Photo Sorting



"Paul Saunders" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
| ste mc © wrote:
|
| > I can't remember if I've asked you this before or not, but how come you haven't decided to go
| > with iMatch yet, even though you like it and recommend it?
|
| I've reached my credit card limit so I can't buy it until I make another payment. Last time I made
| a payment I blew all the money on something else.

...that's a pretty good reason then!!! :)

| A camera I think it was... :)

I wish I could afford one, even in the next six months, but it doesn't look like I will. :-( I'm
happy with the G5, don't get me wrong, but for the past few months, I've had one eye on getting a
D-SLR in the summer. Saying that though, I could always try and persuade my girlfriend to move into
a new house and do without a fridge-freezer, washing machine, and cooker...
:)

| Paul

Ster
 
stemc © wrote:

> I wish I could afford one, even in the next six months, but it doesn't look like I will. :-( I'm
> happy with the G5, don't get me wrong, but for the past few months, I've had one eye on getting a
> D-SLR in the summer.

If you like photography you'll enjoy using a proper camera, although it may take you a little while
to adust to the size and weight. I'm still not used to the size of it. It may be one of the smallest
DSLRs but it's very bulky compared to my slimline OM-1n, and psychologically it seems heavier, even
though it's actually lighter.

> Saying that though, I could always try and persuade my girlfriend to move into a new house and do
> without a fridge-freezer, washing machine, and cooker... :)

What's wrong with using a chip shop, the kitchen sink and a camping stove?

Get the essentials first.

Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk
http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk
http://www.photosig.com/go/users/userphotos?id=118749
 
"Paul Saunders" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
| stemc © wrote:
|
| > I wish I could afford one, even in the next six months, but it doesn't look like I will. :-( I'm
| > happy with the G5, don't get me wrong, but for the past few months, I've had one eye on getting
| > a D-SLR in the summer.
|
| If you like photography you'll enjoy using a proper camera, although it may take you a little
| while to adust to the size and weight. I'm still not used to the size of it. It may be one of the
| smallest DSLRs but it's very bulky compared to my slimline OM-1n, and psychologically it seems
| heavier, even though it's actually lighter.

Getting the extra lenses is the main attraction, plus using proper macro leneses where I don't have
to by 1 inch away from the subject. Of course, having more megapixels and zero noise is also a
bonus! :)

| > Saying that though, I could always try and persuade my girlfriend to move into a new house and
| > do without a fridge-freezer, washing machine, and cooker... :)
|
| What's wrong with using a chip shop, the kitchen sink and a camping stove?

Well, my parents live a 5 minute walk away, so that'll be my first port of call.

| Get the essentials first.

Like a camera, and some of those lenses you've talked about? :)

| Paul

Ste
 
Steve Orrell wrote:

> Ah! I knew there was something I was going to trawl for in this pool of knowledge; how do you take
> a moon photo?

As Pat said, you basic take a sunny daylight exposure, because the moon is lit by sunlight. If you
do that it comes out grey, because that's the correct colour. It tends to look white to us because
of the dark sky around it.

If you want it to look white you need to overexpose by a stop or two.

> Last weekend, as I was returning to my car there was a superb photo there for the taking of a
> waxing crescent moon framing Venus (twilight sky).

You mean this? http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk/misc/newmoonvenus.jpg

> I didn't take the shot because I couldn't figure out what it would need... doubting if "point and
> shoot" would have done it.

In this case it probably would have, because the sky was quite bright. In the shot above I simply
used an automatic exposure (aperture priority). The edge of the moon is a little too bright but I
think it's okay in this situation.

However, you do need a long telephoto lens to get a decent shot of the moon, and that means a tripod
or a very fast shutter speed to keep it steady. I used a tripod. (fast shutter speeds are difficult
when it's getting dark)/

> So, if I had been able to get myself pointing my [digi] camera at the view, what would have been a
> good starting point to capture the image? (oh, I was also low on memory and batt power so a sheaf
> of bracketted shots wasn't an option). Any rules-of-thumb to use as a starting point?

