Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Starsphinx

  1. OK I have managed to sort it. By restarting my PC and then clearing my browsing history first from an hour then a day then a week etc until I cleared all of it. Just clicking clear all without going through the others first did not work - I had already tried that twice before shutting my machine down. It is probably something on my machine but I do not have the foggiest idea what - nothing showing on anti virus or anti scum or cleaner or anything. Still everything here is working again.
  2. Just tried on firefox and getting the same thing happen - and that does not even have an adblocker installed!!!!
  3. I am on Chrome - I fill out the correct details and when I hit login the page just refreshes. Searched the forum for similar and found a thread where someone turned off their ad-blocker. I have turned off my ad-blocker and it makes no difference - the login page just refreshes (I at no point am seeing a captcha thing even with adblocker switched off)
  4. Ethically the photographer is there to document - capture the material as is. What is done with that material is something else - and if selling the image on stock something the photographer may have very little control over. If I take photographs of people engaging in illegal behaviour during a protest and those photographs instead of being bought by a newspaper writing a story on the legal acts are bought by an organisation promoting illegal acts am I responsible for promoting illegal acts?
  5. I have wasps show up in searches for "social worker" because they are keyworded with "social insect" and "worker caste" - both of which are highly relevant terms. At the end of the day everyone is in the same system so everything should be equal.
  6. So you prefer animals dying what are inevitably cruel unpleasant deaths in the wild to the possibility of them being protected and preserved in captivity? I am not justifying anything because life is not that simple, I am simply trying to point out that you cannot judge all zoos, etc as being the same - they are not. Like just about everything else "pacing" cannot be assessed on its own from one observation. Sure in a bad zoo with cramped stimulating quarters it is probably a sign of problems, but pacing does not automatically indicate bad zoo. That includes the possibility the zoo has recently taken the animal from somewhere and is working to help it (again something I have seen happen - a severely pacing animal with obvious behavioural issues 18 months later is chilled, natural behaviour, and successfully bred because the zoo had taken it in and worked their asses off to help it) Personally there are quite a few things other species need done to their bodies that I would not like in the least. For example certain felines require pain in order to ovulate and conceive - I will leave you to research the source of the pain. Far more common are things I would like done to me that other animals absolutely do not want done to them (stroking and cuddling come high on this and animals that dislike it include pet species). Humans are merely a different species of animal - and different species like and dislike different things. Caring means finding out what a species does and does not like - not giving them what the human likes and avoiding what the human dislikes.
  7. I just want to sound a note of caution here - that of anthropomorphism. The phrase "animals kept in what must seem like prisons to a lot of them" suggests they interpret their conditions as a human would - they do not. There are good zoos, animal parks, etc on down the line to farms etc, and there are truly bad horrific ones. Far more common are ones that manage some animals brilliantly and others not so well. If you visit ask yourself first - and keepers second - What are the animals needs from basics food and water through to advanced behavioural ones and whether they are being met and how they are being met. Do not make assumptions that certain things are being done for the benefit of humans. For example a famous safari park near me runs boat trips and visitors can pay to feed the sealions. The perception is the boats are there for the benefit of visitors and the feeding a way of getting more money. The reality is the boats run 365 days a year including the roughly 3 months where there are no visitors - and the sealions are still fed from them. The boats run to benefit the sealions - the sealions have to chase the boats to get fed and are fit sleek active animals. The money raised helps the cost of running the boats. Look at at the life expectancy and breeding records of the captive animals. If the place is consistently breeding endangered species - and its residents are recording as having longer than average life expectancy then whatever it looks like the animals are happy and their complex needs being met. Ask where the animals come from - if there is an animal or group in what seems hastily build accommodation it could be that the place has stepped in to meet an emergency rehousing need either from rejected pets, or illegal imports. I know of various reptiles, and primates in different centres that have arrived this way - it can take time and money to provide full specification quarters. Are there any old animals on display? Old animals past breeding age that are not very exciting to look at - who appear maybe worn and decrepit. A good centre will keep its old animals happy - and if that means them staying in quarters possibly on display when the space could be used for newer younger more fashionable creatures that would attract more money then you have a good place. Some animals - especially with larger quarters, are happier being on display than being hidden away in cramped quarters to see out their final period of time. Ask the keepers - ask them what they are doing and why they are doing it and what happens when. Do not assume because something looks bad to you that it is bad for the animal (and equally because it looks good for you that it is good for the animal). Do not try to put yourself in their place - you are not that animal.
  8. What I get from this thread is that the content of the Live News feed has not changed in quality or subject matter, while the majority of contributors, many of whom did use it specifically and carefully the way the rules suggested, have been excluded from contributing. So if the intent was to pat a select few on the head and make them special it is a huge success. If the intent was to improve the quality a total fail.
  9. My first thought on seeing these is blooming heck they're still going? lol
  10. Another distinguishing feature of humans is a sense of humour - and the ability to mock themselves. Many animals and birds are also intelligent - corvids especially do know the difference between a gun and a camera as well as having the ability to recognise individuals. I am well aware that there is nothing personal in mother natures twists that screw up my careful plans - but I find it amusing - or I find me amusing. And one day I damn well am going to get a photo of a Jay.
