So any tips on backing up your photos while on a two month trip overseas?A decade ago I had a “drive with card slot” device, but they’re on the expensive/heavy/fragile side for my occasional-only use.
Any experience with the likes of the MobileLite Wireless for copying SD cards?
I used OTG devices and just more memory cards unless you can get your hands on a small self powered wireless HD.
Were you in his box Sal? Wow!
Lol, Nah. Good seats though. We were sitting across at the other corner from Boris.
Considering the camera i took (a small Oly) and a short lens (45mm), plus being restricted to one viewing angle (that rarely included face expressions ) im really pleased with the results. I wasnt expecting to take pics of the match itself.
The pro photogs were interesting. I roughly calculated upwards of $400,000 worth of lenses and camera bodies pointing at the players. At the ball toss, you could hear dozens of shots per second being rattled off. They must end up with a hell of a lot of near identical shots over the course of a match.
Hey Deck,
I cant see any of your last batch.
Edit; looks like photobucket is down, that may be why.
Hey Deck,I cant see any of your last batch.
Edit; looks like photobucket is down, that may be why.
Yeag, I can’t see them either at the moment. Should be back soon.
So any tips on backing up your photos while on a two month trip overseas?A decade ago I had a “drive with card slot” device, but they’re on the expensive/heavy/fragile side for my occasional-only use.
Any experience with the likes of the MobileLite Wireless for copying SD cards?
I used OTG devices and just more memory cards unless you can get your hands on a small self powered wireless HD.
I thought i’d try Harvey Norman photo printing via their fujifilm website.
Don’t waste your time or money.
Even though I uploaded using their non compressed option, the prints came out blurry, colour completely wrong, washed out and poor contrast.
These were only the standard 4x6 prints as well. Glad I didn’t both with anything bigger. Quite a few will be going to the bin cause it really is that bad.
What is really sad too is that it’s printed by fujifilm in their warehouse, not where you want to pick them up!
So angry at this.
So any tips on backing up your photos while on a two month trip overseas?A decade ago I had a “drive with card slot” device, but they’re on the expensive/heavy/fragile side for my occasional-only use.
Any experience with the likes of the MobileLite Wireless for copying SD cards?
I used OTG devices and just more memory cards unless you can get your hands on a small self powered wireless HD.
BTW, I had totally missed iOS 9.2 finally flipping the switch last month and allowing iPhones to easily suck in the content of SD cards (iPads already could, for ages, which made the omission doubly odd). I have a 128GB iPhone, I can make that work and therefore only have to carry a few extra grams of weight. Yay.
@“David J Richardson” http://androidspin.com/2015/01/26/kingston-mobilelite-wireless-g2-review-portable-media-drive-wireless-ap/
Can be used with normal 2.5" external hd.
Quick shot looking up the crane we just connected.
I thought i'd try Harvey Norman photo printing via their fujifilm website.Don’t waste your time or money.
Even though I uploaded using their non compressed option, the prints came out blurry, colour completely wrong, washed out and poor contrast.
These were only the standard 4x6 prints as well. Glad I didn’t both with anything bigger. Quite a few will be going to the bin cause it really is that bad.
What is really sad too is that it’s printed by fujifilm in their warehouse, not where you want to pick them up!
So angry at this.
Ive had usable results instore at knox. Where you sit at the terminal, edit, send to print and pick them up 5 meters away. Ive never ordered online because i dont trust my home monitor colors and brightness to match the print settings.
I thought i'd try Harvey Norman photo printing via their fujifilm website.Don’t waste your time or money.
Even though I uploaded using their non compressed option, the prints came out blurry, colour completely wrong, washed out and poor contrast.
These were only the standard 4x6 prints as well. Glad I didn’t both with anything bigger. Quite a few will be going to the bin cause it really is that bad.
What is really sad too is that it’s printed by fujifilm in their warehouse, not where you want to pick them up!
So angry at this.
Ive had usable results instore at knox. Where you sit at the terminal, edit, send to print and pick them up 5 meters away. Ive never ordered online because i dont trust my home monitor colors and brightness to match the print settings.
If printing for a purpose other than just personal stuff, it is basically essential to work with calibrated monitors, or have your images colour corrected at a lab. Otherwise (as I’m sure you know Sal) you are just guessing on the result. I’ll explain further if anyone needs it.
I did six months in a photo lab. This is pure crap. Two near identical photos. Both completely different.
I miss film.
I did six months in a photo lab. This is pure crap. Two near identical photos. Both completely different.I miss film.
So you feel that your calibrations and Harvey Norman’s would be similar somehow?
I did six months in a photo lab. This is pure crap. Two near identical photos. Both completely different.I miss film.
So you feel that your calibrations and Harvey Norman’s would be similar somehow?