Well I used 1/13 sec at f11, ISO 400. Focal length 220mm (352mm equiv).

Much brighter than Pat recommended, but I didn't really expose for the moon in this shot, I exposed
for the sky, hence the overexposure on the edge of the moon.

> (I've got a sneaky feeling I'm making this more complicated that it actually was/would have been
> and could have got away with a simple shot)

You should have tried. You had nothing to lose.

Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk
http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk
http://www.photosig.com/go/users/userphotos?id=118749
 
In message <[email protected]>, Peter Clinch
<[email protected]> writes
>Chris Townsend wrote:
>
>> Guidebook pictures of hills are often taken from another hill that isn't included in the walk
>> described.
>
>It's a (poor) sketch rather than a photo, but the pic in the climbing guide of the Hawcraig crag at
>Aberdour is drawn in a way that suggests a perspective of about 500m out into the Firth of Forth.
>Very bloody useful that is for deciding where your route starts... ;-/

Unless you have a helicopter :).

Many walking guidebooks are misleading because they show views that can't actually be seen from the
walk described and don't tell you this. I like to have information as to where a photo was taken.
(This information has been omitted by publishers from some of my photos so I'm not blaming
photographers here :) ).
 
In message <[email protected]>, stemc © <[email protected]> writes
>
>"Paul Saunders" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>| stemc © wrote:
>
>| Apparently the ideal situation is a partnership between a creative person and an organisational
>| person. The creative person has the ideas and creates stuff, while the other other one sorts out
>| the mess and sells it for them.
>
>Sounds like you need a devoted wife to double up as your assistant! Free labour! ;-)

This is what Galen Rowell did of course. His wife was a marketing expert.
 
[email protected] wrote:

> Who are your intended audience? Your pictures are marvellous but why would people suddenly think
> "ooh I must see pictures of Snowdon now" for example? If you can think of reasons, this would help
> your categorization.

One section of my website is going to be divided up into areas (similar to how my Photo Galleries
started off, but a bit different). So if someone wanted to see what Snowdon looked like they'd go to
the Snowdon page to see pictures of it.

Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk
http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk
http://www.photosig.com/go/users/userphotos?id=118749
 
On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 02:22:23 -0000, "Paul Saunders"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Of course there'd be no problem putting all my England photos into one folder. :)

The one marked "Recycle Bin" ?

--
What is a "free" gift? Aren't all gifts free?

Mail john rather than nospam...
 
"Paul Saunders" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
| stemc © wrote:
|
| > I can see how my fly in the garden example wouldn't work for you, and I think your way will work
| > well on your website. Like you said elsewhere, it'll also add variety to the different sections.
|
| Or maybe I could chuck them into an "arty" section in my galleries?

If you have an arty section, then I'm sure that would work fine. Are you happy with duplication in
your website Paul? As you said, it would be nice to have some of these arty shots in the subject
categories for variety; but also nice to have them in an arty section or the like. Decisions
decisions decisions... :)

| >> Apparently the ideal situation is a partnership between a creative person and an organisational
| >> person. The creative person has the ideas and creates stuff, while the other other one sorts
| >> out the mess and sells it for them.
| >
| > Sounds like you need a devoted wife to double up as your assistant!
|
| Know any suitable applicants for the job?

Don't know of anyone I'm afraid, try the Internet and get one of those young Russian or Filipino
housewives! ;-)

| > Free labour! ;-)
|
| Nah, it'll pay well, the more she sells the more she'll earn! ;-)

It's such a romantic arrangement, don't you think! ;-)

| >> So although I'm really trying to get organised, it goes against the grain. It's in my nature to
| >> be chaotic and disorganised.
| >
| > That's a good excuse, I must remember that when I next get ordered to clear up my computer desk,
| > which is always a complete mess! :)
|
| See? Creative.

