Takumar club

**paulh** · 03-07-2019, 11:01 AM

Thanks for bringing up the Google Photos posting info, Goats. Actually, I've been doing this for years already. I'm using Flickr, but still have many older photos on Google, and post them here from time to time. I just assumed the Google thing was common knowledge.

I'm doing it the same way, using Firefox or Chrome in Linux Mint - right-click on the photo and select "copy image address". Then here on PF, click the "mountain in the small square" icon, and pasting the image address there. Now, when clicking the mountain icon, the dialog box opens with "http://" already entered. You need to make sure you overwrite that, or delete it before posting the image address, or it won't work correctly.

**rayallen** · 03-07-2019, 08:14 PM

Originally posted by Dartmoor Dave

Ray, all I'm seeing is a placeholder rather than the photo. Did you use the long link that starts in this format: https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/xME6EZ. . . etc.? (Note: that isn't an actual link. The forum insists on highlighting it as if it was, but it's just a shortened example that won't actually take you anywhere.)

If you just copy the URL https://photos.google.com/photo/. . . etc it won't work.

On my Windows 7 machine I have to right click on the photo and go to "Properties", then copy the address from there. Slightly different to the way that works for goatsNdonkey, but the same basic principle.

Or could it be that your photos on Google Photos are set to private?

Hi Dave,

Yes, I did use the long link as you showed above. I understand what you are seeing as I have seen the same on other posts.

No, I did not just copy the URL as you showed. C'mon, I wouldn't do that as I would not expect that to work.

On my Win 10 machine I don't get "Properties" when I right click.

Yes, my photos on Google are set to "Private" as that is the default. I know of no way to make them all "Public" and I have read lots of stuff trying to find out how. I am sure that this issue is at the core of the problem. I don't want all my photos on Google to be public but I would be happy to have an album that was but that doesn't seem possible either. Google Photos' default is PRIVATE and you can only allow other users to see them if you specifically invite those individuals.

If somebody knows differently I would love to hear about it. I have performed the procedure EXACTLY as goatsNdonkey and paulh have indicated and it does not work - for me. Obviously there must be something different in goats' and paulh's setup compared to mine because I believe that when the image does not display in my post that is how it is supposed to work. I can see it but you can't because it is private by default and I have not shared it with you.

Why/how it is working for goatsNdonkey and paulh is a mystery to me. If you think you know, please enlighten me.

tim60 · 03-07-2019, 11:02 PM

Could you set up two accounts, one private and the other public?

**rayallen** · 03-08-2019, 12:22 AM

Originally posted by tim60

Could you set up two accounts, one private and the other public?

I don't believe that anyone could. Their default is PRIVATE and there is no PUBLIC option. I could be wrong but that is as I read it.
You can then share images or albums with selected users but not everyone and that is precisely how I use it.

I have always believed that was the major difference between Google Photos and Flickr. Google's default is PRIVATE but you can share with individuals. Flickr's default is PUBLIC unless you apply a privacy filter to an image or album.
Please tell me if I have it wrong.

I have just read that you could create public albums in Google+ but that doesn't help much as Google+ shuts down on April 2, 2019.

**rayallen** · 03-08-2019, 01:12 AM - **2 Likes**

I am trying a new method I have just discovered. Let me know if you can see an image below:

Nessie · 03-08-2019, 01:24 AM

Originally posted by rayallen

I am trying a new method I have just discovered. Let me know if you can see an image below:

I can see the image. Nice sundial!

Dartmoor Dave · 03-08-2019, 01:32 AM

Originally posted by rayallen

I am trying a new method I have just discovered. Let me know if you can see an image below:

I can see that one no problem. Apologies if I insulted your intelligence with my earlier suggestions.

**rayallen** · 03-08-2019, 02:47 AM

Originally posted by Nessie

I can see the image. Nice sundial!

Thank you. It was taken with a Super-Takumar 35mm f3.5 on a Canon EOS 20D. It was intended to show that sundials don't work so well in the shade.

**rayallen** · 03-08-2019, 02:54 AM

Originally posted by Dartmoor Dave

I can see that one no problem. Apologies if I insulted your intelligence with my earlier suggestions.

Thanks for confirming that this solution worked, Dave. That is a great relief. I will go through the process again to be 100% sure and post the instructions tomorrow morning.
No offence taken. All good!