How about photo books? I have about 4000 photos sitting on my hard drive from the last holiday that I never printed, will have to be careful about what I do with them after reading the above story.
Have a bit of a lens question; I’m looking at getting the Sigma 17-50 2.8 as kit lens upgrade. I’ve seen Sigma also have a 18-35 1.8 which also sounds tempting. Am favouring the former at this point as the extra zoom might be a bit more versatile for a holiday. Though I question whether it be worth say, buying the 18-35 instead in addition to a 50mm 1.8? I suppose this is subjective, but thought I might canvas a few opinions. How well will a 2.8 work at night or indoors? The 50mm price means I’ll probably buy one just for the hell of it at some point anyway.
Modern socialising…
No one talks any more, do they? head buried in phones/ipads whatever.
I did six months in a photo lab. This is pure crap. Two near identical photos. Both completely different.I miss film.
So you feel that your calibrations and Harvey Norman’s would be similar somehow?
How about photo books? I have about 4000 photos sitting on my hard drive from the last holiday that I never printed, will have to be careful about what I do with them after reading the above story.
Have a bit of a lens question; I’m looking at getting the Sigma 17-50 2.8 as kit lens upgrade. I’ve seen Sigma also have a 18-35 1.8 which also sounds tempting. Am favouring the former at this point as the extra zoom might be a bit more versatile for a holiday. Though I question whether it be worth say, buying the 18-35 instead in addition to a 50mm 1.8? I suppose this is subjective, but thought I might canvas a few opinions. How well will a 2.8 work at night or indoors? The 50mm price means I’ll probably buy one just for the hell of it at some point anyway.
crikey! the 18-35 is a serious piece of gear, is quite big and heavy. optically is reportedly outstanding, price tag is not insignificant. 35mm is perhaps a bit short for portraits unless they be full bodied or “environmental” / documentary. the 1.8 will let in stacks of light, so yeah night shots / indoor handheld becomes more viable.
the 17-50 2.8 is a good lens. it’ll let in more light than your kit lens. it’s half the price of the 18-35 and unless you really have specific needs is probably a far better bet for casual photographers. the 50mm is better for portraits, the 2.8 will allow some blurring of backgrounds. As a one-lens-for-all adventure use, this is a better option. It has one final big advantage - optical stabilisation. on your nikon body, this is an advantage because it reduces camera shake and means that the f2.8 indoors isn’t at such a big disadvantage compared to the 1.8 .
But - don’t you hate "but"s? - a curve ball. for a holiday, if you plan to get a cheap 50mm 1.8 anyway, and you are thinking about a one-lens option that can do wide and long(ish) then why not look at the sigma 17-70 f/2.8-4.0 ? It also is optically stabilised and is still way cheaper than the 18-35. Purely my opinion, but i think the 50mm prime can do the really low light stuff / shallow DOF and the 17-70 is no slouch at either end either.
one further thought on a related note (but not really relevant to BG’s circumstances) : if i decide to drop around 1k on a sigma lens atm, with the Pentax Full Frame almost ready for release, I’m buying the 35mm 1.4 without hesitation.
Thanks for the advice Sal, much appreciated. I like the idea of constant 2.8, so think i’ll go with the 17-50. I did actually consider the 17-70, however I haven’t found more zoom to be a huge necessity at this stage for my mucking around purposes. I’ll see how I go 
I did six months in a photo lab. This is pure crap. Two near identical photos. Both completely different.I miss film.
So you feel that your calibrations and Harvey Norman’s would be similar somehow?
1 - How about photo books? I have about 4000 photos sitting on my hard drive from the last holiday that I never printed, will have to be careful about what I do with them after reading the above story.
2- Have a bit of a lens question; I’m looking at getting the Sigma 17-50 2.8 as kit lens upgrade. I’ve seen Sigma also have a 18-35 1.8 which also sounds tempting. Am favouring the former at this point as the extra zoom might be a bit more versatile for a holiday. Though I question whether it be worth say, buying the 18-35 instead in addition to a 50mm 1.8? I suppose this is subjective, but thought I might canvas a few opinions. 3 - How well will a 2.8 work at night or indoors? The 50mm price means I’ll probably buy one just for the hell of it at some point anyway.
Most of these questions don’t have black 'n white answers (pun semi-intended) and have a bit to do with personal preference and personal experience.
1 - BG - to some this is pretty obvious, but to others it is a revelation. And pretty simple: what you see on your screen, be it a phone, tablet, laptop, CRT or LCD, IPS or TFN, or even projector - is subjective. Every screen everywhere is displaying a certain level of brightness, contrast and chroma (colour). And depending on what angle it is viewed at can change those apparent characteristics. So what you are looking at right now is either a set of parameters your ‘computer’ is telling the screen to display - or (as is more often the case) a default setting built into the unit by the manufacturers. There are many types of screens with varying characteristics. There are screens with more limitations than others, when it comes to the visible spectrum - the ones mentioned above.
