Online image generators and editing tools can be a lot of fun for creative people. The results are really only limited by the user's imagination. Some sites of interest are BeFunky, FotoFlexer, and BigHugeLabs.
Here's an original image:
Here's the image enhanced using BeFunky "Watercolor" effect.
And here is the image enhanced using FotoFlexer "Painting" effect.
The photo editing site which seems to have the most bells and whistles is BigHugeLabs. Here you can change your photograph into a pop art or motivational poster, create a magazine cover or trading card, make photo mosaics and jigsaw puzzles, add captions, create slide shows, generate LOLcats, and more.
FaceInHole allows you to plug your picture into a scenario such as a famous book or painting. I have to say, I had more fun with this site than any of the others. And who could pass up the opportunity to become The Queen of All Wild Things?
What would you do if you got a knock on your door in the middle of the night, and the police were there telling you you had ten minutes to leave? It's a horrible question to ponder, but one that might frequently occur to residents of New Orleans, the Texas Gulf Coast, or those who live in Southern California communities plagued by wildfires. Of all your possessions, what do you most fear losing?
Many people would want to save their photographs above all else. They are the visual reminders of the people, places, and events that mean the most to us. I have a rather large collection of photographs from days of yore, when pictures were taken using film, which was then sent off to be developed at a lab. It would be impossible for me to go anywhere quickly if I had to lug 20 or so albums, numerous shoeboxes, and packets of negatives with me.
Fortunately there are many ways to save pictures and back up collections. You might burn them to a CD or DVD, or copy them to a flash drive. You could also take advantage of an online photo sharing service.
Flickr is the service HCPL uses to store and share photos. Flickr offers simple editing, geotagging on maps, free and pro accounts, versatile sharing tools, and other features. It's a great resource for bloggers, because Flickr has an enormous public data base of images. A search can be limited to include only creative commons licensed content. Even without setting up an account, one can browse through random shots, from around the world. There is an extraordinary amount of highly creative work there, waiting for anyone who would like to see it. I feel lucky that so many professional and amateur photographers share their photographs so freely.
Photobucket is another leading photo sharing service and it is very easy to use. You get 1GB of space (enough for 10,000 photos) with a free account. There is integration with other social media sites. Slideshows are a popular feature. They are easy to embed on the web or on sites like Craigslist and eBay.
Facebook is the site I use most for sharing photos with friends and family. I am able to upload photos from my computer fairly easily (Facebook seems to have a trouble with photo uploading every so often), and instantly share them with the people in my social network. I retain control over who sees my personal photo albums too, which is nice.
For this exercise I chose to try Picasa. Picasa seems very similar to Photobucket and Flickr. I downloaded the free version of Picasa 3 on my home computer. I really like the editing tools, including Retouching. (Picnik also had that tool, which works like airbrushing, but it wasn't available with the free account.) Picasa saves your original photo along with your edited version.
Digital cameras are so affordable, pretty much everyone uses them. With the prevalence of social networking online, it's no wonder that picture sharing is so popular, and it goes without saying that if you're sharing your pictures, you might have some incentive to make sure they go out into the World Wide Web looking their best. There are a number of online photo editing sites that can help. Some of them are Picnik, Photoshop, and Fotoflexer.
The most obvious advantage to using an online site is the price: free! While professional photographers might want (and actually use) all the features that come with expensive photo editing software packages, I would guess that for most digital camera owners, the current free technology online is sufficient.
One could spend an inordinate amount of time playing on the various sites with their numerous features and a whole plethora of options. The site I spent the most time on was Picnik. I found Picnik very easy to use and I liked the way I could select a feature and see how it would change my picture, before actually "applying" it. Perhaps Picnik designers were thinking of the fumbling or new user when they placed the "undo" button so prominently in the upper right corner of the site. It think that was good planning. Premium features are available with a subscription. (I was pretty excited at what I could do with the "airbrush", but then I discovered it's a premium feature. Rats.)
It seems to me that the editing features one prefers to use depends largely on the individual photograph and its particular strengths and/or weaknesses. I was really pleased with how Picnik's sharpness and contrast features improved an old personal photograph. I also used crop and museum mat to edit my photo:
For the past week or so, I've been watching people drop like flies from Facebook. There's been a huge uproar on the internet over the most popular social networking site's alleged lack of concern for their over 400 million members' privacy. This is not just a matter of someone giving out TMI. In April, Facebook announced the Open Graph API, which basically means that users' information can show up on sites other than Facebook, without the user's permission and without their even being logged in. Thus, if you type in the phrase "how do I" on Google, the first option that appears is "delete my Facebook account".
