Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by wiskerke

  1. Anybody noticed the invoice bit is missing from the metadata? This doesn't look good at all. If you put the zoom image on top of the published image, the size is exactly the same. Moreover the jpg artifacts are exactly the same. Only the watermark is missing. This is with the OP's image and Abiyoyo's beach image. The Madrid image however does have the invoice bit: View your order summary at: https://www.alamy.com/Order-summary.asp?OrderID={C14226BB-7837-460B-9AAE-0F5B99168F0B} Your Ref: Cรณdigo รšnico DY39833709 Downloaded: 04 February 2020 Image ID: R0XJDE And the original on their server is a lot bigger. wim edit: do clients get zooms/comps without a watermark? If so, that could be an easy mistake or an easy loophole.
  2. How's your eyesight? ๐Ÿ˜‚ - sorry couldn't resist. 200% or maybe even more on 4K or Retina displays. Which is why I don't use them for editing. wim
  3. AFAIK it's only mandatory for the first upload to include all metadata. But I haven't tested it. ๐Ÿ˜‰ wim
  4. Mine are all pre-owned; used; second hand. Not even refurbished. Well most of them now are. And I do have a box full of spare parts ๐Ÿคฃ. Now. Sorry OT again.. wim
  5. Amen to that! Photography has become a sedentary occupation. May I recommend Aeron chairs? Lots cheaper in the US than here I'm afraid. Even second hand. wim
  6. The light fixture (A4NRC5) was the last scan that I uploaded to Alamy. If you look at my portfolio, everything after that is a digital photo. Including AM5KH5: which is a digital from a 1DS2. But everything that comes before the light fixture is a scan. I soon gave up on my back catalog. Not because the images weren't good, but because I found scanning a pain. Like you I managed about 1 or 2 images a day at a quality that would pass my own QC. Direct digital quality was far better from the 16 megapixel full frame dslrs onwards. Before with the Nikon scanner I had just scanned whole rolls directly from the lab, which was far easier and faster. With the many flatbed and film scanners that came before the Nikon I had just done less demanding jobs (some) or jobs that would pay for the extra time (mostly). Printing large format prints from slides was done from drum scans, which I eventually learned to do also (but just barely). To put it into perspective a little more: the Nikon scans were used in print, but for annual reports and such they were re-done on a drum scanner even for thumbnail sized images in print. However 4 stories high banners with portraits on the outside of buildings were printed straight from my 5 megapixel Olympus E-20 with it's tiny thumbnail sized sensor. wim
  7. Limited Use wim edit: Alamy's comment here.
  8. Better: most are 16x20 ! ๐Ÿ˜ The negatives are quite a pile, but the volume is nothing compared to the prints. AM5KH5 is not a scan. Interesting question though, so after some searching, this was the last scan I have uploaded here: It was a TIFF. A tiff? That's unexpected. I had totally forgotten about having to send tiffs. So I went looking for my first JPEG. This seems to be it: wim
  9. Chuck, as you may remember I have used the Canon 4000 and the Nikon LS 5000 next to each other for a short while. Thinking that would double my speed. Not so: the Canon was very slow compared to the Nikon and the cleaning on the Nikon was also far more accurate because of the one pass of the LS 5000. Because of that I gave up using the Canon after a week or so and sold it soon after. Both were running under Vuescan, which I have used from the very beginning. But I have used (and been a tester for) Silverfast as well. For that job (the whole job took almost a year) both were also scanning film straight from the lab. I too don't like auto retouching, but the Nikon does a good job. However for old or dirty slides I prefer to have 2 layers: one auto cleaned and one not cleaned. It's quick and easy to turn the cleaned layer on and off and see if there are any mistakes. They do occur of course, but most of the cleaning is fine. And if it's too excessive, it's easy to paint the corrected part in on the uncleaned layer from the cleaned one with a very fine brush. Or do some parts by hand altogether. One caveat: depth of filed is extremely shallow on the Nikon. I have never used Minolta scanners, but the Dimage 5400 seemed to have the same problem. BTW I am exploring the camera route because I have to digitize a photographer's life work. Mostly B/W, so there the auto cleaning won't work and I'm guessing 70% is medium format, mostly 6x9. I will however probably not be cleaning them as we have more or less concluded we will not be printing anyway. So if we need to publish, this will have to be done from the prints. Which of course are larger than most flatbeds. Even the expensive ones. Besides, I hate scanning. Been there done that; bought digital cameras and never looked back. wim
