multiply that by hundreds and it's not bad. Plus my own pics that I have for sale and then there's the google ads etc.

    I'm just rolling in it. Wink I wish.
  • This is an interesting thread, especially for me since I've been contributing to microstock agencies since April.

    The vast majority of people who buy from microstock sites would never pay the high prices demanded from traditional stock sources anyway so at the moment there really is no threat.

    Photography and photgraphers have always operated a bit of a closed shop in the past making it difficult for people with small portfolios to get a start. There seems to be an attitude that one photographer shouldn't sell an image cheaply if there is another one that can sell a similar image for a higher price. To me that's akin to price fixing.

    If your images are good enough then you can demand high prices. If you can then good luck to you. if you can't, does that mean you shouldn't sell your images at any price to protect the pockets of those that can, or those that have the right contacts or know the right people? Well, the barriers are down and there is a free market.

    The world is a competitive place, this is just one more thing to compete against.

    I also think there is a little snobbery involved here with analogies to kwik fit and asda etc. I can get my exhaust replaced for 40 at kwik fit or I can take my car to specialist garage and get the same work done for 120.00 Why on earth would I pay 120.00 for a job of the same standard?

    Some people like to pay 100 for a t shirt, some like to buy a pack of 3 for a tenner. That's the reality and now you can buy photos in the equivalent of a pack of 3.

    As for undervaluing your images. Well they're worth nothing if they don't sell. Personally I'm now making more money per month, every month than I have in the last 2 years. I'm more than happy to be an Asda photographer Wink

    If anyone else wants to supply to 'Asda' then click on my website in my profile. You'll make a fortune Wink

  • Quote:I wonder how many people will buy cameras just because they have more pixels than others.


    Yep, count me in. I want the the Canon 5D to replace my 10D Wink
  • Hi Joe

    1 picture sale per 1000 per year. I thought the average would be more than that. That's not good odds. I've had pics with Alamy for 2 years. Nowhere near 1000. I've sold 1 with them for $250.00 and my cut was $136.00. Unfortunately I need to sell another to make the $250.00 minimum amount so will probably have to wait another 2 years to get that.

    No doubt I'll be shot down but I've made more than that in only 4 months(about $500.00) with microstock and with only 300 photos.

    I'm not up for a debate over the evils of microstock but it's clear to me where the future of stock is. At least for the royalty free market. My take on things is that with the advent of digital technology and an exponential growth in digital camera usage and therefore exponetial growth in images for sale from anyone with even a modicum of talent.

    Microstock has come about as result of this. Simply supply and demand.
  • There is nothing wrong with letting everyone know you are British. That's not what the discussion is about in my opinion. It's about which domain has more of a world wide presence and therefore more likely to attract a greater number of visitors.

    If it's a British based company that only caters for the British population then .com is the obvious one to go for. If however, as in this case it's for showcasing photography then I assume you wouldn't want to restrict your audience to UK only. And as someone above said, you can also buy the uk domain for 1.99 so why not have both

    Even BIPP has a .com domain.