Photo of the Day (December 2007)

[marclapierre13]

wow, this page (27) has so many great shots by everybody. I have lots of free time next month, as my hours at work are getting cut back, so ill have time to explore and go shooting.
Im going to take a little holiday to Vancouver and Victoria, and go exploring at the city and what not.

 

[saxondale.]

EXIF:
Shutter: 1/100
Aperture: f/2.8
ISO: 3200
Camera: 5D
Lens: 24-70L

Goose fair?

 

[::Lisa::]

Goose fair?

No, Goose Fair is much much much bigger than that. That was just some small tiny fair that we spotted on the way home one day and I just happened to have my camera

 

[GoCubsGo]

(Obviously not the greatest shot).
Sony Cybershot 6.0.
Giants vs. Patriots, 12/29/07
First quarter.
Brief editorial - this game was pretty sweet.

Well considering it turned out to be a historical game I'd say the shot was priceless.
Lucky you got to be there.

 

[epicwelshman]

Nikon 70-200mm VR

Did you take that? If so, nice product shot. If not, well... you know what I'd say next

D40x
1/160
f 8
18mm
ISO 100

 

[bjett92]

trip to new york

statue of liberty at sunset

and of course, the 5th ave apple store cube

 

[Carl Abudephane]

.

 

[Martin C]

What's up with the mods using TIMG tags on my image when there were clearly larger pictures on page 27 (i.e. the shot from the Giants game)?

It was 0.8 mb and under 850 x 500 for goodness sakes. Leave the timg tag editing for the 'Post Your <insert random item>' threads.

The purpose of the thread is to view each person's image just by scrolling down the page; not by having to open 4 new tabs to see some shots. I could understand if the pictures were posted at original size, but when my image is under 1 mb and is smaller in physical size than other images not edited with timg tags, what's that supposed to mean? Can MR not spare 0.8 mb of server space? Doesn't the image still have to load even if it has timg tags?

 

[M@lew]

View On Black

 

[Crawn2003]

Did you take that? If so, nice product shot. If not, well... you know what I'd say next

Yeah I took it for a media kit I had to send out to a studio for consideration. Used Profoto lighting, about 5 white reflector cards to bounce light into areas I wanted light in, and shot it with a Sinar 4x5 camera with a Leaf Valeo digital back.

My contribution for the day. Had this one on before but I've reworked it and did some minor touch ups to it. I shot it for a fashion media kit.

Nikon D70s
70-200mm 2.8 VR
Profoto 600+600 Kit

 

[poopyhead]

 

[pdxflint]

What's up with the mods using TIMG tags on my image when there were clearly larger pictures on page 27 (i.e. the shot from the Giants game)?

It was 0.8 mb and under 850 x 500 for goodness sakes. Leave the timg tag editing for the 'Post Your <insert random item>' threads.

The purpose of the thread is to view each person's image just by scrolling down the page; not by having to open 4 new tabs to see some shots. I could understand if the pictures were posted at original size, but when my image is under 1 mb and is smaller in physical size than other images not edited with timg tags, what's that supposed to mean? Can MR not spare 0.8 mb of server space? Doesn't the image still have to load even if it has timg tags?

I agree completely with your point. Just out of the blue, one of my images was hit with the mod edit (timg) tag when it was the same size as all the others I have posted (800 pix) because when I link from picasa I have it set to resize the original to that size. The file size is definately in the 300-400k range, but I always thought it was a "link" anyway, so not sure what gives here. The problem is the randomness of the edits, with many other pics on the same page of an equal or larger size. Maybe MR needs to clarify the policies so we know what will be left alone. I can see the point of using the timg tags when quoting and commenting on someone elses picture, but not for the original post.

Note: I've gone back through the thread and it appears that one moderator has decided to thumbnail nearly half the posted pics. Kinda makes it not nearly as pleasant to scroll the page, and if that's going to be the new status quo, then I'll probably stop posting - too bad. If I want to look at a page full of thumbs (not!) I can just hit flickr or picasa, etc.

 

[xcalibre]

Very cool. What time of year would you say is the best to visit?

If you like heat, come in the summer...i prefer spring/autumn though.
Summer is the best time to go island hopping and get some classic white-house-and-blue-sea pics.

 

[TheReef]

Taken on holidays down the coast. The original looked really dull, I know it's probably had a bit to much photoshop… I do like the blur though.

What is the conventional way to express the focal length - in 35mm or the camera's standard?

Pentax K10D, 18-55mm, f4.5, 38mm, ISO 100

Happy New Year All!

 

[Doylem]

Taken on holidays down the coast. The original looked really dull, I know it's probably had a bit to much photoshop… I do like the blur though.

Well, I hope you don't mind a bit of criticism, so here goes.

If "the original looked really dull", as you say, then my instinct would be to shoot something that wasn't dull, or, if the conditions weren't right, to put the camera away. Taking a "dull" pic on a 'round trip' through the wonders of Photoshop seems rather pointless and time-consuming to me... After all that tinkering, you're going to end up with a pic that's still dull (there being no 'anti-dull' feature in PS). You can mask the dullness with a bit of blur, or cranking up the levels, or using some plug-in that transforms the pic into a water-colour painting. But... it's a bit of a photographic cul-de-sac.

Just my opinion (and worth about as much as you paid for it )...

