Jump to content

Inchiquin

Verified
  • Content Count

    1,691
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Inchiquin

  1. I've really struggled to come up with a topic, so as it's now high summer let's celebrate summer holidays at the seaside. So let's see if we can capture some of the beauty, the atmosphere and the enjoyment of being beside the sea. Sorry we're a bit late starting this one. But you still. have three weeks before the end of the month. Here are a few examples:
  2. Thank you! I've been waiting for an official announcement that voting has closed, but the OP seems to have gone AWOL. If no-one has any objection, I'll set a new topic later today. Alan
  3. Yes it actually says so in the caption 1981. Alan
  4. No, that's not the case. People do search for things like "French houses" for example. It seems perfectly logical to a lot of people that a search engine would be able to understand what they want. In days gone by they might have walked into a library and asked to see pictures of "French houses". In this particular case I decided that what was showing of the house would probably not satisfy such a search. I might be wrong, but I still want to decide that for myself. Alan
  5. You can have "optional" whatever you like, but some smarter competitors prefer to decide for themselves which images they want stemmed. Alan
  6. You've made my point for me. I choose which images I want stemmed, not the Alany search engine. If I have pictures of houses I decide which ones are likely to be of most interest to people searching for "houses", so that they don't all turn up in searches and damage my CTR (if CTR still means anything). Alan
  7. And that is the core of the issue. Whether we like it or not, if we're in a public space we're visible to the public. If what we are doing makes a powerful image, all the photographer is doing is capturing what the public, and the world, is already entitled to see. Any attempt to restrict that puts us on a slippery slope. You don't have to be insensitive to recognise that. Alan
  8. I've keyworded all my images to take account of non-stemming. I don't want a return to blanket stemming that would create lots of extra unnecessary hits in searches. Alan
  9. Old man taking a nap in the sun, 1980, Le Casset in the French Alps (pop unknown but probably <200) Woman with milk churns, 1981, Iphofen, Germany (pop 4725) People and seagull, 2008, Lyme Regis, UK (pop 4805) Alan
  10. I'm still skeptical. I don't see how you can get compression greater than existing JPEG files losslessly. But if they have really hit upon some magic formula then it would truly be an amazing development. Alan
  11. As I read it, Bob, this new format will only convert existing JPEG files losslessly, i.e. a lossless conversion of an already lossy file, so if you want a lossless original you will still need to keep TIFFs. I'm certainly not getting rid of mine. Alan
  12. Are you sure? He's in the water so his carbon footprint will be low. Alan
  13. Do they have to be up to date or can I post pics from my archive collection? Alan
  14. And where have they suddenly got all this footage from? Search for "travel" and you get 1.7m hits. It's probably no wonder that they haven't told their existing contributor base - they don't need to. Alan
  15. Just a note of caution (no intention to discourage): Alamy will already have millions of pics of wild flowers and herbs so make sure your captions are accurate and as detailed as possible. You may have better fortunes with the campervanning, although you will probably face stiff competition from our resident nomad in Australia! Spot the (entirely logical) oxymoron 😀 Alan
  16. If I had to guess I would say that the image with the cranes might be the one to pass. The other two look soft to me even at low resolution. Alan
  17. I wasn't aware of that so thanks for mentioning it. Shouldn't be a problem at this time of year when all the windows are open. Alan
  18. Brilliant! Many thanks for your help guys. I had some PEC-12 on my shelf which I bought several years ago after The Original Chuck recommended it on this forum a number of times, but which I never got round to using. A quick wipe of the neg and the problem is gone. Untreated: http://www.alanwrigley.com/images/10227.jpg Treated: http://www.alanwrigley.com/images/new10227.jpg Now I just have to do the other 4 or 5 thousand.... And thanks Chuck if you're reading this. Alan
  19. It does look a bit like that, doesn't it? There's no evidence that I can see of any fungal growth on the surface of the film - would a fungus not leave traces of some kind? The films do look pristine and have only ever been stored in the sleeves, in a ring binder either in a filing cabinet or on a shelf in whatever room I was using as an office, so they should never have been exposed to damp or sunlight or any other adverse environmental conditions. As Phil suggests, I'll try cleaning and see if it makes any difference.
  20. I've just started scanning some of my many thousands of b/w negatives. I'm noticing a crazed appearance on many of them, as shown in this crop: http://www.alanwrigley.com/images/10227.jpg The negs are 40 years old and have been stored in sleeves (not the shiny kind that stick to the film) since they were processed. They've never been kept in harsh or extreme conditions. So is this just natural deterioration over age or does it indicate faults in the original processing? I've never been able to see them at high resolution before. Alan
  21. Haha! I've often thought the same about where I live. Suffolk has been on my to-do list for decades. Funnily enough, it was at last going to be my first-choice holiday destination last year until Covid struck. Alan
  22. Oddly enough I don't think I've ever taken a photograph in Suffolk. Alan
×
×
  • 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.