The (Un)official Royal Carnage forum picture page
- Thread starter Erik
- Start date
einride
your best friend
- Feb 29, 2008
- 7,449
- 938
- 113
first and foremost because i need to put my "good" photos somewhere except on my hard drive/drawers to keep track of them, and because all the internet alternatives are super stupid, slow and ugly (photobucket is TERRIBLE)
flickr has a very good interface with great organization features with collections/tags/sets/geotagging and good presentation of shit like exif data and dates so you can remember what settings you used when you took certain pictures
if you like LOOKING at photos the groups and search features are also very nice and there are a lot of good pictures to see but i guess you don't need an account to do that
it's nice sometimes to get comments on your pictures
Johanna
merciless DEATH
- Apr 5, 2002
- 3,239
- 43
- 48
OK, I'm totally buying that
I've been on the swedish site FOTOSIDAN for quite some time but they jew all your money and they have no good search engine and stuff, so flickr might be an option then (since it sounds pretty much the same ..,,.,,,, but free(? I think))
I've been on the swedish site FOTOSIDAN for quite some time but they jew all your money and they have no good search engine and stuff, so flickr might be an option then (since it sounds pretty much the same ..,,.,,,, but free(? I think))
~Neurotica
perfectly insane
- Mar 27, 2006
- 7,913
- 236
- 63
You can subscribe for having more options (like making more than 3 of your own photosets and shit), but general services are for free, yes.
einride
your best friend
- Feb 29, 2008
- 7,449
- 938
- 113
they changed that
you can now have more sets without being "PRO" but the best thing about a pro account is you can upload original resolution files and then download the originals again
~Neurotica
perfectly insane
- Mar 27, 2006
- 7,913
- 236
- 63
Hmm... I tried to create more sets a few weeks ago, it didn't let me to.
And I think - I've been uploading huge files years before, though I'm not a subscriber...
I'll check again.
And I think - I've been uploading huge files years before, though I'm not a subscriber...
I'll check again.
einride
your best friend
- Feb 29, 2008
- 7,449
- 938
- 113
there's a difference between uploading huge files and being able to download the original back again i.e. the original file exactly, byte for byte, the way you uploaded it -- not recompressed or resampled
either way i think it resamples them to at least less than 6 mp if you're not pro
look here http://blog.flickr.net/en/2009/03/04/setting-sets-free/
either way i think it resamples them to at least less than 6 mp if you're not pro
look here http://blog.flickr.net/en/2009/03/04/setting-sets-free/
~Neurotica
perfectly insane
- Mar 27, 2006
- 7,913
- 236
- 63
Nico
Onward!
I get that. No worries. But if you wanna shoot live shows, and you want sharp shots, gear DOES matter. I need a fast lens with a fairly narrow angle. You try shooting gig photos 55mm at f/5.6. It's fucking stuipid. Otherwise, sure, I can get by with few troubles, except when I'm trying to shoot a subject that's a bit too far away. Even then, a better zoom lens wouldn't hurt.
I've played guitar for 5 years on a $200 Magnum, and I don't think a $2000 Gibson would improve my playing too much. Might make me more inclined to play, though. But I get your gist.
einride
your best friend
- Feb 29, 2008
- 7,449
- 938
- 113
well in that case gear matters until you realize all you need to do is buy a 50/1.4 for 200 bux (or less if you get an old manual one) and then you're done
about guitars, i have always advocated buying a $cheap guitar and upgrading it later instead of buying an expensive guitar
because essentially if you buy a $250 guitar and buy new pickups for $200 you have the equivalent of a $1000 guitar
secrets of the music instrument industry®
about guitars, i have always advocated buying a $cheap guitar and upgrading it later instead of buying an expensive guitar
because essentially if you buy a $250 guitar and buy new pickups for $200 you have the equivalent of a $1000 guitar
secrets of the music instrument industry®
Nico
Onward!
I use Picasa Web Albums for 99% of my photos. The reason I got a flickr thingo was so I could have an easy way to display non-personal photos to prospective employees. Seriously. There's way too much drunk/drugged shit in my Picasa gallery. It's just generally irrelevant to being a "photographer", so I'm separating them, and Flickr was the most well known "other" service that I knew, which was free.
Nico
Onward!
~Neurotica
perfectly insane
- Mar 27, 2006
- 7,913
- 236
- 63
Johanna
merciless DEATH
- Apr 5, 2002
- 3,239
- 43
- 48
well if you want a good start, buy a canon 50mm 1.8 for like... 90-100 USD and you will get be able to get quite good results - not very expensive at all imo.
Nico
Onward!
Ah good point. All the stuff I've been looking at is a bit outrageous in terms of price, but I keep forgetting there are simpler solutions.
dorian gray
Returning videotapes
- Apr 8, 2004
- 21,258
- 489
- 83
We're planning on getting a Nikon D60. We can't bite the bullet though; it's pretty expensive imo.
einride
your best friend
- Feb 29, 2008
- 7,449
- 938
- 113
don't get the d60. get the d40. it's cheaper and is for all intents and purposes the same camera.
or get a used pentax k100d super, which is a better camera than either and even cheaper ($300-ish)
dorian gray
Returning videotapes
- Apr 8, 2004
- 21,258
- 489
- 83
einride
your best friend
- Feb 29, 2008
- 7,449
- 938
- 113
if someone (a salesman) says "get the d60, it has more megapixels" he's a slimy bastard who wants you to spend money on something you will never use
the d40 is the better camera for almost anyone who doesnt make 20" wide prints regularly. if you DO make huge prints, the d60 is still not the camera you want, you'll want something like a d700, and then you're in a completely different ballpark moneywise. the d60 is pretty much worthless (it's a good camera as such, but it isn't "better enough" to make a difference, so it is sort of an orphan in the lineup: amateurs don't need the extra resolution, and pros need more) and only exists to milk another hundred bux out of people who don't know what they're buying
look here if you care: http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d60.htm (ken rockwell is pretty stupid sometimes and a huge troll but he's right about this)
the d40 is the better camera for almost anyone who doesnt make 20" wide prints regularly. if you DO make huge prints, the d60 is still not the camera you want, you'll want something like a d700, and then you're in a completely different ballpark moneywise. the d60 is pretty much worthless (it's a good camera as such, but it isn't "better enough" to make a difference, so it is sort of an orphan in the lineup: amateurs don't need the extra resolution, and pros need more) and only exists to milk another hundred bux out of people who don't know what they're buying
look here if you care: http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d60.htm (ken rockwell is pretty stupid sometimes and a huge troll but he's right about this)
