GKPE 8, Yet more NZ ramblings from some flightless Kiwis.

Mark0159 wrote in post #17379169
very cool, nice and tack sharp.

what lenses did you use.

canon 70-200 F2.8 (the old one)

Here is the group

Moppie wrote in post #17378354
The store on Great North road has pretty good parking right out the front. It's never full.

fantastic will be the first try

I prefer to buy from progear when ever i can, fantastic shop and great staff! always fear going in there as i want to spend money hahaha.
However I can only find the Spyder 4 at photo warehouse (from looking on websites)

Photo whorehouse the agents for datacolour, so the only retailer that stocks it.

Smurff wrote in post #17378295
Hey all,

Im going to buy a Datacolor Spyder4 Express, was going to buy the Pro, but don't think the extra $100 is worth it for me.
Has anyone used them before?
Also has anyone dealt much with photo warehouse as that's where i plan to buy it from? ( first time shopping there )

Cheers all

If you don't mind waiting a few weeks, they're cheaper from Amazon - you can get the Pro version for about what you'd pay for the Express version in New Zealand, including shipping.

kelstar wrote in post #17383215
If you don't mind waiting a few weeks, they're cheaper from Amazon - you can get the Pro version for about what you'd pay for the Express version in New Zealand, including shipping.

i had thought about that, have never used amazon and only bought cheap stuff on ebay. just wary of buying anything costly.

Did I just see a photo from Tony????
Like the first one!

Carterton Balloon photo's "released" A.K.A. blatent copyright theft
aside from the tragedy of the event, the coroners' now taking up copyright infringement. Hopefully someone will slap his hands.

I thought about that too. I would have thought the photographer case was clear cut. he's the owner of the photos and if he doesn't want them released then they should be released.

Perhaps someone thought of dragging it out so the photographer would quit because of the cost.

Plus I don't see any need to release the photos. to someone that didn't know anyone in the event and while it's a shame it happened, the photos don't provide any useful information.

Mark0159 wrote in post #17396463
I thought about that too. I would have thought the photographer case was clear cut. he's the owner of the photos and if he doesn't want them released then they should be released.

Perhaps someone thought of dragging it out so the photographer would quit because of the cost.

Plus I don't see any need to release the photos. to someone that didn't know anyone in the event and while it's a shame it happened, the photos don't provide any useful information.

2nd line Mark, I presume you mean should not be released. It became the third line when I posted

I suspect that TVNZ has taken the stance, the coroner has said the pics are released, therefore they have a right to publish.

I do believe the 'release' was only a step in the process, after release then normal steps to publishing should be applied. After all, publishing the pics by TVNZ is assisting their profits, therefore normal copyright rules should apply.

but from what I gathered from the photographer on the news last night is that he didn't want them published.

The coroner doesn't over write copyright laws I would have thought.

joeseph wrote in post #17395798
Carterton Balloon photo's "released" A.K.A. blatent copyright theft
aside from the tragedy of the event, the coroners' now taking up copyright infringement. Hopefully someone will slap his hands.

I wonder about the long term consequences of the coroners/court decisions. From what I've read the original intent of the photographer supplying the photos to the police/coroner was to assist them in working out what went on during such a horrible event, to assist in what can (if anything) be learnt to prevent such things from happening again. I read somewhere, that he had actually deleted the photos off the camera after handing over copies to police, so it's not like he was trying to profit from such a tragedy.

Now that it seems that you lose your copyright, will future photographers be less willing to supply any photos they may have of any similar situations to ensure they are never published?? What learnings will be lost because of it??

Ended up at Hampton downs today with a work mate, been a while since i have got to a race track.

was a fun day out, did manage to get sunburnt even though i put on a whole load of sunscreen so careful in the sun this long weekend everyone!!

IMAGE LINK: https://www.flickr.com​/photos/smurff900/1573​2600833/

raceday-19

IMAGE LINK: https://www.flickr.com …350808171/in/ph​otostream/

raceday-14

IMAGE LINK: https://www.flickr.com …166679117/in/ph​otostream/

raceday-11

IMAGE LINK: https://www.flickr.com …166356639/in/ph​otostream/

raceday-6

Mark0159 wrote in post #17396902
but from what I gathered from the photographer on the news last night is that he didn't want them published.

The coroner doesn't over write copyright laws I would have thought.

precisely why Peter Ryan should now find himself the subject of proceedings...

Smurff wrote in post #17397294
Ended up at Hampton downs today with a work mate, been a while since i have got to a race track.

was a fun day out, did manage to get sunburnt even though i put on a whole load of sunscreen so careful in the sun this long weekend everyone!!

IMAGE LINK: https://www.flickr.com​/photos/smurff900/1573​2600833/
raceday-19 by Paul on Flickr

IMAGE LINK: https://www.flickr.com …350808171/in/ph​otostream/
raceday-14 by Paul on Flickr

IMAGE LINK: https://www.flickr.com …166679117/in/ph​otostream/
raceday-11 by Paul on Flickr

IMAGE LINK: https://www.flickr.com …166356639/in/ph​otostream/
raceday-6 by Paul on Flickr

thems' good!