Taking photographs

[Jimbo]

firstgreen wrote:

Where would you put this? In the page footer, in a privacy statement?

Hi Phil

I would do both - on a home page statement and as a repeat footer on each subsequent page. People who steal your pictures or chunks of your text usually say that 'they didn't know they were doing anything wrong' or 'they thought that everything on the web was free' or some such nonsense.

The purpose of a copyright warning is to let such people know there will be consequences to their actions. If it's buried out of sight, it will not be much use. I don't believe that your legitimate website visitors will object because they'll know that the message is not referring to them.

Jim

[Giddy Goat]

I'm a little loath to do that on every page as it's a bit offputting to punters I feel, but do see the need, having just been through the exercise earlier this year of getting someone to remove copied material from their website and listing site. Still deciding...

Meanwhile, returning to Stu's seriously fab photo of the woods in the mist. I have been firmly stuck on digital for a couple of years or so now, but have a wish to upgrade, as the sharpness of the images is sometimes disappointing. We previously had a Canon EOS IX - not an SLR and not digital, but a marvellous camera with a 67mm zoom lens; it still works, and I think my OH said we could have it digitalised which was a new one on me! However, it's big and heavy, and anyway the money that would take I feel would be better invested in a 'proper' digital camera. I made similar inquiries to this last year, but did nothing about it, and the makes and models suggested at the time have been superseded now in all probability. For example, is your Fuji camera model still in circulation Stu, or what would be today's nearest equivalent, do you know? And what setting/s did you use if you recall? I know I haven't made the most of our Olympus Camedia C-5000 Zoom 5.0 megapixel (reading the manual would help!) but still have a feeling that it has its limitations. I'm afraid I use the little icons (mountain, people, skier, you know the sort of thing) to set the shot, and haven't even invested in filters - so just what did you have to do to get that gorgeous picture?

Most of the images on our website were taken with the above, and maybe Jimbo, Stu or others might be able to see where the image could have been technically better with a manual setting or a filter, or simply a more powerful camera. The sort of thing that rarely works as well as it might is where you're pointing at something with two light sources - say, a dark foreground with a light background, such as Stu's wood, or if you go here:

http://www.gasconymagic.com/thingstosee.php and check out the pic third from the bottom, the countryside framed by a pretty rose-clad archway. The foreground was the most important aspect of the shot, but ideally I'd have liked the background sharper etc.

Or is that hoping for too much? I have been disappointed in the sharpness of other images less challenging to the lens too.

GG - technophobe and keen but lazy photographer. They exist y'know!

[Hells Bells]

I have added a statement at the bottom of the home page, but have not added anything to the rest, too time consuming for now. I have asked them to remove the picture too, although the website is not that visible, you would need the address to see it.

[Giddy Goat]

Typo Helen - "it's"; easily done. Good wording, will borrow!

Returning to digital cameras for lazy photographers for a mo, OH was thinking about the Olympus E-400 Digital SLR. www.olympus.co.uk/e400xd

One can buy this without the second lens and save £100; I wonder how often I would use it (being lazy) so any comments on this model would be appreciated. Please and thanks, . The first lens has a range of 14-42mm it seems and the double zoom kit gives 28-300mm.

I don't have shares in Olympus BTW and am sure there must be other makes offering similar.

[Hells Bells]

GG, merci, I hate stray apostrophes!!!

[Guest3]

Helen ...another typo? "Images may not be reproduced OR downloaded"

[Hells Bells]

Done in hurry!!Oops!! I'll sort it tonight.

[Jimbo]

Gascony Goat wrote:

The sort of thing that rarely works as well as it might is where you're pointing at something with two light sources - say, a dark foreground with a light background

Hi GG
Some scenes contain a greater range of brightness than a camera - film or digital - is able to record. Our eyes do a much better job. The photographer has to decide whether to sacrifice detail in the highlights or the shadows. S/he may be able to light the foreground with flash to even up the exposure. It may be possible to shoot two identical pictures of the same scene, exposing first for the highlights and then for the shadows and merge these together in an editing programme like Photoshop - but this is advanced stuff.