And I suppose the glass is half full too! :)

| Paul

Ste
 
"Chris Townsend" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
| In message <[email protected]>, stemc © <[email protected]> writes
| >
| >"Paul Saunders" <[email protected]> wrote in message
| >news:[email protected]...
| >| stemc © wrote:
| >
| >| Apparently the ideal situation is a partnership between a creative person and an organisational
| >| person. The creative person has the ideas and creates stuff, while the other other one sorts
| >| out the mess and sells it for them.
| >
| >Sounds like you need a devoted wife to double up as your assistant! Free labour! ;-)
|
| This is what Galen Rowell did of course. His wife was a marketing expert.

That's what I'm grooming my girlfriend for too! :) ...I just need to learn how to take stunning
photographs now... :)
 
"Paul Saunders" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
| stemc © wrote:
|
| > Yes, I remember you saying before how many you had! A *lot* of photos! You could probably start
| > your own image library with that lot. Why don't you?
|
| Me? Get organised? You must be joking! That's someone else's job. That's where Alamy will come in,
| once I get organised enough to start sending them CDs regularly.
|
| >> I've taken exactly 4467 digital photographs, since mid-December 2002.
| >
| > From the same period, I've got 6,821 photos, taken with my F601 and
| > G5.
|
| Ah, so you're beating me on quantity are you!

And quality! :p

| But my photos are bigger than yours! ;-)

Only by 1 megapixel though! :)

| I really must buy more memory cards!

I've got 2 x 512mb, and 1 x 32mb. I hardly ever take more than 100 photos in a weekend, but saying
that, I don't go out that much either, only for short walks.

| Paul

Ste
 
"Paul Saunders" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
| stemc © wrote:
|
| > Have you submitted your initial CD of images to Alamy yet? If so, why not!?!
|
| Disorganisation. I blame the endless colds I've had since Christmas, totally ruined my
| year so far.
|
| But that's part of the reason I'm sorting out photos into categories, to help me get organised and
| choose which photos I want to send to them.

The quicker you sort out a CD of images, the quicker it'll be added to the library and you can start
making money! ...now get organising! ;-)

| >> For the website and personal browsing I think I'll go with subject matter.
| >
| > Good choice, always think of your potential clients and what they will want. Also, there's
| > always the option of putting in a search box too. It takes a bit of knowledge to do one
| > yourself, but you can get websites to put one in for you, if you put up with their small banners
| > on the search page.
|
| I don't really want a search option, and I certainly don't want banners. I want to structure the
| site in such a clear logical way that you can easily navigate around it.

You definitely don't want any banners or anything, but I would consider a search option in the
future, after the site is up and running and if you have *lots* of images.

| Paul

Ste
 
"Paul Saunders" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
| stemc © wrote:
|
| >>> I wouldn't say family orientated as such,
| >>
| >> So why the photo of kids playing in the sand and all the cartoon like icons?
| >
| > Like I said in the previous post, "...they might be marketing it as an amateur/family
| > product..." Nothing wrong with a photo of kids,
|
| It puts me off.

So minor Paul, but whatever you think is best for you.

| > and the icons are similar to Windows XP icons.
|
| Not that similar, they are definitely cartoony, as if aimed at kids.

They are as cartoony as Windows XP icons are. But who cares either way. Also, I'd rather a program
be well presented and easy to use, rather than look bland and be a pain to get the hang of. I know
you're going to come back and say that you'd rather have a program that was bland and had more
functionality, but never mind. :)

| >> It does seem highly usable, but the distinction between consumer and professional is not
| >> snobbery.
| >
| > So why mention the photo of kids playing in the sand and all the cartoon like icons?
|
| Because you asked me why I said it was family oriented.

No I never, I just disagreed that it was family orientated. Even if it is though, I would think of
better reasons than a photo of kids and cartoon-like icons (a bit lame); such as not being able to
search by EXIF, or not being able to edit the IPTC fields etc.

| > Fair enough. But even if I was a professional, I can't see what it couldn't do that *I*
| > would want.
|
| But what if a publisher wanted you to include certain things in your EXIF and IPTC fields and you
| didn't have the facility to edit them?