  10. Yes the visibility seems to have been toned down a bit. Maybe because so many here have asked for it? On your desktop page, click Help and go to the button Join the discussion on our forums in the lower left hand corner. That will get you here. - I use a shortcut link on my bookmark toolbar (in FF). There are more special characters doing different things, like wildcards. Most people will never need them, but they're in the discussions here somewhere. Here are some. Plus the explanation that those special characters are actually called regular expressions. And why we probably cannot use more of those. wim
  11. Try searching this forum for "all of alamy". Include the "" and check the box all of my search terms. If that doesn't bring up enough or the right results, try AoA its usual nick. There's a lot of information about this here and yes it is a most valuable tool. But remember it's a database, so you will have to live with some of it's restrictions. meaning you will have to do some research and maybe even learn stuff. Doing the same search on Google will bring up some, but not all relevant answers. wim
  12. Last time I bought a wireless trigger it was around $15. That was a complete set. On Aliexpress or Ebay, not sure. They're probably cheaper now. wim
  13. Yes that's correct, however 16 bit is double the file size of 8 bit. Geogphotos, the OP has a Minolta Dimage Multi Pro, not a Nikon. The LS5000 is basically a better version of the LS4000 with one big improvement: it's a one-pass, meaning there's absolutely no shift in the IR channel, so the dust removal is perfect. It's also pretty quick. But nowhere near as quick as a camera of course. Which in turn has no IR dust removal. Which will cost lots of time in post ๐Ÿ˜ก. Now wasn't there another topic on that ๐Ÿ˜. wim
  14. Restored 1925 Stanford Movie Theater in Palo Alto. Showing East of Eden with James Dean and The Fountainhead by Ayn Rand with Gary Cooper. Japan, book, 1 page inside, $$. BDFR (=Bulk Discount, Flat Rate) wim
  15. Image size vs file size. In Photoshop the file size is in the lower left hand corner. Not sure how it was in Vuescan. My LS 5000 scanner is out on loan. wim
  16. The article probably refers to the situation before CC. Either in CS5 or 6 this was the way to do it. And yes there were some actions floating around (-by Fred Miranda or someone on that board?). wim
  17. Any reason why you don't convert your layers to smart object > layers > smart objects > stack mode > median ? Or mean in stead of median in some cases. wim
  18. Thank you for including one of mine! wim
  19. Said Noah to his neighbors.. ๐Ÿ˜ wim
  20. No no you were perfectly clear the first time! I'm just trying to say that also the big names can and will screw you over. To be honest I have had no bad dealings with most except Hasselblad, and that was many years and owners ago. The thing is all those things do break (think Apple) and lifetime guarantee, if it's not already a thing of the past, comes with so many clauses that the book is bigger than the product. But it's good to hear there still are companies out there that do honor their pledge. wim
  21. From the previous thread: https://thecentercolumn.com/rankings/travel-tripod-rankings/ Click on any of the tabs to rank accordingly. Yeah Chuck, like Leicas; Hasselblads and Rolls-Royces, Gitzos can and do actually break. And contrary to common knowledge repair is very seldom free. It's probably even very expensive for all of those premium priced items, which they are in the first place. I still like my Gitzos though. 4 or 5 on recent count. Oops make that and a half, because of that old wreck of a Reporter in the corner of one of the lockers. Aluminium/Aluminum Reporters were junk. The legs would just shear off. My carbon Explorer is a bit like a wet noodle, still useful in some cases though. (I have a carbon bike that rides like a wet noodle according to most reviews. That's where I learned not all carbon is created equal. - But my bottom likes the wet noodle bike better.) There are good alternatives, have a look at that website. However Gitzos are still hard to beat. I like RRS a lot, but don't own any of their tripods, just some of their heads and plates. Recently I bought a Leofoto LS-324C after doing some of the ranking at the Center Column. I managed to shave off a little bit of weight by mounting different feet. But that's a test still in progress. It just about fits in my regular carry-on: removing those bulky rubber feet helps. My favorite tiny Sirui travel tripod comes in last or almost last. It's still really useful, but needs really careful handling. And an RRS ballhead. wim
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.