If you don't mind that potentially everything you put on Facebook is public, and you don't mind that Facebook will still have your stuff even after you delete your account, and you don't mind large corporations following your Facebook presence in order to better sell you something, you probably could remain happy with Facebook, as long as you don't unwittingly compromise the privacy of anyone you've friended.
So where have all the Facebook users gone? One place you might find them is on Google Buzz. While I can't claim to know all the ins and outs of the site, Google Buzz seems similar to Facebook; it is for social networking, and it is supposed to allow the user control over whether content is public or private. I'm a bit skeptical about Google's claim about the privacy thing, especially since the company owns Doubleclick technology and probably most of the web already.
Google Wave is an interesting project being studied in Google Labs. Students, coworkers, or just about anyone who is working on a collaborative project could use Wave to share ideas, sources, and photos in real time. I wanted to try it myself, but currently it is an invitation only site, so I'm not using any collaborative tools at present.
Mobile technology is amazing and just keeps getting better. Of course Google is right there offering all kinds of products that can be used as long as you have a web-enabled phone. You can search the internet, check your Gmail, access your aggregator, and more. I don't have a mobile phone, but I think having access to Google maps or Mapquest while on the road would be a life-saver and I'd probably use those tools frequently. My absolute favorite Google phone app though, is the new Googles Translates software for smart phones. Fascinating!
I shouldn't be surprised to learn that Google has its own version of a feed aggregator. What I would like to know is, what exactly is all this vitally important information? Is someone monitoring the Swiss particle accelerator for impending black holes? Checking the movement of the tectonic plates in anticipation of the final dissolution of the earth's crust so they make it to the Ark on time? Afraid of losing their one and only chance to find their soul mate on Matchmaker.com because someone else was updated more quickly?
It's hard for me to imagine a situation where typing in a URL (or several), or a search keyword constitutes hardship, but I can understand trying to be organized. Taking advantage of tools to better manage one's time is certainly a respectable endeavor. I told an unemployed friend about Google Reader after I came across an interesting article. I want my friend's job search to be successful and thought using an aggregator might be helpful. It can't hurt to cast your biggest net (no pun intended), right? Besides, it could make a good impression on a potential employer if my friend said he found some leads while using a feed aggregator.
Otherwise, I signed up for Bloglines in a previous training and subscribed to a number of feeds related to books and reading, such as NPR Topics: Books, NYT Books, and Alltop, but so far I'm not really hooked on aggregators. I just don't seem to have the type of information requirements that make me feel I'm missing a whole lot by not using a feed reader more regularly. On the contrary, the sheer volume of material that materializes when I log into Bloglines is already a bit daunting. Any time I gain by having a bunch of feeds on one site is immediately canceled out as I either:
1.) get lost wading through the nonessential uninspiring stuff that gets pulled in because I decided to subscribe to a certain blog, for example, or 2.) get stuck on the computer for even more inordinate amounts of time because I got distracted by all the pretty headlines beckoning to me.
Maybe I just haven't yet found the particular feeds that would really interest me. Maybe I need an aggregator for my aggregator. Please don't tell Google I said that.
Online word processing/file storage programs have been around for awhile, are great time savers and meet a variety of computing needs. There are several online word processing programs, including as ThinkFree, Zohowriter, iNetWord, gOffice, and Google Docs. I've been using Zohowriter for my written work, and I like it a lot. It's like having a notebook for work projects, personal to do lists, correspondence, and business items that I don't have to carry. It doesn't get lost, forgotten, misplaced, dropped in a snow drift, or eaten by the dog. I don't have to worry about how much I put in it. There's enough room for everything, in one place, and it doesn't clutter up my desk or home. Plus, it's free. Magnificent!
One of the things I like about Google Calendar is the ability to create tasks lists, and check them off as they are completed. My organizational needs are more along the lines of don't-forget-to-submit-the-summer-camp-physical-by-May-1st, as opposed to be-in-charge-of-the-fundraising-dinner-for-500. So I could see myself using the tasks option more than the events option.
These tools are eminently useful and convenient. I really wish they had been available years ago....which got me to thinking. I wonder if, when ancient Sumerians saw less ancient Sumerians using a cart with wheels to haul a heavy load instead of dragging it, did they have a palm slap to forehead moment?
