Smoothjazz
Active member
Dan,
Love this perspective-
Was this shot with the 32mm HR?
Love this perspective-
Was this shot with the 32mm HR?
Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!
I think I might confuse you even more when I tell you I did not use any centre filter nor shot any LCC's for any of my images. Of course, I don't intend to make any money out of them, so I never was bothered, there are obviously lots of more demanding users who can only accept perfect images. I do run the files through the ALPA lens corrector to straighten things out before stitching, which does help a lot with straight lines, it's a piece of cake in Photoshop, not tedious at all. However, post-processing is required and often lots of it, but my feeling is it's got more to do with my digital back / shooting style than with the lens, I do a similar amount of post processing no matter which lens I use.Beano,
What is your take on using the 32HR lens? Many photographers here on the forum talk about issues with potential distortion, or unevenness when stitching, but then I see these great pristine images, that make me think that the lens really is capable of rendering some great landscapes without too much post-processing. I am intensely debating right now going with either the 32HR versus the 40HR lens.
I am thinking that I am leaning towards the 40HR at this time, so that I can avoid using a center filter, or even a LCC, and still stitch together some fine landscapes relatively seamlessly.
Great picture of one of our national landmarks It is one of the few buildings that has a company doing an active copyright infringement search for any use without payment :-(
70HR, Arca, IQ380
That's extraordinary. I'd be interested to understand the basis for their claims. That's a bit like saying "I designed my house so you must pay me for any photos of it, even though you stand in a public street to take the photo". Or am I missing something?Great picture of one of our national landmarks It is one of the few buildings that has a company doing an active copyright infringement search for any use without payment :-(
That building is payed with taxpayers money but the family Waterkeyn (the architect) receives hundreds of thousands of euros for any kind of use of any kind of image from the Atomium.
There are a surprisingly large number of sights that have copyright protection and licensing requirements. This is an interesting list but by no means comprehensive at all. Even things like the tree on the rock at Pebble Beach is theoretically off limits.Great picture of one of our national landmarks It is one of the few buildings that has a company doing an active copyright infringement search for any use without payment :-(
That building is payed with taxpayers money but the family Waterkeyn (the architect) receives hundreds of thousands of euros for any kind of use of any kind of image from the Atomium.
I would think that these all fall under commercial/editorial use of the images but not to the personal work that people show here. I agree with you that I would flagrantly ignore any of these 'restrictions'. The Eiffel Tower and London Eye and UK National Trust properties are a few of the locations where I've definitely run into the tripod police restricting what they consider "Commercial" shooting vs personal.recognizable car brands?
porche, flatiron bldg, rockefeller center? exterior of stock exchange?
i would venture to say these prohibitions get violated daily
makes me want to paraphrase Charlton Heston (of all people) "...my cold dead shutter finger"