I have been disappointed in the sharpness of other images less challenging to the lens too.

Assuming that you don't have a duff or dirty lens, the usual reason for lack of sharpness in an image is either too low a shutter speed ('camera shake') or too wide a lens aperture ('depth of field'). The lens often gets blamed unfairly.

'Automatic' is fine for most of the time but a camera can't guess what your intentions are, so will sometimes let you down. The solution is to accept what you're given, hire a professsional or learn a little more about how it all works, so you can route around the problems. Which is what I'm always telling myself about my computer system.

Jim

[Giddy Goat]

Thanks Jimbo for your response; in summary then, are you telling me that I can save myself a fistful of £100 notes by sticking with what I have and reading the manual?

[Jimbo]

Gascony Goat wrote:

Returning to digital cameras for lazy photographers for a mo, OH was thinking about the Olympus E-400 Digital SLR ... any comments on this model would be appreciated.

Hi GG

I have a soft spot for Olympus because I started my professional career in the mid-70's with their cute and innovative OM1 SLR system. Bucking the 'built like a dumper truck' trend with their small and lightweight camera with lovely lenses - but, sadly, the OM1 body didn't prove robust enough for my rough professional use. Loved using it though and my original camera sits on my office shelf in honourable retirement.

The Olympus E-400 is, I think, the digital successor to the OM1. Again small and lightweight and using the innovative 'four-thirds' system which Olympus helped to pioneer and which, hopefully, will catch on more widely in the industry. Good system for removing dust from the sensor. Weakness at present is probably a lack of an extensive lens system compared to the big guys like Canon and Nikon. I think Olympus should be congratulated for trying something different - again!

Jim

[Hells Bells]

All our website photos are taken with an Olympus mju 400 compact digital.

[Stu]

Thanks for the compliments about my pile of wood shot GG!

I'm with Jim actually. Firstly, I still love to use my old OM10 SLR that I bought when I was 18 or so, after using a really old Zenit E for a few years to 'ground' myself in apertures & shutter speeds etc.

The thing with that shot of the woods was that I had to manoeuvre myself into the position where the sun was hidden behind the trees in order to get the depth of field that I wanted, i.e to show the foreground as well as the background. I can't remember the settings, but would imagine them to be something akin to f16 at around 1/60 sec. or lower. As Jim rightly points out: "Some scenes contain a greater range of brightness than a camera - film or digital - is able to record. Our eyes do a much better job. The photographer has to decide whether to sacrifice detail in the highlights or the shadows. S/he may be able to light the foreground with flash to even up the exposure."

I don't know if my model of Fuji is still in production, but would expect there to be some still knocking around. Try branches of Jessops in the UK as they often carry a good range of pre-owned cameras & lenses for decent prices.

I'm of the school of thought (as I suspect is Jim also) that a great picture can be taken with any kind of camera, but it's having the 'eye for the shot' that counts.

I'll be bringing the Fuji to see you in a week or so anyway and we can chat about it then.

[Giddy Goat]

I'm of the school of thought (as I suspect is Jim also) that a great picture can be taken with any kind of camera, but it's having the 'eye for the shot' that counts.

I agree Stu - but even though I take pride in mostly producing a well composed shot, it falls a bit short of the mark technically at times, in respect of sharpness or exposure.

Guess the writing's on the wall - or rather, in the manual!! Don't expect to talk techie stuff next week will you - though I'm looking forward to meeting you and Syb.

[firstgreen]

Sorry to backtrack.

I will add a statement to our home and gallery page.

Does anyone know how to watermark photos? I have some ideas for flickr and don't want the photos I publish there to be used. (I use Photoshop elements btw)

[Topcat]

Does anyone know how to watermark photos? I have some ideas for flickr and don't want the photos I publish there to be used.

Flickr allows you to set various levels of permission. I can't remember how to do it, but they have a guide on the site.

Pauline