All Forum Comments
Comment by cabstar posted on Eggs in an Oak Bowl at 28/01/2013 - 23:02
Ram, graphics card, ssd and cpu in that order finally USB 3 has made biggest improvement to my workflow for importing raw files from card to pc.
For the graphics card you dont need to spend alot, any graphics card will relieve the cpu from this process. Most modern cpu's are fast enough for image processing so ram becomes more crucial, my laptop has 16 gig and flies, admittedly it has the latest i7 but take half the memory out and speed drops particulalrly when flicking through the image library in lightroom. Finally a 256gig ssd is so cheap its just not worth ignoring now, fast boot speeds, quick to open photoshop and lightroom and quick to export too
For the graphics card you dont need to spend alot, any graphics card will relieve the cpu from this process. Most modern cpu's are fast enough for image processing so ram becomes more crucial, my laptop has 16 gig and flies, admittedly it has the latest i7 but take half the memory out and speed drops particulalrly when flicking through the image library in lightroom. Finally a 256gig ssd is so cheap its just not worth ignoring now, fast boot speeds, quick to open photoshop and lightroom and quick to export too
Comment by cabstar posted on Graphics Card at 28/01/2013 - 23:00
I know a few pros who use capture one, the majority are still using lightroom. Having looked at it the layout was too much for me to unlesrn then lesrn again compared to lightroom.
I guess in the end they all do the same thingnit just comes down to personal preference...
I guess in the end they all do the same thingnit just comes down to personal preference...
Comment by cabstar posted on Lightroom Vs the other Raw Converters at 28/01/2013 - 12:06
Current terms notice where it says im connection with Facebook
Sharing Your Content and Information
You own all of the content and information you post on Facebook, and you can control how it is shared through your privacy and application settings. In addition: 1. For content that is covered by intellectual property rights, like photos and videos (IP content), you specifically give us the following permission, subject to your privacy and application settings: you grant us a non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, worldwide license to use any IP content that you post on or in connection with Facebook (IP License). This IP License ends when you delete your IP content or your account unless your content has been shared with others, and they have not deleted it.
2. When you delete IP content, it is deleted in a manner similar to emptying the recycle bin on a computer. However, you understand that removed content may persist in backup copies for a reasonable period of time (but will not be available to others).
Under these terms it would be impossible for Facebook to licence out any photos as it has no control over the timescale Facebook users will have photos on the site..
Sharing Your Content and Information
You own all of the content and information you post on Facebook, and you can control how it is shared through your privacy and application settings. In addition: 1. For content that is covered by intellectual property rights, like photos and videos (IP content), you specifically give us the following permission, subject to your privacy and application settings: you grant us a non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, worldwide license to use any IP content that you post on or in connection with Facebook (IP License). This IP License ends when you delete your IP content or your account unless your content has been shared with others, and they have not deleted it.
2. When you delete IP content, it is deleted in a manner similar to emptying the recycle bin on a computer. However, you understand that removed content may persist in backup copies for a reasonable period of time (but will not be available to others).
Under these terms it would be impossible for Facebook to licence out any photos as it has no control over the timescale Facebook users will have photos on the site..
Comment by cabstar posted on Image theft "Facebook" at 27/01/2013 - 13:55
The deciding factor for me was on a professional basis. Shooting people and weddings the chance of moire on wedding dresses was to big a risk for me.
Comment by cabstar posted on JR K5 IIs review at 27/01/2013 - 11:33
CMW wrote:
As always, a sense of proportion is needed, unless you are a crusader. Intellectual property and its protection is part of my daily job, so I hope this advice escapes seeming misleading, wrong, or confusing.
I am not a crusader, just a professional photographer whise work is stolen on a daily basis, which i have to persue on a regular basis.As always, a sense of proportion is needed, unless you are a crusader. Intellectual property and its protection is part of my daily job, so I hope this advice escapes seeming misleading, wrong, or confusing.
I was replying to frogherder, the joys of multi posts on a forum. And agree with you as far as legal aid and using citizens advice would be a waste of time.
As for The facebook terms they do clearly state within Facebook, also if facebook where to licence images out for commercial use, which they dont, they would need a model release.
Wthout the licence facebook get you to agree too, facebook couldnt repost your photos within the facebook web site as a publishing device.
Comment by cabstar posted on Image theft "Facebook" at 27/01/2013 - 01:46
I am not a lawyer but speak from experience of pursuing copyright infringement on a regular basis. I have sued infringers myself including multinational corporations and have employed specialist IP lawyers for more complicated cases.
Contacting a regular solicitor or citizens advice will just confuse the issue, if the op has no luck following the cease and desist methods i listed above then i know good IP lawyers who can handle is kind of case.
As always in threads of this kind people offer advice that unfortunately is misleading or wrong and just confuses the issue
If anyone wants more information on how to handle infringements here is a good place to start
.http://www.epuk.org/News/1003/copyright-in-the-21st-century
Contacting a regular solicitor or citizens advice will just confuse the issue, if the op has no luck following the cease and desist methods i listed above then i know good IP lawyers who can handle is kind of case.
As always in threads of this kind people offer advice that unfortunately is misleading or wrong and just confuses the issue
If anyone wants more information on how to handle infringements here is a good place to start
.http://www.epuk.org/News/1003/copyright-in-the-21st-century
Comment by cabstar posted on Image theft "Facebook" at 27/01/2013 - 00:40
bettyswolloks wrote:
Have you used a mkii?[/quote]Yes Mate, a neighbour has one.[/quote]And in your opinion was it worth spending the extra £130cabstar wrote:
And neither of you have actually had or used a IIs!!bettyswolloks wrote:
[quote:3496ace15f="cabstar"][quote:3496ace15f="Smeggypants"]
But each successive tests from IR, DPreview, John have all confirmed to me that there's simply no practical gain to be had from removing the AA filter on the K-5. Waste of an extra £130 IMHO and a more sensible option would be to put that £130 towards another lens.
That has been my final conclusion too Smeggy.[quote:3496ace15f="cabstar"][quote:3496ace15f="Smeggypants"]
But each successive tests from IR, DPreview, John have all confirmed to me that there's simply no practical gain to be had from removing the AA filter on the K-5. Waste of an extra £130 IMHO and a more sensible option would be to put that £130 towards another lens.
Comment by cabstar posted on JR K5 IIs review at 27/01/2013 - 00:23
bettyswolloks wrote:
Have you used a mkii?cabstar wrote:
And neither of you have actually had or used a IIs!!Smeggypants wrote:
But each successive tests from IR, DPreview, John have all confirmed to me that there's simply no practical gain to be had from removing the AA filter on the K-5. Waste of an extra £130 IMHO and a more sensible option would be to put that £130 towards another lens.
That has been my final conclusion too Smeggy.But each successive tests from IR, DPreview, John have all confirmed to me that there's simply no practical gain to be had from removing the AA filter on the K-5. Waste of an extra £130 IMHO and a more sensible option would be to put that £130 towards another lens.
Comment by cabstar posted on JR K5 IIs review at 26/01/2013 - 23:27
Smeggypants wrote:
But each successive tests from IR, DPreview, John have all confirmed to me that there's simply no practical gain to be had from removing the AA filter on the K-5. Waste of an extra £130 IMHO and a more sensible option would be to put that £130 towards another lens.
That has been my final conclusion too Smeggy.But each successive tests from IR, DPreview, John have all confirmed to me that there's simply no practical gain to be had from removing the AA filter on the K-5. Waste of an extra £130 IMHO and a more sensible option would be to put that £130 towards another lens.
Comment by cabstar posted on JR K5 IIs review at 26/01/2013 - 23:08
Nice idea though