francesco
-
francescoParticipantdamien.murphy wrote:
Frank,
From my reading of the above, the advice Francesco was given was precautionary, as with additional information such as address and date of birth, scammers could potentially access your funds,
Damien
That’s exactly what I meant, Damien. Can someone access one’s bank account just with account number and NSC? No, they can’t. But usually these scammers ask you for other details, like physical address or telephone number, and that info, along with bank details, could be used for account operations. These days, actually, there are so many people that willingly post many personal details on places like Facebook, with little attention to privacy settings, that identity theft is becoming much easier than before.
francescoParticipantdamien.murphy wrote:
I wouldn’t let it put you off, Francesco. If you follow good practice, ie if you’re a seller, don’t despatch the goods until you’ve received the funds first. It’s tougher as a buyer I feel, and I almost always insist dealing in person. The only time I will make an exception, and do a deal via shipping would be if the seller was well established on a website/ forum, as I feel once a seller has your money you don’t have too much power if anything goes wrong.
You’re absolutely right, Damien. That’s exactly what I’ve done in the past. This time around, though, as I wrote before, I was so superficial…I’m so upset I didn’t see the scam happening right in front of my eyes!
damien.murphy wrote:
Could you elaborate on your last point Francesco, and the risk you reckon is there from bank transfers? With paypal fees increasing, you often see increasing number of sellers (most genuine, I imagine) requesting payment by bank transfer, to avoid the 3% paypal fees. Many ebay sellers in Germany, in particular, frequently request bank transfer payments, and to date I had thought nothing of it (aside from the hassle, of course),
This is what the Garda (and later the Bank) told me: in order to have some money transferred to your account, you must give the buyer your account number and other information (name of the bank, NSC, it depends on the country: in Italy we must give a code called IBAN). Technically the system is secure, but if someone manages to obtain other personal information from you, as address, phone number, etc, nd sometimes that’s very easy online, they could, in theory, use that information to forge a legal document (I don’t know the correct word in English, it’s a piece of paper certifying you’ve given them permission to do some operation on your account) and use it to take money from your bank account. These days some banks want you to show a legal document if you want to access your own bank account, others are not as strict, and in any case, these people could use forged documents. I don’t know how risky it really is, but this is what the Garda and the Bank told me: NEVER EVER give anyone you don’t know your account number or any personal information.
francescoParticipantAs I wrote before, I should have been way more careful than I was, but I guess this time I was just too superficial, or maybe I didn’t think it could happen to me. It’s the first time that something like this has happened, and it taught me a lesson. In the last 15 years, I’ve bought and sold stuff online, usually through the usual “big” websites (ebay to sell, amazon and other certified vendors to buy), and the only time I did things differently, it was a scam.
Anyway, I called both the Post Office and the Garda, and they told me 2 very important things: first of all, once a package has been sent, even if it’s trackable, there’s no way to pull it off the system. In other words, even if the package is still at the post office, once it’s in the system it cannot be pulled out for any reason. The only way to do it would to file a report to the local police authority and pass it over to Interpol, but for items of small value is almost guaranteed you’re not going to get it back (and Interpol has bigger things to deal with).
Secondly, never give away personal details, such as bank account numbers, addresses, phone numbers or other personal details (glad i didn’t): in the world we live in, ID theft is really easy (think about the amount of stuff that can be found via websites, facebook, forum boards), and these criminals only need one or two details to get to your bank account. Sometimes these scams are set up to steal money from bank accounts or to use personal information in criminal operations. NEVER EVER accept a direct payment on a bank account: use Paypal if the buyer can’t pick the item up in person.
francescoParticipantThe only one who should be (and is) sorry is me, Mark! It’s no one’s fault but me. And yes, it was from an account that was deleted.
francescoParticipantfrancescoParticipantLast call
SB-80dx, Sb-900 and Pocket Wizard Plus II going on ebay next week.
francescoParticipantjust realized I put the wrong price on the Sb-900…edited the original post with the correct price, 350€.
Items going to Ebay next week.francescoParticipantjb7 wrote:
ok, well, I’ve just done a quick test on the 24mm PC-E, out of an attic window, and there is some effect,
but nowhere near the amount shown in your picture, at least not in the far distance, in the infinity range.Thanks for taking the time to run that test, the result is indeed interesting and it clearly shows that the effect applied in post-production is much stronger than the effect in “real life”.
Of course, the only way to tell if you could get an image like you claim to be able to,
would be to revisit the scene, and test properly.I’ll see if I can find a place to rent a PC-E lens here in Cork and will try and revisit the scene or find some similar subject.
I know it will not be enough to convince you or the people in the flickr groups
JB, I’m not here to convince anyone of some strange truth, or to claim that whatever you say is just plain wrong. I just posted a picture with what is now commonly known as “tilt&shift effect”. I don’t think the people in the flickr groups need to be convinced either, since it looks like lots of them are shooting pictures like the one I’ve posted but relying solely on their pc-e lenses. Others, like i did, use Photoshop or other programs. In the end, I guess, what matters most is the final picture.
but it demonstrates to me, that the scale of the blur you’ve presented would be extremely difficult to achieve using the optics you proposed, at the distances and heights shown, and that altering the image using software is by far more ‘effective’ at this scale-
from your test it surely looks like it. It’d be interesting to hear the opinion from someone who posts regularly on those flickr groups, or someone who uses those lenses to achieve that effect.
Thank youfrancescoParticipantjb7 wrote:
The only way to get this effect, without using a very large camera, is by altering the image in post processing.
JP, I’ve used Nikkor PC-E lenses (borrowed) and had almost the same effect.