  11. I have long come to the conclusion that animals know full well the difference between gun and DSLR - and especially DSLR in the hands of someone seriously interested in their photo. I have had woodpeckers land within feet of me in the car at traffic lights and start pecking - no way of grabbing the camera without seriously upsetting other motorists. I have been trying to get a shot (any shot) of a jay for several years - so they only appear when I am driving, or they go from leafy branch to leafy branch and shout at me (in case I am not sure they are there) or the specialist landed directly between me and the sun. The favourite of all animals seems to be the pose perfectly right up until the microsecond before the shutter is clicked and then move - I have a huge collection of perfectly framed and focused twigs, branches, patches of grass, stones etc from which whatever was sat on (and had been for enough time to set up and frame the shot) has suddenly moved just as I take the shot. Mummy duck was far more likely to be pulling your string than scared lol
  12. Have just had three excepted through reportage as were noisy due to bad light - but am chuffed to have got them as a rather rare subject in itself. Just goes to show sometimes when you spot something you dont recognize while driving it is worth stopping and grabbing the camera. This is a leucistic jackdaw - and a cracking example of one too.
  13. I emailed and they took them via reportage - this is my little chap who I think is rather striking
  14. I think emailing will probably be best. I know I can be over touchy on noise - other than the iso the photos are fine.
  15. Number 6 is not cow parsley - but it is almost certainly from the same family, which isn't saying much there are hundreds of umbellifers. I have enough problems trying to identify the ones in the UK without going abroad lol. It might be worth you doing a google search of the area it was taken and "umbellifer" and see if anything comes up.
  16. A couple of days ago I was driving along spotted something odd. It turned out to be a speckled/pied Jackdaw - also known as leucistic Jackdaw. Now because of where it was and the conditions the ISO is high (1800) and the images are noisy - they would not pass ordinary QC. However, I am not sure if it is a suitable subject for reportage. They are rare - and stories on them have appeared in the national dailies before now. Alamy only has a handful of pictures labelled Leucistic jackdaw and none of them are as impressive as my little chap (and yes I did go back hunting for him the next day ) - I will keep my eyes open and see if I can get better shots but no guarantee. I would love to get the shots up - but am not sure if this does count as reportage or not
  17. For what it is worth near me there used to be a mummy duck who chose to have her nest in one of the flowerbed divider strips in a supermarket carpark. The one closest to the supermarket and furthest from the river obviously. She would get nearly stood on by people - who would then dash to the supermarket to let them know they had a duck nesting. They did already know (they got told a lot lol) but tried to minimize drawing attention to her by not putting up signs warning of her presence. She was obviously comfortable very close to people - and I am guessing found nearly being stood on safer than nesting closer to the bank (animal rights in the 60s decided to release the mink from a farm - I wish they could spend some time seeing the damage those non-native little beasts do)
  18. When I took it out (and if I make changes) I have to list and identify each item, and the unique product codes are required for recent stuff. I mean the excess on kit is £50 and I am looking at £150 to replace just one of my kit lenses. I think they go new for old replaced with the nearest equivalent in discontinued stuff. They do cover some non-camera stuff - you just have to list what you are insuring. Like everything else it is going to depend on what kit you have and what cover you want - but for people who make a bit of money from stock who use fairly recent cameras and lenses and who are being quoted silly money for "professional" as opposed to "amateur" insurance I think they do provide a compromise allowing up to 50% of your income to come from photography. This has to be a better definition of professional than "you sold a picture on a stock site and made 99c from it so we class you as professional and charge you through the nose"
  19. I do not know if this helps anyone but I get my insurance through Amateur photographer. They specify their insurance is for amateurs or semi-professionals who earn less than 50% of their income through photography/related activities. I am paying under £6 a month (I do not have a lot of gear) and that has £1 million public liability. MORE DETAILS
  20. I would imagine it is more to do with the cost of winning than the chance of losing.
  21. There have been a couple near me - which have been an ongoing fight between a farmer fed up of people ignoring his signs to avoid cattle in fields without public footpaths and him putting cattle in footpath fields due to signs being ignored. It is 6 of one and half dozen of the other but unfortunately, the people hurt/killed were innocent of the argument.
  22. To be honest I do not have the time or resources to market stuff myself. I am not managing to shoot and upload the numbers I want to as it is. My, admittedly naive, hope is that agencies will market what I provide them lol
  23. I believe (but don't quote me) it was visitors from the US that wished to picnic with the lions - but then I believe (please correct me if I am wrong) that in some states it is much easier to get licences for more dangerous animals as pets. To be honest, I don't think the country of origin or even being a tourist has a huge amount to do with it - some people are just idiots around animals. There are cases in the UK of cows trampling people - and while in some cases responsibility can be laid with the farmer in others it is people ignoring warnings because they want to pet them or see the calves or there is a pretty flower or something. I think some people watch too many cartoons and films and develop a badly wrong image of what animals are and what they will do.
  24. You could probably change that to most tourists are absolute idiots about any animal. I live close to a safari park and visit often. One of the keepers was telling us about the time they had a family pull over and start setting up a picnic on the resting platform in one of the lion enclosures - the pride had gone into full stalk mode and the keepers had been really worried they would have to harm the animals to protect the idiots unable to read multi-language signs or even the non-language picture warnings
  • 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.