I knew that there must be a solution and I don't give up easily. More detail tomorrow. It's time for bed now as I have had a few glasses of that red medicine.

**Canada_Rockies** · 03-08-2019, 12:15 PM

Originally posted by rayallen

I am trying a new method I have just discovered. Let me know if you can see an image below:

Works for me, too, Ray.

**goatsNdonkey** · 03-08-2019, 12:37 PM

Originally posted by rayallen

I am trying a new method I have just discovered. Let me know if you can see an image below:

I see a picture of a sun dial.

Dartmoor Dave · 03-08-2019, 01:52 PM - **1 Like**

Your advice about using Google Photos has come along at just the right time. I've just tried logging into Flickr and somehow it has figured out that the phone number I entered at their demand isn't legit. It looks like the old pay-as-you go number I gave them has expired from lack of use, and they must have sent a verification text that was rejected, which let them realise that I'd given a duff number.

Well I'm damned if I'm going to give them my real number, even if that means I can't log in anymore, so to heck with them. That's that for me and Flickr.

I took photos quite happily for thirty-plus years without an internet existing to post them on, and I've got no qualms about going back to just shooting for my own pleasure if web companies start making it all too much a hassle.

ZombieArmy · 03-08-2019, 02:02 PM

I have a question for you Tak aficionados. If I wanted to get a good wide angle tak for my Spotmatic when my current tak collection is a 35 f2.3 and a 50 1.4; would you recommend the 20mm or 24mm?

Dartmoor Dave · 03-08-2019, 02:10 PM

Originally posted by ZombieArmy

I have a question for you Tak aficionados. If I wanted to get a good wide angle tak for my Spotmatic when my current tak collection is a 35 f2.3 and a 50 1.4; would you recommend the 20mm or 24mm?

I'd recommend the 24mm on a Spottie, as it's useful in many more situations than the 20mm on a film camera. The 20mm really is an ultrawide on 35mm film.

One of the 28mm Taks is worth considering too, and much easier to get hold of than the rarer 24mm. Might be worth you grabbing a 28mm for now until a decent copy of the 24mm turns up (unless you've already got a 24mm lined up ready to buy).

**rayallen** · 03-08-2019, 02:13 PM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by Dartmoor Dave

Your advice about using Google Photos has come along at just the right time. I've just tried logging into Flickr and somehow it has figured out that the phone number I entered at their demand isn't legit. It looks like the old pay-as-you go number I gave them has expired from lack of use, and they must have sent a verification text that was rejected, which let them realise that I'd given a duff number.

Well I'm damned if I'm going to give them my real number, even if that means I can't log in anymore, so to heck with them. That's that for me and Flickr.

I took photos quite happily for thirty-plus years without an internet existing to post them on, and I've got no qualms about going back to just shooting for my own pleasure if web companies start making it all too much a hassle.

Your problems are over, Dave. My previously mentioned method seems to get around the privacy issue related to Google Photos.
Please give this a try to see if it works for you:

1. Choose your Google Photos image and click on the Share icon.
2. Click on Create Link and then click on Copy.
3. Go to https://ctrlq.org/google/photos/ in your browser
4. Paste the copied link into the box that says “PASTE GOOGLE PHOTOS LINK HERE” and click on “GENERATE CODE”.
5. When the code is generated it will then automatically scroll down
6. Copy the link under “Direct Link (URL)”
7. In your forum post, click on the “Insert Image” icon (mountains and sun) and paste the copied link.
8. Click on “Preview Post” and your image should be there.

I'll be waiting to see if I can hear the echo when you say "YES!".

03-08-2019, 02:47 AM	#16223
rayallen Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Forresters Beach, NSW, Australia. Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,014	Originally posted by Nessie I can see the image. Nice sundial! Thank you. It was taken with a Super-Takumar 35mm f3.5 on a Canon EOS 20D. It was intended to show that sundials don't work so well in the shade. Last edited by rayallen; 03-08-2019 at 02:55 AM.

