Page 2 of 2
Posted: 7/3/2006, 5:10 pm
by Hope
yeaaa ive been meaning to get a flickr account for quite a bit now. although i already have accounts to a billion other photo sharing/uploading sites. i'm trying to keep track of all of them.
i also use buzznet.
www.buzznet.com
Posted: 7/3/2006, 5:47 pm
by Joe Cooler
Toss all your other accounts and move your photo's to flickr. You won't regret it.
Posted: 7/3/2006, 8:13 pm
by afealicious
thirdhour wrote:polaroids are expensive. no matter where you find the film, its going to cost you at least a buck a shot. me and a friend did our last year of high school in polaroids. cost us harshly, but it was so much fun and they look awesome.
okayyy. so i think i want to get the Polaroid camera after all. *deep intake of breath*
so who knows places that sell Polaroid 600 or 779 film? that would be much appreciated. because i haven't seen it anywhere, and for this to work, well, i need film.
Posted: 7/4/2006, 9:10 am
by afealicious
i'm not getting a Polaroid camera after all! you know why?
that's why.
lomography holy crap awesome.
click
here for more information.
Posted: 7/4/2006, 4:17 pm
by Hope
... wow.
Posted: 7/4/2006, 8:22 pm
by Joe Cooler
Deadly. I've thought about buying a Holga actually. Lomograph's are charming to say the least.
Posted: 7/27/2006, 2:56 am
by Hope
question for flickr people:
i reached 100% of my 20mb, so i deleted a photo to try to make more "room" for another photo instead... so why does it say that i've still reached my maximum? i can't upload any more!
Posted: 7/27/2006, 5:39 am
by Random Name
I think it goes by bandwith used not the amount of photos.
or something.
maybe.
Just wait for Augest or get another account.
Posted: 7/27/2006, 7:14 am
by Joe Cooler
Sarah is right, it goes by bandwidth not photos. At the end of the month it will give you 20mb's again.
Posted: 8/13/2006, 3:18 pm
by Hope
um. i figure people who take photos are also the people who are likely to use photoshop/whatnot. my question is, how does "photoshop elements" compare to the actual photoshop? is it really worth getting all the bells and whistles? i'd like to purchase one because i'm sick of downloading, but photoshop tends to be freakin expensive... as listed in the Adobe website, anyway.
my favourite photos of the moment:
http://wvs.topleftpixel.com/archives/ph ... 1595.shtml
http://wvs.topleftpixel.com/archives/ph ... 1348.shtml
Posted: 8/13/2006, 4:04 pm
by Joe Cooler
That second image is incredible. Anyway, about photoshop. Elements should suffice if you just want to do simple editing. From what I understand, you still have control over stuff like curves, hue-saturation, channels, ect so its definetely helpful and I know you can produce good images with it. However, it is definetely aimed at "the family" so its filled with cheesy features you'll probably never use. Despite that, I'd say its worth the purchase, especially if you just want to edit photos with it.
Posted: 9/4/2006, 2:56 pm
by Hope
so um, my dad got me a film slr. eeeee.
http://www.rokkorfiles.com/XD11.html
Posted: 9/4/2006, 4:46 pm
by Random Name
afealicious wrote:i'm not getting a Polaroid camera after all! you know why?
that's why.
lomography holy crap awesome.
click
here for more information.
So...I'm not sure why I've never noticed this before now...but my dad has had that camera for a while. Its pretty entertaining. Its difficult to get something that would make a good subject because you have to be fairly close to the subject and they have to be doing something that would have enough movement to be noticed in all four. Otherwise it just turns out silly.
I took a bunch of pictures when in greece with that one. I'll share with you guys when I get them from my dad just so you can see what its like.
Its a really fun camera for silly fun things but dont get it as your only camera. that would not be enjoyable.
Posted: 9/5/2006, 9:40 pm
by afealicious
Random Name wrote:Its a really fun camera for silly fun things but dont get it as your only camera. that would not be enjoyable.
heh, definitely. it's a camera for shitting around with. the lomo <i>Supersampler</i> however produces GREAT pictures (for a toy camera), based on what i've seen on Flickr. much better than the actionsampler. i wish i'd been able to get my hands on that instead.
example:
awesome or what.
Posted: 9/6/2006, 6:38 pm
by Hope
thats pretty awesome.
Posted: 9/7/2006, 5:01 pm
by Joe Cooler
I love the lomo look. High saturation+high contrast+vignette= awesome. Also, I love that minolta.
Posted: 9/8/2006, 7:10 pm
by afealicious
Joe Cooler wrote:High saturation+high contrast+vignette= awesome.
mine doesn't seem to give me lots of that. maybe i'm using the wrong film--expired film is supposed to have interesting effects, as is cross-processing.