There's plenty of utilities that would allow this to be done, if it needed to be.

| >> I regularly look at exif data to distinguish different photos.
|
| > Well I can look at this data using Photoshop Album 2. Right click an image, View Properties,
| > then click the metadata tab to see all the EXIF info.
|
| No such tab in my demo. No mention of EXIF data anywhere. Is it version 2.0 you're using? Because
| that's what my demo is. Maybe they've crippled the demo version, in which case, it's not a very
| good demo. If I decide not to use it because it doesn't have a feature that I need, even though
| the full version does have it, then they've lost a sale.

I don't work for Adobe and I'm not getting commission for this, it doesn't matter to me if people
use it or not. :) I'm just trying to figure out why other products are deemed to be so much better,
and if their extra features would be of any use to me or not. I've only shelled out £35 for
Photoshop Album 2, so I wouldn't be that much out of pocked if I found something better. I've
downloaded trials of both Porfolio and IMatch (last night in fact), and without reading the
instructions, they just seem a bit hard to pick up. At the end of the day, I want a cataloguing
software to arrange and find my photos. If it does this easily and effectively, then great. And
Photoshop Album does this for me. I might get a D-SLR one day and learn how to take good photos, and
I still reckon that this program would be up to the task.

| > Even without cataloguing software, I can view EXIF info.
|
| So can I, but it's often a bit fiddly, doesn't always show all the info and often shows certain
| data in odd formats, like shutter speed -
| 10/1000. And another time I saw my 15 second exposure at ISO 50 misreported as an 8 second
| exposure. Maybe it's just older software.

Possibly. It might be a standards thing, where older software never conformed 100%. But Photoshop
Album 2 works fine.

| > I'm not arguing against this, as it's great. I'm just doubting why I would ever want to search
| > for photos by any if this EXIF info, which I'm assuming you're doing with iMatch.
|
| No, I never said I wanted to use the data to search,

I know, but I just assumed that would be why you wanted it.

| just that I like to be able to access the data easily, and without having to right click and open
| up additional windows to see it. In IMatch it's instantly displayed at the bottom of the screen
| as you click on different images, which is what I need. I want the data for comparing and
| selecting photos.

Like I said above, I downloaded IMatch last night, and I can see how you can click the EXIF ot IPTC
tabs to see this information. I can see the EXIF info in a similar way in PSA2 by just keep the
properties window open somewhere on the screen, then clicking on the different images. Not that I
personally want to do that though, but I *can* if I want to.

| >> For most people yes, for professionals no.
| >
| > No comment.
|
| >> I would. It's not suitable for professionals.
| >
| > No comment.
|
| Whether you want to comment or not, it's not designed for professionals, that's a simple.fact.
| Professionals use IPTC fields and Album doesn't support them, so professionals can't use it.

Okay, fair enough. But I wouldn't say that all professionals would need these features. But who
cares anyway, why am I debating this with you! :)

| That would be like trying to enter a formula one race driving a Nissan Micra, it's the wrong tool
| for the job.

A very exaggerated example, but I know what you're getting at.

| Which is not a criticism of the software. It's very good, I like it, I'd probably recommend it to
| certain people. If it had a few more features I'd be tempted to use it myself, but it doesn't.
| IMatch is the opposite, it has many advanced features which I probably won't use, but that's okay.
| It's better to have too much than too little, and I may find those features useful in the future.

What are the great features of IMatch though? You've mentioned the folder tree, the EXIF info, and
the IPTC info. What else do you like about it?

| >>> Now you tell us!!! :)
| >>
| >> I did mention this in my original post, but perhaps I didn't stress it strongly enough.
|
| > No you never.
|
| Yes I did. Na na nana naa! :)

:)

| > You never made any mention that the query related to a completely separate set of images. It
| > sounded like it was the images within your normal collection that you were having trouble
| > sorting.
|
| Yes, in retrospect it could have been read that way,

It could *only* have been read that way, but that's okay Paul. :)

| I didn't explain myself clearly enough.

I said it's okay! ;-)

| >> "Obviously in a database I can use keywords and categories to put the same photo in multiple
| >> locations, but I'm trying to decide where to physically store the files.
| >
| > Okay, the quote above is from the 8th paragraph. And still no mention that it's a different
| > collection.
|
| No, you're quite correct, I didn't make it clear that "a database" would be a different
| collection.