03-08-2019, 01:52 PM - 1 Like	#16227
Dartmoor Dave Pentaxian Join Date: Aug 2012 Location: Dartmoor, UK Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,879	Your advice about using Google Photos has come along at just the right time. I've just tried logging into Flickr and somehow it has figured out that the phone number I entered at their demand isn't legit. It looks like the old pay-as-you go number I gave them has expired from lack of use, and they must have sent a verification text that was rejected, which let them realise that I'd given a duff number. Well I'm damned if I'm going to give them my real number, even if that means I can't log in anymore, so to heck with them. That's that for me and Flickr. I took photos quite happily for thirty-plus years without an internet existing to post them on, and I've got no qualms about going back to just shooting for my own pleasure if web companies start making it all too much a hassle. Last edited by Dartmoor Dave; 03-08-2019 at 02:03 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
For Sale - Sold: Takumar: Super Takumar 135mm f3.5 includes case, hood and caps	Peter Zack	Sold Items	7	05-17-2010 07:12 PM
Adorama is dangerous! And so is the Takumar Club!	NaClH2O	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	23	01-24-2010 09:54 AM
For Sale - Sold: Hard Cases for Takumar 28mm/3.5 and Takumar 135mm/2.5	gabriel_bc	Sold Items	8	01-11-2010 10:17 AM
For Sale - Sold: FS: Pentax-F 28/2.8; Takumar 400/5.6; Takumar 500/4.5 - pics	thePiRaTE!!	Sold Items	5	03-06-2008 09:47 AM

03-07-2019, 11:01 AM	#16216
paulh Site Supporter Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: DFW Texas/Ventura County, CA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 33,242	Thanks for bringing up the Google Photos posting info, Goats. Actually, I've been doing this for years already. I'm using Flickr, but still have many older photos on Google, and post them here from time to time. I just assumed the Google thing was common knowledge. I'm doing it the same way, using Firefox or Chrome in Linux Mint - right-click on the photo and select "copy image address". Then here on PF, click the "mountain in the small square" icon, and pasting the image address there. Now, when clicking the mountain icon, the dialog box opens with "http://" already entered. You need to make sure you overwrite that, or delete it before posting the image address, or it won't work correctly.

03-07-2019, 08:14 PM	#16217
rayallen Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Forresters Beach, NSW, Australia. Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,014	Originally posted by Dartmoor Dave Ray, all I'm seeing is a placeholder rather than the photo. Did you use the long link that starts in this format: https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/xME6EZ. . . etc.? (Note: that isn't an actual link. The forum insists on highlighting it as if it was, but it's just a shortened example that won't actually take you anywhere.) If you just copy the URL https://photos.google.com/photo/. . . etc it won't work. On my Windows 7 machine I have to right click on the photo and go to "Properties", then copy the address from there. Slightly different to the way that works for goatsNdonkey, but the same basic principle. Or could it be that your photos on Google Photos are set to private? Hi Dave, Yes, I did use the long link as you showed above. I understand what you are seeing as I have seen the same on other posts. No, I did not just copy the URL as you showed. C'mon, I wouldn't do that as I would not expect that to work. On my Win 10 machine I don't get "Properties" when I right click. Yes, my photos on Google are set to "Private" as that is the default. I know of no way to make them all "Public" and I have read lots of stuff trying to find out how. I am sure that this issue is at the core of the problem. I don't want all my photos on Google to be public but I would be happy to have an album that was but that doesn't seem possible either. Google Photos' default is PRIVATE and you can only allow other users to see them if you specifically invite those individuals. If somebody knows differently I would love to hear about it. I have performed the procedure EXACTLY as goatsNdonkey and paulh have indicated and it does not work - for me. Obviously there must be something different in goats' and paulh's setup compared to mine because I believe that when the image does not display in my post that is how it is supposed to work. I can see it but you can't because it is private by default and I have not shared it with you. Why/how it is working for goatsNdonkey and paulh is a mystery to me. If you think you know, please enlighten me.

03-07-2019, 11:02 PM	#16218
tim60 Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2011 Photos: Albums Posts: 8,738	Could you set up two accounts, one private and the other public?

03-08-2019, 12:22 AM	#16219
rayallen Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Forresters Beach, NSW, Australia. Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,014	Originally posted by tim60 Could you set up two accounts, one private and the other public? I don't believe that anyone could. Their default is PRIVATE and there is no PUBLIC option. I could be wrong but that is as I read it. You can then share images or albums with selected users but not everyone and that is precisely how I use it. I have always believed that was the major difference between Google Photos and Flickr. Google's default is PRIVATE but you can share with individuals. Flickr's default is PUBLIC unless you apply a privacy filter to an image or album. Please tell me if I have it wrong. I have just read that you could create public albums in Google+ but that doesn't help much as Google+ shuts down on April 2, 2019.