So - given this information, why would anyone consider that the screen (or image) they are looking at, looks the same on someone else’s screen? The answer is - well, either because they haven’t really thought about it, or - they know that they are looking at the same parameters that someone else is looking at. That is called ‘monitor calibration’. Without this knowledge, one may very well take a photo, import to their computer, play around with it - perhaps make it look just how they like it - then trundle off to Harvey Norman or somewhere similar that is not geared up to correct they image for you, print it - and there you go - surprise! It looks like ■■■■. Are HN to blame? Not necessarily. But maybe.
How do you calibrate a monitor?
Well, there are several methods. The cheap, not-very-reliable-but-better-than-nothing method is to use an online, browser-based calibration routine. Something like this http://www.lagom.nl/lcd-test
Better than nothing. Can you tell why it is not exactly foolproof? I’ll tell you anyway - because it is, once again, subjective. You are setting parameters based on what you perceive, not necessarily by what ‘is’. But - better than nothing.
The other way is to use specialised hardware for calibration. This is what professionals who rely on their images to be printed exactly as they see them on their screens use. Or should use, anyway. A specialised device is basically like a camera coupled with a software program, that literally measures the output from your screen as it goes through its routine, and when it is done, it compiles a set of parameters in a readable file. This file can then be read by the computer/monitor/editing software/printing software/printer so that everyone in the chain is speaking the same language - the same parameters. Now it is objective, instead of subjective.
There is a third way. You can use a professional lab to colour correct your images for you before printing. The downside is - you only get to see the result after printing.
Combined with the above, there is the matter of monitors and screens themselves. They are not all made equal. All cameras will take a picture. Not all screens will display what you saw. It’s something that you can research if interested, but it is not ‘necessary’ for you right now (I’m guessing). Hope that gives you some info on the matter. It applies equally, of course, on whether you are printing 5"7"s, billboards, or photo books.
2 - Lens choice is (or at least - should always be) a matter of requirement, be it personal or professional. It is easy to get caught up in hype, or the love of tech - but it’s an expensive game. For me, lenses are tools. I buy and use the ones I need. As an enthusiast, it is great to be able to have a bit of a range in your arsenal - something to experiment with, and experience. I would consider a wide zoom, a medium telephoto, a macro and a prime as basic tools in the kit. That doesn’t necessarily mean 4 lenses - the macro feature can be coupled with a telephoto or prime. I can’t remember what you shoot with - if it is a full frame body, then what I would consider a nice basic kit would be a 24-70mm, a 70-200mm, and a 100mm macro. I shoot with Canon, but there are equivalents in all brands.
When it comes to 3rd party lenses, I have had better luck with Tamron than Sigma. That is purely personal experience. a 17-50mm wide zoom on a ‘crop sensor’ body is (for all intents and purposes, and a complex subject in itself) equal to a 24-70mm on a full-frame. A very quick definition - ‘full-frame’ is 35mm sensor, based on 35mm film size. ‘Crop-sensor’ is smaller - which gives you a tighter (apparent) FOV (field of view).
With regards to the 50mm prime - always ok to play around with a cheap prime in my opinion. My advice is - buy used. You will lose a lot less when you want to sell it again
3 - Indoor and night photography. A whole different kettle of fish.
I think that one needs a segment on its own, if you’re really interested
Sorry if that’s a bit wordy. I’m not always glib 
Just went to say that myself.Photoshop has the function to show different paper types matte glossy satin as one of it’s functions .Also all screens are back lit …printed media is reflected so even a properly monitored screen will appear different if the light on the room is fluorescent ,incandescent or even daylight. Cropped sensors on canon equal 1.6 ratio usually 24-16 mm full frame 35-24 approximately double the size.
I did six months in a photo lab. This is pure crap. Two near identical photos. Both completely different.I miss film.
So you feel that your calibrations and Harvey Norman’s would be similar somehow?
Not mine, but I know our teacher in the factory lab was very much a perfectionist. It’s not a case of load file and print in these automatic machines. You can calibrate it to the nth degree. Even when topping up chemicals to the machine, do you measure the exact 15ml or are you happy it’s slightly above or under and to hell with it, did you shake the additive as per the instructions for 2 minutes or for 30 seconds?
But just imagine for a second your looking at a photo of a face, then imagine that they were a geisha in white face and then her face comes out brown in printing. Then the next photo same person, lighting, camera settings and she’s now pink. I can take that colour configuration will be different depending on how you set up your screen but the flaws in this were ridiculous.
I still think the compression at their end when uploading photos didn’t help (4.22GB is the original value and internet usage says it’s no where near that on the day of uploading). The sky in some shots have banding. Normally a sign of compression.
If I could show you I would.