Barry Beckham

Flickr has been sold, that’s why it’s getting a shot of life

I don’t know you that well, but you seem to get around the world quite a bit and if your posting 10,000 images on Flickr, here is my suggestion If there was a comparable free option out there, you would probably already have knowledge about it. However, nothing is free, someone is paying somewhere. So, it’s either advertisers as on YouTube or a subscription. I’m sure there is a free to the user option out there somewhere, but then I’m not looking

We went out for an unplanned lunch yesterday, very modest at a local tavern. A couple of beers and two quite cheap meals, yet I spent more than the annual cost of Flickr. I think we have to put these costs in context and when you do, it’s not a bad deal in my view

I've just signed up for the pro account. I actually don't think $50 a year is unreasonable given the service provided. Unlimited storage, so you get a backup as well as a display option and it's all so easy to upload and get images published. They look well presented too. I know we would always prefer free, but given the interest and purpose that photography gives me. I think it's a small price to pay. The Pro is Add free and with 10 minute videos allowed early in 2019. So, I can upload a lot of my videos that are under 10 minutes up there too.

Thank you for your support. It's a shame when you see a really great image spoilt for lack of a little knowledge. Everyone has to start somewhere for sure. We don't all start off expert, but month in month out the same errors crop up and the judges raise much the same comments. Yet, a brief look into the meta data often tells all you need to know. There are a few who would consider themselves expert who, as you say get a result despite the illogical settings, then so have I at times, if I'm honest I think many are suckered into looking for that secret sauce thinking the purchase of some wiz bang presets is all they need, or some secret exposure value.

No, those values didn’t relate to the image shown, and I thought I did mention that in the video. I used real examples of the settings, but it would be wrong to show other people’s images, even if they gave consent, especially when I’m saying the settings are illogical. However, I have to have something on screen at times Your right, there is no earthy need for a shutter speed of 2500 in the conditions I described, which the whole point I was trying to make. The image was a real good one, but had easily avoidable visual faults and not in a positive way and it isn’t an isolated example. If the person who used that 2500th of a second was jolting along in a 4 WD, then that may be an isolated exception, but the point of the article is these illogical settings are common, even from those who are not beginners. Now, I’m sure I don’t have to preface every sentence I write or every thing I say with: Although there may be isolated cases when these settings are right..........etc. I am trying to make a point and when we do that, there will always be isolated cases that buck the point, but in normal average conditions they are not right. I am saying to amateurs, particularly club photographers that here is something worth more attention, because it’s the cause of most, not all, but most of your visual and quality issues.

Open Pdf HERE NB. The Perspective Panning Video is different from the one already posted on this forum. I decided to revisit the technique in full HD resolution. There is also a slide style included too, but as the video explains, it can't be right in all situations because every image is unique. It could be used as a tester for the technique though

Go to Slide Styles > Basic > Album That is the style featured in the wedding demo between 0:59 and 1:10

Mur This is an interesting concept and I have been working on this idea too. Using Photoshop and the brushes it offers. I have used Camtasia to record a screen video, but I didn't like the brush being seen in the video and also in PTE. Especially if you use one of the dry brush effect with a large brush. One way to get around that is to go into Photoshop preferences and set the painting cursors to precise. That reduces them to a small crosshair icon and then a slight blur of the video mask in PTE seems to be enough to hide the brush. But, I'm finding it hard to come up with something that is good enough to keep and perhaps assign to a slide style, but it's good fun A short Mp4 demo HERE

Thanks Igor, at least i've learned something. It seems that I reached the performance limit of this PC, one that I have been thinking of upgrading, because the same files work OK on my W10 computer with a later graphics card.

My PC is getting on a bit and has a Nvidia card with 2 gig of ram. The issue started when I recreated the perspective panning technique with an image 6000* 4000. The png part would not display in the O&A screen, but I overcame that by just reducing the resolution of that image by half. You don’t really need those 6000 pixels for the technique to work, so reducing to 3000 isn’t a great issue. The only reason it came up is that in the past I have always been on top of image size all the time, but now with Mp4 and 60p, my Way of working is evolving. When saving a png file there are three options in Photoshop, but whatever option you choose, small, medium or large. The file size for each is hardly much different, although I only tried it with one image. The save process for a png file takes considerably longer than for other file types, so it’s clear something is different with these files. I don’t now have a project that shows the issue, because I was just running through the procedure to familiarise myself with the technique and I suspect if I tried the same thing on my newer PC it would be fine. I just wondered why a picture with half the pixels on it, causes such a drain on the system. I wouldn’t worry about it Igor, it’s not an important issue for me, just interested that’s all

