Jump to content

Inchiquin

Verified
  • Content Count

    1,589
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Inchiquin

  1. Some good news: after an enormous public outcry (which crashed the servers hence the difficulty some of you had in viewing the page) the charges have now been dropped. For those who were not able to see the original link: a woman was charged under the new ag-gag laws in Utah for filming a slaughterhouse from a public road. Maybe there is a god after all (only joking...). Alan
  2. Pragmatism can only go so far, Ken. Where would photography be if we are no longer allowed to take photos in public? I don't really see much of an avenue for the profession by being restricted to photographing chocolate biscuits in my cellar. Alan
  3. http://www.greenisthenewred.com/blog/first-ag-gag-arrest-utah-amy-meyer/6948/#more-6948 How long before other big industries with friends in government cotton on to the fact that they can escape public scrutiny by pleading harassment or interference with lawful business? Alan
  4. You don't necessarily need to keep them down. My point was not that there were too many, but that your small number of images represents an even smaller number of subjects. Alan
  5. I would also add that you seem to have half a dozen or so fairly similar shots of of each subject. I'm not saying this is a bad thing in itself but it further dilutes the range that 650 can cover. I think you would need several thousand before the collection begins to bear fruit in any meaningful way.
  6. I think it may be due to differences in eyesight. I've often heard people say they find it more restful to read white on black, but it just makes my eyes go funny and is anything but restful (but orange or green on black, as in older monitors, is fine). When I was a magazine editor occasionally we would print a page in white on black and the subsequent comments from readers were about 50-50. What's really needed is a configurable option, which is something that I always used to include in my software. Alan
  7. If I ever had a humble opinion (which I don't usually) I wouldn't bother to post it Alan
  8. I'm not suggesting Alamy do this as it would be impractical, but when I add watermarks to my own images I vary the position or the density if the standard setting doesn't show up well enough. Alan
  9. I was prompted to raise this topic because I've just upgraded from terrestrial TV to Freesat with HD, and was rather surprised to find that there is very noticeable CA on the TV picture. So I thought I would seek opinions on the following: 1. Is CA purely a function of the lens or can it be introduced by other components in the chain? 2. When I finally get round to doing video, can software (e.g. Premiere Elements which I will most likely be using) remove CA in the same way that it can for still images? 3. Why do we go to so much trouble to remove CA from stills when it's so noticeably present in high-quality video imagery? Alan
  10. I think this has to be the highest quality imagery we've yet had from any challenge. Well done, Stu, for setting such an inspiring subject.
  11. I was advised when this happened to me to log out and log back in again. That worked for me. Alan
  12. Deleted - was a rather silly post.
  13. I think the Members list ought to have an option to rank in order of reputation so that we can see at a glance which members need taking down a peg or two before they become too big-headed... Alan
  14. Log out and log in again... Danke schön. Alan
  15. Haven't moved. Again. Ever. Alan Edit: Oh for heavens sake, why does the link to my portfolio go to Mark Dunn??
×
×
  • 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.