 

[Doylem]

Lovely pic. Maybe it's just me... but I'd like to see a white somewhere: it's just a smidgin too dark.

 

[epicwelshman]

I agree completely with your point. Just out of the blue, one of my images was hit with the mod edit (timg) tag when it was the same size as all the others I have posted (800 pix) because when I link from picasa I have it set to resize the original to that size. The file size is definately in the 300-400k range, but I always thought it was a "link" anyway, so not sure what gives here. The problem is the randomness of the edits, with many other pics on the same page of an equal or larger size. Maybe MR needs to clarify the policies so we know what will be left alone. I can see the point of using the timg tags when quoting and commenting on someone elses picture, but not for the original post.

Note: I've gone back through the thread and it appears that one moderator has decided to thumbnail nearly half the posted pics. Kinda makes it not nearly as pleasant to scroll the page, and if that's going to be the new status quo, then I'll probably stop posting - too bad. If I want to look at a page full of thumbs (not!) I can just hit flickr or picasa, etc.

Agree completely. I come here and post here to see MR member's work at a good size, not to see thumbnails like you said.

It's ridiculous.

 

[GoCubsGo]

Alone.

How come you look so hairy?

What's up with the mods using TIMG tags on my image when there were clearly larger pictures on page 27 (i.e. the shot from the Giants game)?

It was 0.8 mb and under 850 x 500 for goodness sakes. Leave the timg tag editing for the 'Post Your <insert random item>' threads.

The purpose of the thread is to view each person's image just by scrolling down the page; not by having to open 4 new tabs to see some shots. I could understand if the pictures were posted at original size, but when my image is under 1 mb and is smaller in physical size than other images not edited with timg tags, what's that supposed to mean? Can MR not spare 0.8 mb of server space? Doesn't the image still have to load even if it has timg tags?

Calm down. You can click on the "timg" thumbs if you want to see more. However, to your point if a mod is going to take the time to edit one they better be editing every other one as well so as to not raise havoc as they clearly have here. Either way, using "TIMG" tags is just common sense if you ask me and does not take away from a "photo of the day" thread or the artist's work.

Agree completely. I come here and post here to see MR member's work at a good size, not to see thumbnails like you said.

It's ridiculous.

It is not ridiculous. What is ridiculous is when the editing of the tags are not consistent but I guess it was a mere oversight and nothing else. To grow so angry over it is basically a waste of time really. You see thumbnails as a preview and click on the image to make it larger. If you do not know that then there you have it but if you did and you simply don't like it then there's not much anyone can do. You click on thumbnails all of the time in online galleries, why would here be any different? They could limit the upload size dimensions and really piss us all off. TIMG isn't evil but like I said above, consistency in editing is a plus.

My contribution for the day. Had this one on before but I've reworked it and did some minor touch ups to it. I shot it for a fashion media kit.

Nikon D70s
70-200mm 2.8 VR
Profoto 600+600 Kit

Is this the appropriate time to droll?

 

[baby duck monge]

Is this the appropriate time to droll?

If you really want to be boring, that's your prerogative. The guy might find it a bit of a turn off, though. Feel free to drool, though. Just wipe it away before he catches a glimpse.

 

[Martin C]

Calm down. You can click on the "timg" thumbs if you want to see more. However, to your point if a mod is going to take the time to edit one they better be editing every other one as well so as to not raise havoc as they clearly have here. Either way, using "TIMG" tags is just common sense if you ask me and does not take away from a "photo of the day" thread or the artist's work.

I realize that I can click on an image with TIMG tags. I'm just wondering why this editing is being applied to random images. I shouldn't have to click on twelve links to pictures less than 1 mb to enjoy this thread as it has always been. It's common sense? How? The image has to load on MR's servers anway.

Here the damn new moderator is editing posts with TIMG tags like crazy when the Mac Setup threads are rampant with large images. I just don't get it. Just like epicwelshman said, I want to be able to see people's work at a decent size as I scroll down the page to see what catches my eye.

I also agree with pdx that someone needs to clarify what the policy is on this random post editing.

 

[Educ8r]

 

[Doylem]

Ulverston, Cumbria, UK

 

[epicwelshman]

I realize that I can click on an image with TIMG tags. I'm just wondering why this editing is being applied to random images. I shouldn't have to click on twelve links to pictures less than 1 mb to enjoy this thread as it has always been. It's common sense? How? The image has to load on MR's servers anway.

Here the damn new moderator is editing posts with TIMG tags like crazy when the Mac Setup threads are rampant with large images. I just don't get it. Just like epicwelshman said, I want to be able to see people's work at a decent size as I scroll down the page to see what catches my eye.

I also agree with pdx that someone needs to clarify what the policy is on this random post editing.

I don't think any of the posted photos are more than 1MB. I know that my current one is around 300K, hardly a massive size. I'm fine with timg tags being used on quoted images, but not on the images themselves.

There's never been a problem before, and the cumulative POTD thread was even changed into monthly ones to save server space.

It just seems a little unfair for one mod to start changing things around without informing anyone.

 

[BigJohno]

Ulverston, Cumbria, UK

Great shot. Love the color.

 

[Padraic]

^I love little birds. And big birds too!

Me too!

Here's one of a bigger bird that a friend brought over. For the life of me I don't remember what type of bird it is (I think it's a Falcon), but it was absolutely beautiful!

Patrick