03-08-2019, 01:12 AM - 2 Likes	#16220
rayallen Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Forresters Beach, NSW, Australia. Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,014	I am trying a new method I have just discovered. Let me know if you can see an image below:

03-08-2019, 01:24 AM	#16221
Nessie Inactive Account Join Date: Mar 2016 Location: Ticino, Switzerland Posts: 45	Originally posted by rayallen I am trying a new method I have just discovered. Let me know if you can see an image below: I can see the image. Nice sundial!

03-08-2019, 01:32 AM	#16222
Dartmoor Dave Pentaxian Join Date: Aug 2012 Location: Dartmoor, UK Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,879	Originally posted by rayallen I am trying a new method I have just discovered. Let me know if you can see an image below: I can see that one no problem. Apologies if I insulted your intelligence with my earlier suggestions.

03-08-2019, 02:54 AM	#16224
rayallen Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Forresters Beach, NSW, Australia. Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,014	Originally posted by Dartmoor Dave I can see that one no problem. Apologies if I insulted your intelligence with my earlier suggestions. Thanks for confirming that this solution worked, Dave. That is a great relief. I will go through the process again to be 100% sure and post the instructions tomorrow morning. No offence taken. All good! I knew that there must be a solution and I don't give up easily. More detail tomorrow. It's time for bed now as I have had a few glasses of that red medicine.

03-08-2019, 12:15 PM	#16225
Canada_Rockies Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Sparwood, BC, Canada Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 12,385	Originally posted by rayallen I am trying a new method I have just discovered. Let me know if you can see an image below: Works for me, too, Ray.

03-08-2019, 12:37 PM	#16226
goatsNdonkey Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2016 Location: Fulton County, Illinois Posts: 3,727	Originally posted by rayallen I am trying a new method I have just discovered. Let me know if you can see an image below: I see a picture of a sun dial.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-08-2019, 02:02 PM	#16228
ZombieArmy Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2014 Location: Florida Posts: 3,210	I have a question for you Tak aficionados. If I wanted to get a good wide angle tak for my Spotmatic when my current tak collection is a 35 f2.3 and a 50 1.4; would you recommend the 20mm or 24mm?

03-08-2019, 02:10 PM	#16229
Dartmoor Dave Pentaxian Join Date: Aug 2012 Location: Dartmoor, UK Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,879	Originally posted by ZombieArmy I have a question for you Tak aficionados. If I wanted to get a good wide angle tak for my Spotmatic when my current tak collection is a 35 f2.3 and a 50 1.4; would you recommend the 20mm or 24mm? I'd recommend the 24mm on a Spottie, as it's useful in many more situations than the 20mm on a film camera. The 20mm really is an ultrawide on 35mm film. One of the 28mm Taks is worth considering too, and much easier to get hold of than the rarer 24mm. Might be worth you grabbing a 28mm for now until a decent copy of the 24mm turns up (unless you've already got a 24mm lined up ready to buy).

03-08-2019, 02:13 PM - 1 Like	#16230
rayallen Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Forresters Beach, NSW, Australia. Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,014	Originally posted by Dartmoor Dave Your advice about using Google Photos has come along at just the right time. I've just tried logging into Flickr and somehow it has figured out that the phone number I entered at their demand isn't legit. It looks like the old pay-as-you go number I gave them has expired from lack of use, and they must have sent a verification text that was rejected, which let them realise that I'd given a duff number. Well I'm damned if I'm going to give them my real number, even if that means I can't log in anymore, so to heck with them. That's that for me and Flickr. I took photos quite happily for thirty-plus years without an internet existing to post them on, and I've got no qualms about going back to just shooting for my own pleasure if web companies start making it all too much a hassle. Your problems are over, Dave. My previously mentioned method seems to get around the privacy issue related to Google Photos. Please give this a try to see if it works for you: 1. Choose your Google Photos image and click on the Share icon. 2. Click on Create Link and then click on Copy. 3. Go to https://ctrlq.org/google/photos/ in your browser 4. Paste the copied link into the box that says “PASTE GOOGLE PHOTOS LINK HERE” and click on “GENERATE CODE”. 5. When the code is generated it will then automatically scroll down 6. Copy the link under “Direct Link (URL)” 7. In your forum post, click on the “Insert Image” icon (mountains and sun) and paste the copied link. 8. Click on “Preview Post” and your image should be there. I'll be waiting to see if I can hear the echo when you say "YES!".