Okay, you're embarressing yourself now, get a grip man! ;-)

| >> Not only that, but I'm redesigning my website with an area-based structure, so I also have to
| >> decide in which area to put each photo on my site."
| >
| > And this quote, from paragraph 9, looks like another question, following the main one.
|
| Yes, you're quite right, I didn't explain myself properly.

You're almost making me cry here! ;-)

| > How's the website coming along?
|
| So so.

Mine is getting nowhere. I keep changing my mind about the design of it. I just need to sit down
with a pen and paper, do a design, stick to it, and publish it.

| > Are you doing any design changes, or just a redesign of layout of content?
|
| Yes, design changes, I want to change the whole look of the site. I want to get the whole thing
| restructured with all the links worked out before I actually start creating the pages. I'm
| designing some page layouts, once I'm happy with them I'll save them as templates, then I'll be
| able to put the whole thing together quite quickly.

Good luck with it, and be sure to let us know when you've got something up. Even if it's just a post
to ask which template people prefer! :)

| I'm using MindMan Personal for sorting out the overall site structure with links between sections
| and sorting my processed photo collection (as per this thread) into folders that will more or less
| match the page heirarchy on the site, so I can conveniently see which photos are currently
| available for each page, and also highlight the gaps in my collection to pinpoint subject matter
| that I need to scan or go out to photograph.

Not heard of it before, but hope it helps you arrange it all okay.

| >> Well I've looked hard for it but I can't find a collection tab or any mention of it anywhere.
| >
| > Can't find it in PSA2, or in iMatch?
|
| Album. You seem to have some extra features that aren't in my demo.

If I never had any extra features in the full version, I'd take it back and get a refund! :)

| >> But since you mentioned Alamy, don't you think it's important to include proper captioning,
| >> copyright and keyword information with your photos, in the official IPTC and EXIF data formats?
| >
| > But why? I thought this was done online using the Alamy website. Alamy says: "If your images
| > have IPTC information embedded in them, Alamy will only import the 'Caption' and 'Keywords' IPTC
| > fields - no other IPTC fields will be imported." As far as I'm aware, these two fields can be
| > added manually. And they make no mention of copywright information, so I'd assume they don't
| > import that anyway?
|
| I don't know enough about this myself yet, but I'd prefer to include the information with the
| photos rather than have to add it manually later on their website.

I'd rather add things manually, but then again, I'm not the professional photographer here who
intends to submit hundreds of photos. I bet they wouldn't even accept a CD if I sent one in! :-S

| There must be a way of handling copyright. I think I rmay emember reading that you shouldn't put
| copyright info with the photo because they handle the copyright on your behalf, or something
| like that.

I guess you need to be happy with their terms if you're going to submit to them.

| Paul

Ste
 
<Steve Orrell> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
| On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 19:16:12 -0000, "stemc ©" <[email protected]> wrote:
|
| >when I selected a photo of the moon (black night sky), and it brought up loads of moon photos.
|
|
| Ah! I knew there was something I was going to trawl for in this pool of knowledge; how do you take
| a moon photo?
|
| Last weekend, as I was returning to my car there was a superb photo there for the taking of a
| waxing crescent moon framing Venus (twilight sky). I didn't take the shot because I couldn't
| figure out what it would need... doubting if "point and shoot" would have done it. (I was also
| cold and tired so my motivation was dampened.)
|
| So, if I had been able to get myself pointing my [digi] camera at the view, what would have been a
| good starting point to capture the image? (oh, I was also low on memory and batt power so a sheaf
| of bracketted shots wasn't an option). Any rules-of-thumb to use as a starting point?
|
| (I've got a sneaky feeling I'm making this more complicated that it actually was/would have been
| and could have got away with a simple shot)
|
| SteveO

My moon photos are normally **** because I can't get close enough, but I just zoom in as much as I
can, use a tripod if possible, use the spot metering function, focus on infinity, use an aperture of
f8.0, and a shutter speed of about 1/200 or 1/250. Just be careful not to overexpose it, or you'll
see no detail in it.