Igor Are you able to tell me why Png files appear to be such a drain on computer power. I tried Googling this, but too much dross to filter through. Recently an acquaintance had Png files not being displayed in PTE and that was a PC recourse issue. In the past few days looking at that Perspective Panning technique again, I have found the same thing. In the O&A screen the png will not always display. Especially if its used at 6000px on the long side. I had to close and open and fiddle a bit to see what I was doing. Now I am having to drop the size to 3000px, which still works fine, but I just wondered what it is about Png files that seem to put such a drain on PC power

This is issue is now solved. I never thought of locked tracks as I never use them personally

Remove it and steer users towards Mp4 is my view. It’s had its day and it’s time to let it go.

Thanks Igor I'll pass a link to this forum and page to the PTE user who can those options. I know he has reinstalled, but maybe he imported settings

Can any technical guys make any suggestions with this issue that was sent to me by a PTE user today. On working on a new sequence I seem to have a couple of strange problems. 1. In the timeline I am unable to move the audio files with the mouse unless I hold the Shift or Ctrl keys down. 2. I cannot adjust the fade bars over the slides unless I do the same as above. 3. I am unable to lock the audio tracks even if I click Lock This Track or Lock All tracks. I can of course carry on with my project by doing the above but it is a bit annoying. I wondered if you have any ideas about this please. I think it is a computer problem and not a EXE one but you will know better than me. A re-install of PTE has been tried and a check of settings in Windows Control panel Any suggestions

I have one already done, I thought the demo I posted linked to it. Igor the examples were very good and they inspire another go at this, particularly as Photoshop selections are getting better and better. Should make the idea easier to achieve

Igor Posted the idea back in PTE-7 days and I made the one below Demo

It looks to me that the show has been made at 3:2 aspect ratio with varying degrees of zoom size that will be restricted to the 3:2 format and play ok at 3:2. As soon as the aspect ratio in PTE is changed to 16:9, the images made for 3:2 are not going magically all fit the 16:9. That’s why some do and some don’t. None of your images would be any problem in a 16:9 show and that is what needs to be done. Each image needs to be revisited and adjusted in the Object and Animation screen to fit the new format of 16:9. in a world where practically every display is 16:9, it seems to me to be one time when it’s right to follow the crowd.

I am glad this has started some debate, because when I sat at my keyboard to make some notes for a future video, I came to an abrupt stop. It’s not easy to define what slide styles are in a way that encourages, and doesn’t sound so complex it turns people off. It reminded me of the old format or aspect ratio issue, where to try and educate anyone on the pros and cons. It soon became so tied up in so many different issues. You could have some sympathy with the person who first asked the question who was quickly losing the will to live. Personally I like Lin’s definition, which sums up slide styles pretty well, but then wide angle’s view about adding merits and advantages later. In an odd sort of way, it says a lot about slide styles that there is so much to them. Hard to explain, but the reasons are positive

Imagine your talking to a newer user of PTE or even a potential customer. If you had to sum up in a sentence (or two) what slide styles are. How would you describe them so the they could easily be understood? Anyone fancy giving it a go

I think the idea is great and very well done, but your enthusiasm for PTE may be causing you to hit the viewer with a little too much information. IMHO With the hand moving I'm drawn to that, so other things happening elsewhere on the screen are a little lost. Great idea, but I think it needs to be a little simpler.

Maybe it is illogical, but when I make a suggestion, I do it from a practical users point of view. Meaning its an issue that I have to deal with time and time again. It can always be argued that the problem is caused by my way of working, but I do make smaller images very often and whether it’s illogical or not, I would like those images when dropped into O&A to retain their 100% size. If it’s possible and practical to do within the software. Many use PTE for projected image competitions and here is another time where I have to check every image to make sure the author didn’t put in a smaller image than 1920*1080 and the software expands it up to a larger size then it should be. It would serve no purpose if larger images did the same, as I would still have to go in and adjust them too. Perhaps it could be a preference.

I have raised this before, but perhaps I can suggest it again. If an image is viewed in the O&A screen and that image is larger than the slide show being made. It seems logical to me that it would fill the screen at least up to where either the top or the sides of the image touch the slide show boundary edge. (Depends on AR) However, when I want to use a smaller image than the slide show I am making, I find it annoying that every image is expanded up to the size of the slide show and I have to adjust each one back to its original size. I would really like any image I use that is less than the slide show resolution to display at the right size.

Done that and reinstalled Bridge. Been onto Adobe Help and it’s known, they are working on it