Any photographers in the house?

Nice shot (unless you are Wild Bill).

Did you get shot?

The bag won't work out. My wonky collarbone is wonky and the strap sits right across it causing discomfort. Walking around Disney that way would be impossible. Back it goes unless someone wants to buy it. I don't expect BH will rescind me all the shipping and handling costs so I will lose some money on the deal.
I've ordered a Lowepro Flipside 300. Backpacks seem to be the only thing I can handle.

Hey guys, I figure this is a good place to ask for some opinions.

My wife and I don't use our Canon Rebel XSI, it barely gets any use. We'd be much happier with a transportable decent point-n-shoot. Zooming is unpossible with a 18-55mm lens.

I'm going to post it on Craigslist, but from the looks of it, $300 is a decent price for the camera. I also want to sell the Manfrotto 190xprob tripod we have with it, as well as a Lowepro Flipside 300 backpack. I'm thinking $450 for the package ($100 for the tripod and $50 for the backpack). Everything is in great to like new condition.

Sound like a fair price?


well it's going to cost me 30 dollars to ship the slingshot back so now I have it up for sale if anybody is interested.
Canadians will benefit most from this as the case sells for over $100 in our shops. I'll sell it for $'s brand new and had never seen the outdoors.
I'll post it up on kijiji when I get back from DISNEY! in a week and a half.
Pm me if you are interested.
I got the flip back 300 and though is larger than I imagined I think it will do ok.

Slytin wrote:

Seems like a good price on everything except maybe the tripod that depends on what head is on it.
If it has a decent head on it thats a great price too.

It's the original/standard head on it, so maybe $80 for it? I assume if someone's interested on Craigslist they're going to try talking me down, so $400 for the bundle is probably where it will land.

Thanks for the info Slytin!

@Groan - the Flipside 300 is a great backpack! A little slow to grab your camera out of, since, you know, you NEED to take it off. But it's pretty secure and it should keep your camera pretty well protected as well

Ya, it will do. At least I don't have to take it off and put it on a table in order to get stuff out of it. Do up the belt and rotate it to the front. It's pretty handy but will look dorky if I actually have to do that.

groan wrote:

Ya, it will do. At least I don't have to take it off and put it on a table in order to get stuff out of it. Do up the belt and rotate it to the front. It's pretty handy but will look dorky if I actually have to do that.

Have someone take pictures, please.

Hey look! I bought yet another bag!

God, that's 3 bags in under a month. I'm sick i tells ya!

This will be my day-bag

It's basically what I wanted to buy in the beginning. I'll bring the backpack with everything in it and use the daybag for park days or walkabouts.

So I may sell the Flipside too when i get back. What a pain in the keister.

That watermark is really distracting.

Funny... I thought the image was.

I think its pulls from your photos in a negative way is all.

I think the idea was supposed to be that when displaying your work online, the goal is to have the photo be as minimally altered while protecting yourself against unauthorized use by someone else. So if you use a watermark, the idea is to make it somewhat unobtrusive while still in a spot that can't easily be cropped out. There's no one way to handle it, though.

Yes, you want the photo watermarked in such a way as for it not to be able to be cropped out, but you also want it to not detract from the photo itself. That watermark succeeds in the first respect but fails in the second. The easiest way to fix it is to increase the transparency of the mark, even just slightly.

The sunrise/sunset one sure turned out well.

Choosing how dominant the watermark appears is certainly a personal choice. It's come up frequently on some of the podcasts about photography I listen to (e.g. This Week in Photo aka TWIP)

Personally I'm not trying profit from my work (and frankly don't expect I could ) so I choose to let the photo hold up by itself. Keep in mind for instance that the versions you are posting here are relatively small scale and might already not be suitable for more high end uses (such as magazines or large posters) so that is already a bit of deterrent.

Also while I'm not lawyer, if you are sincerely concerned make sure you really are following up the copyright by registering it. It'll give you much more clarity in a court.

All that aside I particularly like the last image of the set. The trees do a nice job framing within the frame. (and like it or not I agree that the watermark is effective in distracting a bit from the image)

Here's one of the shows on copyright (caution: really boring compared to most of the shows):

I just find my eye immediately drawn to large watermarks in the center of the image, pulling me away from what was trying to be captured. But if you've been ripped off, I can understand your usage.

Slytin wrote:

Right but any lighter and my watermark wont show on bright photos. Yes the water mark stands out more because they are mostly dark/night photos. In no way do I think this watermark takes away from the photo more than needed to keep thiefs at bay.

Sometimes you just have to adjust the transparency on a pic-by-pic basis. Some may require a more prominent, opaque mark for it to be effective, some may allow for a higher transparency. To take the pictures in this post for an example, I think the first of the truck has the right level of transparency, though it could probably be adjusted a teensy bit further down. The second and third pictures I actually think could stand for the mark to be more opaque (as it stands now, it's difficult to read some of the letters).

It really depends on how much you want to share and show as opposed to monetise your photos. If you want to monetise them, mark the hell out of them... but bear in mind a lot of people will not enjoy them as much as unmarked or very mildly marked photos.

Personally, I thought you were an obnoxious asshole to Richy for no good reason and even when you realised he may have had a point and changed things you didn't retract or apologise. Bearing in mind this is a friendly thread where mostly amateurs are posting for feedback and props.

Slytin wrote:

Funny how trolls go out of their way to troll.
Must be a slow day for you. I'll just move along you can have you forums.

Richy is a quality photographer and has contributed to this thread multiple times. And GWJ is usually above calling out folks for trolling unless it's especially egregious. His responses seem level and genuine critiques. The remark about the purpose of the photo was a little snarky, but ultimately not deserving of the response you gave.

You have a good eye for photography and want to protect your work. All that's needed is that simple explanation.








Took these photos saturday.