Same thing seems to happen to lots of people on lots of different Flickr groups, and they’re surely not using large format cameras, nor they’re all using Photoshop or doing the “effect” in post-production…or am i missing the point?francescoParticipantjb7 wrote:
The separation of that zone of sharp focus is a replication of a normal lens used at wide aperture,
and not a tilted lens at all.If I had used a 17mm wide open, even at f/1.4, at such a distance from the subject, there’s no way I would’ve achieved that effect, which as far as I know is achievable only via tilt (i’ve used these lenses a few times in the past to achieve the same effect and if i remember correctly shifting was not involved) or by post-processing in photoshop (or other software), as i did.
EDIT: from Wikipedia:
“Selective focus via tilt is often used to simulate a miniature scene,[7][8] though as noted above, the effect is somewhat different from the shallow DoF in close-up photography of miniature subjects. Many such images are described as employing “tilt-shift”, but the term is somewhat of a misnomer because shift is seldom involved and is usually unrelated to the effect produced. The term may derive from the tilt-shift lens normally required when the effect is produced optically.”
francescoParticipantjb7 wrote:
I think that knowing the principles that govern the plane of focus, (the Hinge Rule, Alan, thanks for that)
would be a hindrance in replicating the fake model effect, which doesn’t rely on tilt at all…I’m curious, why would that be a hindrance?
I’m sorry, JB, I don’t understand the point you’re trying to make. If you feel it’s off topic please send me a PM.
ThanksfrancescoParticipantjb7 wrote:
Is T/S effect an effect, simply because people call it that?
well, I could’ve said i was trying to replicate the look of an image taken with a perspective control lens, but since we’ve seen an increase of “fake model” pictures, I didn’t think it was a big deal calling it T/S effect :)
jb7 wrote:
What if the original picture was so dull that it required extensive post-production work in order to be more interesting? or hdr?
That probably says more about the confidence of the photographer to produce the work he wants to-
and the necessity to make a picture stand out in a crowded marketplace-Or just some guy, who usually shoots other kinds of pictures, having fun and experimenting with fake model photography. :)
IMHO, the more you consciously try to stand out in a crowded marketplace, and let that be your motivation, the less you’re going to succeed. But maybe that’s just me…jb7 wrote:
There is a perception that photography is only a means to acquire some pixels to upload into the computer,
and that is where the real work (of software) begins.Well, I agree to a certain extent: some people who are new to (digital) photography get completely blown away by the possibilities that Photoshop or other software offer, others use the same programs with a purpose. Same thing with the new gear, or off camera lighting. I guess the excitement of something “new” sometimes has this effect. Unfortunately some people get “stuck” with their fascination of the tools and just don’t move on from there.
Personally I come from a film background, wet dark room and all, so I usually don’t mess around too much with my pictures (but i went through a short “this-software-is-so-cool-i’m-going-to-use-56-filters-and-92-layers-on-this-picture-without-knowing-why” period 5 or 6 years ago, when I started using digital cameras) :D.
I try not to do in Photoshop what I wouldn’t do in my dark room, though sometimes I have and i do use digital post-production to achieve a specific look for specific reasons.jb7 wrote:
If it was difficult, or required more than a few minutes to learn,
Technically, if you know how a tilt&shift lens actually works or if you’ve seen 2 or 3 fake model pictures, it takes 5 minutes to figure out how to replicate that fake model effect in any post-production software :)
jb7 wrote:
do you think the majority of people would be interested in even attempting it?
I don’t know, i think it’s highly subjective. I was tempted to try it for a number of reasons: 1) i’m taking advantage of this beautiful weather to go around the country, 2) I’ve never been that much into landscape photography, so i see this as a way to challenge myself and explore possibilities, 3) most of the fake model pictures i’ve seen recently (and i’ve seen way too many of them) are taken in cities, and just for the sake of it. As I wrote before, it’s just me using an effect i don’t normally use with pictures I don’t usually take, it’s not a desperate effort to save a dull picture or to cause a “wow” effect per se.
jb7 wrote:
Photography is like a sweet shop, there’s an awful lot of candy to choose from,
and new brands come and go all the time.True, though every once in a while new “brands” stick for longer than usual (look at what happened to lifestyle).
jb7 wrote:
I don’t think it’s a problem that we all can’t agree what the good stuff is-
but again like everyone else, I know it when I see itI guess we all agree on that, and the beauty of a forum is to share different opinions/view about it all. :)
JB, Thank you very much for taking the time to write such a reply.irishwonkafan wrote:
I like it. As JB says you probably couldn’t take a lot of it but contrary to HDR fake T&S images are rare around these parts. Although I do belong to a couple of Flickr groups that praise the effect it isn’t something I’ve looked at in a while.
Thanks, Alan!
francescoParticipantnfl-fan wrote:
If I started to answer those questions we’d end up at the most obvious of places i.e. “Photography is Subjective”.
yep, i guess you’re right. :)
thank you for taking a little bit of time to post a comment :)francescoParticipantThanks for the feedback, nfl-fan!
nfl-fan wrote:
As a serious landscape… no, it’s just too much of a gimmick to be taken seriously. It doesn’t do any justice to the scene at all in my humble opinion.
you’re making a very interesting point: why is that a gimmick? and what does constitute “serious landscape”? Where does it cease to be an aesthetic choice and becomes just some wacky Photoshop effect?
What if the original picture was so dull that it required extensive post-production work in order to be more interesting? or hdr?francescoParticipantRASMITH32 wrote:
Beautiful shot. Was it taken using a tilt and shift lens? Love the foreground and background blur
Thanks!
Nope, no Tilt&Shift lens, don’t own one at the moment. The effect was applied in post-production. As I wrote before, this is just me experimenting, messing around with a specific effect (t&s) applied to a specific subject/genre (landscape). Glad you like it!
