Quote from: donding on May 27, 2010, 14:18

Quote from: donding on May 25, 2010, 16:00

Quote from: sc on May 25, 2010, 14:50

Haven't had time to look but try
http://www.keh.com/

Heh thanks...I booked marked that page!! They seem to have really good prices.

BTW thanks sc, this is a great site. Cheeper than e-bay and a huge selection. Ended up getting a used 105mm f2.8 in E+ condition for 525.00 and a 50mm f1.8 in E+ condition for 109.00. Thanks alot for the link.

Keh is a reputable dealer and you'll find good things there. I have done much business with them over the years.

You can't beat those prices. I've got to send them my 18-200 lens for repair also. After what you said I have no worries now. It's been no good for over 6 months now and I've hesitated to mail it to any repair shop not knowing who or how they are, but you just relieved my worries. Thanks

Quote from: Fred on May 27, 2010, 18:32

Best Nikon lens testing site I have found:

http://www.naturfotograf.com/index2.html

c h e e r s
fred

Hey Fred,
Try kenrockwell.com

This site is good too...and best of all most of the lens were tested on a D200
http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/overview#nikon_aps

I had to use your link to look up my Samsung 245Ts - it says "24"WS Samsung S-PVA (LTM240CS07)"

I think calibrating your monitor acurately (i.e. with hardware support, not just eyeballing it) is more important than what type of technology the LCD uses - at least for the vast majority of us.

I agree 100% on that. One of my monitors came with calibrating software, but really isn't what you need. You really need the hardware monitor for it to be accurate. I use Huey and it's alright...not the greatest, but it's alright.

Here's a link that gives advice on what type of monitor is best for photography;

http://mansurovs.com/best-monitor-for-photography

My understanding...IPS is the best for photographers, then TN and lastely MVA. IPS and MVA are recommended for photographers for the true color display. Of course IPS is also much more expensive than it's TN counterpart.

Oh and BTW I think mine is a MVA...it's to old to be a TN

Quote from: donding on May 27, 2010, 10:22

Go and deactivate....DELETE???...your account then sign back in and it will automatically reactivate just by you signing in. You can not delete it unless there is a button besides deactivate that I could not find. Try it and you will discover that it will reactivate it just by signing in, you don't have to go to your account setting to do it..it does it for you.

https://ssl.facebook.com/help/contact.php?show_form=delete_account&__a=3

Help me out here...maybe I'm just down right stupid, but I deactivated my account and when I click on that link, it takes me to the sign on page. When you enter you name and password it takes you to your account which is then reactivated with all the information still present. If it was deleted then I should not have been able to sign in. It should have shown no account found.

Go and deactivate....DELETE???...your account then sign back in and it will automatically reactivate just by you signing in. You can not delete it unless there is a button besides deactivate that I could not find. Try it and you will discover that it will reactivate it just by signing in, you don't have to go to your account setting to do it..it does it for you.

Quote from: sharpshot on May 26, 2010, 17:15

What was so difficult about upsizing?  It takes me about 3 seconds.  If it was putting people off uploading, that was probably a good thing.  They allready have 19 million images.  I just wish they had started a microstock collection, separate from the macro images, looks like it is too late now.

For me, it wasn't so much the time of upsizing, I also use an action for that. It's the whole new workflow and the taking of yet more space on my hard drives.

I may start uploading again too!

The hard drive issue is mine also...it was always more hassle than it was worth.

I've never thought that or ever gave it any thought, but I could see how some people would see it that way....but heh, maybe with Dreamframer your pictures will pop up more on searchs with Google for Dreamstime..."Dream On"

Quote from: madelaide on May 25, 2010, 19:56

But what puzzles me is that FB doesn't have my main email address, to which this spam was sent.

These sites and especially FB have a very sneaky way of doing it. If somebody on your (main) email signs up, FB asks if they want to invite more "friends". FB then asks their email password (for instance on Yahoo) and it explores everybody in their address book and even who sent them email. FB stores these addresses to build a network, and you might be amazed how many people there might be in there you'd rather avoid. FB just doesn't care about any privacy. They want your real name and it's almost impossible to cancel your account.

For Zuckerberg, the boss of FB, his users are "dumb f@cks". Here is a chat session of Zuckerberg with a friend, that asked him how he had so much info about his (then 4000) users. (source Business Insider - FB didn't deny the authenticity)

Quote

Zuck: Yeah so if you ever need info about anyone at Harvard
Zuck: Just ask.
Zuck: I have over 4,000 emails, pictures, addresses, SMS
Vriend: What? How'd you manage that one?
Zuck: People just submitted it.
Zuck: I don't know why.
Zuck: They "trust me"
Zuck: Dumb f@cks.

10 Reasons To Delete Your Facebook Account (Business Insider)
Thanks to this article, I found the very well hidden link to delete my FB account, not just "deactivate" it.

Very interesting reading but I found it ironic that at the bottom of the piece was an ad for facebook...

I just opened up an account about two weeks ago and it did kinda freak me out when I saw all the names of my relatives!!

Haven't had time to look but try
http://www.keh.com/

Heh thanks...I booked marked that page!! They seem to have really good prices.

I had the older 105mm f/2.8 on a D300 and it's unbelievably sharp. it's mostly metal and built like a tank. Pretty outdated but a great lens.

If you really want to do macro I'd stick with the 105mm. At 60mm you need to get very close to subjects which can start interfering with lighting.

That's my concern with the 60mm. I don't want to have to worry about a lens affecting the lighting. The 105mm sounds like a better all around lens. I want the sharpness also, which from everything I've read, it is a very sharp lens.