Nudes A Poppin (NAP) 2012

[lilslip33]

Originally Posted by flanker7

I'm actually using Bulk Image Downloader, which makes grabbing a whole flickr set a one-click operation (pun intended). From there it's just sorting. For the past few months flickr wasn't allowing me to do that, but it looks like the newest BID update is now flickr-friendly again. There's also the added bonus of automatically naming the files as the uploader originally named them, so in this instance it tags and gives credit to the flickr user, instead of using flickr's generic "_o" naming system.

I can continue to grab files (from this poster and others) a few hundred pics at a time no problem, as they get uploaded.

For BID, did you buy the $24.95 software? I saw theres a free trial, but how long does it last.

[flanker7]

Originally Posted by lilslip33

For BID, did you buy the $24.95 software? I saw theres a free trial, but how long does it last.

I bought it a few years ago, and then it's like ten bucks a year to keep it updated. I hate paying for software like this, but when you think about it, how many hours have I spent downloading huge galleries one photo at a time? It definitely doesn't work with all galleries, though, so it's not a magic bullet. But just using it for flickr can be a huge time-saver.

On the other hand, I don't really use it that often. I mean, how often do you really want an entire gallery? With, say, a Fremont gallery, I really only want a dozen or so photos of my favorite girls, and can leave the rest. It would be completely defeating the purpose to download the entire gallery to my hd, and then have to sort through them to save just the ones I want, because what's the point of a ton of unwanted photos clogging up my hd. It really wouldn't save any time or effort.

Also, another potential problem: I noticed that the number of photos downloaded doesn't always match the number in the flickr gallery. However, I THINK this might be because it grabs them by original filename (not the flickr "_o" names), and it won't download dupes. I've noticed a lot of flickr users who upload big galleries inadvertently upload big batches of duplicates, so that could be it. However, I'm still trying to figure it out. It's not like I want to use software to download 1,000 pics, then spend hours trying to cross-reference and figure out which pics are missing. THAT would be annoying.

[lilslip33]

Originally Posted by flanker7

I bought it a few years ago, and then it's like ten bucks a year to keep it updated. I hate paying for software like this, but when you think about it, how many hours have I spent downloading huge galleries one photo at a time? It definitely doesn't work with all galleries, though, so it's not a magic bullet. But just using it for flickr can be a huge time-saver.

On the other hand, I don't really use it that often. I mean, how often do you really want an entire gallery? With, say, a Fremont gallery, I really only want a dozen or so photos of my favorite girls, and can leave the rest. It would be completely defeating the purpose to download the entire gallery to my hd, and then have to sort through them to save just the ones I want, because what's the point of a ton of unwanted photos clogging up my hd. It really wouldn't save any time or effort.

Also, another potential problem: I noticed that the number of photos downloaded doesn't always match the number in the flickr gallery. However, I THINK this might be because it grabs them by original filename (not the flickr "_o" names), and it won't download dupes. I've noticed a lot of flickr users who upload big galleries inadvertently upload big batches of duplicates, so that could be it. However, I'm still trying to figure it out. It's not like I want to use software to download 1,000 pics, then spend hours trying to cross-reference and figure out which pics are missing. THAT would be annoying.

I've tried different things and its very had to download entire flickr albums. I wish "download them all" worked on downloading entire flickr albums. I've tried "DownFlickr" on Chrome but it didnt work. Now I'm using "Easy Flickr Download" userscripts.org/scripts/show/116629 (for Greasemonkey) in conjugation with download them all. With this method, you open the pictures you want in a series of tabs. So if its a big album its annoying but I rarely download entire albums. I haven't had a problem with duplicates or not downloading the total number with that method

[majify]

Originally Posted by AZZO45

Even on a cloudy day do you really need a flash?

A monopod & the natural light seem like they could deliver quality images?? I'm asking because I've held off on a flash for my camera set ups.

IRL I am a photographer. A flash could be useful at events like NAP, both cloudy and bright days. Cloudy days will have bright white skies, cloudless days will have bright white concrete. A strobe would allow the photographer to adequately expose the subject (in this case the dancers) and not blow out the background. I can't imagine the spectators would care much for a big reflector blocking the view - a strobe is a happy medium.

They could also help with cameras lacking spot meters, where exposure is based on the scene as a whole. A backlit model will be underexposed by an automatic camera using full frame metering.

My .02.

[rumfungle]

I figured there HAD to be a forum somewhere that people were talking and posting about the event. It was my first time there but I have been wanting to go for many years.

Most interesting observation: I've never been at a large event that had so many NICE people. Even security was all friendly.

I'll post some of what I saw when I can. Thanks to the others who posted to show some of what i missed!

-r

[tequilasundae]

the problem i was having sunday is that if a girl had nothing but the gray sky behind her, the pic didn't turn out. She would kind of melt into it. Also, did anyone like #4 as much as i did..wow

[majify]

Originally Posted by tequilasundae

the problem i was having sunday is that if a girl had nothing but the gray sky behind her, the pic didn't turn out.

That's exactly right. A cloudy sky background is a big diffuse light source to throw off the metering. You need more exposure on the model than most auto exposure cameras will provide. And had you been able to for example force a brighter exposure (slower shutter, wider aperture, higher ISO), that gray sky would end very bright, potentially blown out.

Even if you had a spot meter (so you could expose for the model rather than the scene as a whole), you'd have to live with either an overly bright background, an overly dark foreground, or you have to add light.

In that situation, you did the right thing using a flash IMO. Unfortunately built in strobes generally can't keep up as you noted.

Thanks for posting.

[mow0218]

Originally Posted by flanker7

Maybe he's using a point & shoot? You're right that a DSLR should deliver great pics as long as you slow down the shutter speed a bit.

I've been to a dozen or so of the NAP's & shot it in film and VHS. A good "Fill-Flash" will just provide you with a whole lot of really good images, rather than some under-exposed grainy disappointments. Too many time there is rain or clouds on Sunday, or you get under all the trees and it can get dark in there & the camera's light meter just get's fooled. Nice flash - all the time gets you many more memories. I've enclosed a couple of my no-flash disappointments from Naked City's Miss Universe pagents from the early eighties when I was shooting with 100 ASA Kodacolor film and NO-flash attachment. See how you get un-necessary shade where you don't need it and the image gets disappointing? ( She won that contest & was at others over @ Ponderosa that year & the next.) What a beauty - under-exposed. )

[herman1916]

I think this is Boot Camp Bunny

[Fango]

Re: the "downloading Flickr albums" discusson, I use a free program called "Downloadr": janten.com/downloadr/

Fango