Steve

Have you heard or tried this software from Mediachance. its called ReDynamix HDR and it's a plug-in for Photoshop, it's designed to work with only one file, but I've found that I can use up to 4 files. Any more than this and it doesn't work well. cost is US$16
 
They do make a
stand alone program called Dynamic Photo HDR 4 for US$55.

Charles
 

Charles  -

I’ve heard about this product.. not good things..

Photoshop has a built in HDR feature.  It’s pretty good.  The only one I know which is better is Photomatrix from hdrsoft.com

It’s the one I use.

Steve
 

Hi Steve,

Got a quick question. I want to put some of the photos of our holiday online for friends and family to see. As I don’t have my own domain, I was wondering if you can recommend a good photo hosting website. If possible, a website that makes it difficult to download the photos, as I don’t want other people to use them. I think some of the images could be used for commercial purposes (only a few, I’m not pretending I’m that great :p). Any ideas?

Is it possible to embed a copyright on the images when you export them from Lightroom?

Please let me know your thoughts on this.

Thanks.

Best regards,

Koen

 

Koen –

This would make a great learning topic.

You’d be surprised how many people think because the image is on the web they’re free to use it without regard to copyright.  I’ve had images stolen on a regular basis and the last time I checked (several years ago) my images were being used without permission in over 600 instances!  Many on professionally built websites for commercial use where web designers just copied them instead of going to a stock agency and paying a fee.  For a person whose livelihood depends on copyright this can be more than annoying.

True story:  Yahoo has an African Grey parrot user group.  I decided to check it out once because I have African Grey parrots.  On their opening page is the flying/attacking African Grey shot of Caesar in black and white.  I joined the user group and asked the guy running it where he got the picture.  He replied he took it!  It has my watermark and is clearly my image.  He took it from my Pbase account.  I called him on it and he stuck with his position.  Giving it some thought, this was only a group of 35-40 individuals and they’d never pay for an image anyway.  It was when this happened that I just accepted a certain amount of my work could be written off to theft.

Keep in mind that anyone can “print to screen” (ctrl, print screen) which copies the entire screen to your clipboard.  Then, when you open a new document in Photoshop it will automatically be sized for your clipboard.  You then select “paste” and the entire screen is now in Photoshop.  Crop around the image you want and you have it.  If you can see it on your screen there is nothing you can do to stop someone from taking it.  Nothing.  You can only make it more difficult so others can’t do the “right click” and “save image” easily.

Flickr doesn’t allow right click.  Smugmug protects them as well.  I personally think their fees are too high so I’ve used Pbase for years now.  Since I purchased my own domain I’ve thought of shutting down my Pbase account but I’ve developed other uses for it that I can’t do on my own domain.  When I do the learning topic on photo hosting sites I’ll cover these.

I hope you’ve found this somewhat useful.  I’m sorry more can’t be done to protect your images.  I recommend keeping them as small as possible to discourage use off the web, watermark them, and compress the heck out of them to keep the quality down.  I know this is contrary to showing off your images for best effect.. but this is why I limit my images in the weekly column the way I do.

Take care

Steve

 

Steve

When I buy an SD card it comes in a small plastic protective carrier. I never throw those away. If I change the card in the camera I take the new SD card out of the carrier and put it in the camera and then put the old card I the plastic "box". I have never lost one.

regards
Jan
 

Hi Jan –

Thank you for the feedback.  I’m glad this works for you.

For myself, I use my camera and flash cards almost daily.  I’m not sure the OEM plastic cases would be very helpful in my case. 

There are other options along the line of your thoughts.  Several companies make flash card holders with larger cases, small chains to secure to your belt loops, and other such conveniences.  I have several of these and on each occasion I lost a SD card I wasn’t using the device.  Mostly I found them inconvenient for casual use, although very useful for formal use.

Thank you for your response.

Steve

 

Hi Steve

First of all thank you for introducing us amateurs and even professionals in the photo-art all possibilities.

After your evaluation of the Fuji F30 I decided to purchase the camera. But I was too late. It was not in the market longer. So I bought a later model Fuji F45FD. Now to my question, is the successors worse than the F30. You are talking about pixel race as if it were something bad, is it the case.

I look forward to next weeks lesson.

Regards/Sune

 

Hi Sune –

The Fuji F45FD is a very nice compact.  In some ways it is superior to the F30 or F31.  The F30 and F31 however stands alone in low light performance.  Even the new F200EXR which comes very close, is not ‘quite’ as good in low light.

Your personal style and needs will dictate which features you need the most and which to place the value on. 

And yes, in many ways, especially in the consumer market, the “pixel race” very much misleads consumers.  Sure, more pixels are always welcome and all things being equal are ‘better’ than less pixels.  However, when you “chop up” a sensor of a certain size into smaller and smaller pieces (more pixels) then those smaller pieces become less capable than a larger piece would be.  Their ability to gather light, show tones, render color, and more becomes severely limited.  What you end up with is a high pixel count camera (say the F45d) that shoots brilliantly in bright daylight or within the distance limits of its flash, but performs poorly at lower light levels.  Of course all cameras perform more poorly at lower light levels, but it’s a matter of degree.

I’ll also say this.  In the last few years the “improvements” in low light capability seen in some of the finest DSLRs such as the Nikon D3, D3x, and D700 and the Canon 1dsMarkII and 5dMarkII, are about 80% clever noise reduction in the firmware, and only 20% improved physical sensor design. 

I hope this helps

Steve

 

 

Please submit your questions to QandA@Bkkimages.com  All questions will be answered and most will show up in the weekly column.