Ste
 
On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 10:29:09 -0000, Pat Bennett
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 09:52:57 +0000, <Steve Orrell> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 19:16:12 -0000, "stemc ©" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> when I selected a photo of the moon (black night sky), and it brought up loads of moon photos.
>>
>>
>> Ah! I knew there was something I was going to trawl for in this pool of knowledge; how do you
>> take a moon photo?
>>
>> Last weekend, as I was returning to my car there was a superb photo there for the taking of a
>> waxing crescent moon framing Venus (twilight sky). I didn't take the shot because I couldn't
>> figure out what it would need... doubting if "point and shoot" would have done it. (I was also
>> cold and tired so my motivation was dampened.)
>>
>> So, if I had been able to get myself pointing my [digi] camera at the view, what would have been
>> a good starting point to capture the image? (oh, I was also low on memory and batt power so a
>> sheaf of bracketted shots wasn't an option). Any rules-of-thumb to use as a starting point?
>
>Well the moon is lit by sunshine, with no haze or clouds in its sky, so the old rule of f16
>aperture and shutter speed = ISO of your film/digisensor. So the only qualification is how much the
>clouds in *our* sky decrease the light from the moon coming our way. If our sky is absolutely
>clear, then no decrease.
>
>At a guess, on a nice clear night, I'd say 1/200th at f8. This should expose the moon OK, but I
>don't know about Venus.

The rule for the moon is f11 and the reciprocal of the film speed, so for 100 ISO film that f11
and 1/100 second - if you camera cannot manage that then the closest in most cameras will be
1/125 or 1/90

Venus should be similar.

>
>Pat

--
79.84% of all statistics are made up on the spot. The other 42% are made up later on. In Warwick -
looking at flat fields and that includes the castle.
 
stemc © wrote:

>> Or maybe I could chuck them into an "arty" section in my galleries?
>
> If you have an arty section, then I'm sure that would work fine.

I probably will.

> Are you happy with duplication in your website Paul?

There's bound to be some, but I want to minimise it as much as possible. Some photos will fit well
in more than one section of the website, but I don't want too much repetition, I don't want people
getting bored by seeing the same photos on different pages. Where there are duplicates the
thumbnails will both link to the same image page, so only the thumbnails will be duplicated.

>>> Free labour! ;-)
>>
>> Nah, it'll pay well, the more she sells the more she'll earn! ;-)
>
> It's such a romantic arrangement, don't you think! ;-)

If it's profitable, it'll probably last longer than most marriages... ;-)

>> See? Creative.
>
> And I suppose the glass is half full too! :)

Of course!

Always look on the bright side of life...

Oh by the way, here's an idea for a sign to place on your desk;

"Please excuse the mess - creative person at work"

Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk
http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk
http://www.photosig.com/go/users/userphotos?id=118749
 
"Paul Saunders" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
| stemc © wrote:

<snip>

| > Are you happy with duplication in your website Paul?
|
| There's bound to be some, but I want to minimise it as much as possible. Some photos will fit well
| in more than one section of the website, but I don't want too much repetition, I don't want people
| getting bored by seeing the same photos on different pages. Where there are duplicates the
| thumbnails will both link to the same image page, so only the thumbnails will be duplicated.

Yes, you don't want to bore the visitor with the same photos repeated in each section they browse
through, but at the same time, you don't want them to miss a photo that was in another section
either. There's probably a balance to be found I'm sure.

<snip>

| Oh by the way, here's an idea for a sign to place on your desk;
|
| "Please excuse the mess - creative person at work"

It's funny because we were talking about this in work last week. My boss likes everything to be neat
and tidy, but one of the girls desks is such a mess, than although my boss looks at it every time
she goes past, she doesn't dare saying anything about it because she probably wouldn't even know
where to start with cleaning it up! :)

Actually, my desk in work is reasonably tidy (compared to the other desks in the office anyway!); so
that probably explains why all my photos are perfectly organised using that great piece of software
(wink wink), yet my images are **** and boring! :)

| Paul

Ste