Google, founded by Larry Page and Sergey Brin, is a "multinational public cloud computing and Internet search technologies corporation". The fact that I even understand what that means makes me happy. The original nickname for the search engine was "backrub", to describe the action of checking backlinks in order to prioritize search results. The amount of information the search engine was supposed to handle was a googol (number 1 followed by one hundred zeros). The googol was named for the Google, a monster created by a crazy economist. At some point, maybe during some madcap Stanford party in a college student's garage apartment, googol was misspelled, and Google was born. Or reborn. Or reincarnated. At any rate, Google is a much better name for a computer technology company than Backrub. I also like the company's unofficial slogan: "Don't be evil".
The way Google makes money is mainly by selling advertising. In 2006 the company reported $10.492 billion in total advertising revenues. It's kind of creepy the way Google can track user interests with data mining technology. Then they can position advertisements so they're relevant to a page's context and the viewer's browsing. While it may be unnerving to know your keystrokes are under surveillance a la Orwell, at the same time the notoriety of Google seems to empower the company in other surprising ways. Perhaps, due to the world-wide popularity of Google, there may come a day in the Republic of China when censorship will be essentially ineffective. That would be a pretty remarkable repercussion, I think.
Google has an amazing variety of products. I don't use half of the services they offer, but I use some of them fairly regularly, such as web search, blogger, youtube, google images, gmail, and google maps. Google's search engine seems to be the best in terms of speed, accuracy, and relevance (see post #75). These are good reasons to Google rather than Yahoo or Bing. I had fun exploring Google Books. I could definately spend more time there looking at old Life Magazines and some even older books. The advanced search feature is easy to use. It allowed me to look for specific topics and items, and to limit my search to full view (as opposed to preview). Google Books could be a resource for students if they need a book for an assignment and all of the library's copies are checked out. There are many classics that can be viewed online. I searched for Anne Frank's The Diary of a Young Girl, since it is a high demand item in my community. It was not available on Google Books, so there are some obvious drawbacks to the site.
Adventurous users may want to try Google Labs. There, one can explore Google products which are still in development and leave feedback. I liked the FastFlip Lab. Most of the Google Lab products I looked at, though, were only somewhat interesting, because I couldn't see how I'd have much practical use for many of them. Google has so many other applications already in service I'm still trying to process those. I guess I'm not geeky enough to appreciate Google Labs. Yet.
On his blog I, Cringely, technology journalist Mark Stephens maintains that in the near future (he guesses around the year 2015) television will be well on its way to morphing from a broadcast model to internet provided service. Network TV as we have known it will go belly up, like the city newspaper, and instead of being an American household mainstay it will become a museum-worthy artifact, something we gather in a special building to admire once in a while, like a pteradactyl egg fossil or a mosquito trapped in amber.
As the popular delivery models of media change, so will content. Web TV has been a reality for several years, and "midtail" content, or semiproduced/user generated videos, are a staple of the savvy viewer who would rather be glued to online streaming video than at the mercy of some old fashioned technology and stuffy TV executives (I thought TiVo largely did away with such enslavement, but anyway....). Next New Networks, the leading producer of such midtails, includes programming from a variety of sources e.g. Channel Frederator, Barely Political, ThreadBanger, and others.
Changes in the way television service is delivered and in viewing habits are gaining momentum. According to Advertising Age, midtail content is the only online programming that "scores sizable audiences" and thus revenue. It's not surprising then, that Goldman Sachs is one of Next New Networks major investors. (At least some things are still predictable.)
Consumers are pretty predictable too. If it's bigger and better they pretty much have to have it. Large screen LCD TVs are now everywhere. It's ironic though, that fewer than 5 percent of the HD TVs sold in the US last year are capable of bypassing cable and satellite TV service. That's because pulling in online shows may be what people think they must have next. DVDs from Netflix are ordinary. Having a virtual video store in your living room is not. This is what you get with VUDU. VUDU's internet-ready setup is an on demand movie service that requires no monthly subscription or contract. All you need is an internet-ready TV, a fast connection, and about $150 for the VUDU box. Available since 2007, VUDU sales haven't been impressive, so last year the company stopped pushing the hardware and started making deals with manufacturers such as Samsung, Sanyo, and Sharp to build its features directly into televisions. Last month, Wal-Mart bought VUDU.
3D technology is going to have a colossal impact; I'm just not sure when that will happen. It seems to be something about which everyone is excited, but I think there are some issues that need to be resolved before consumers will sign up for another expensive television and the special glasses needed to watch it. The main problems I see are 1. there are no standards as yet for formatting (that I'm aware of) and consequently, 2. content will be limited. I wouldn't be too happy if I spent a lot of money on a new TV and then found out that, say, the show my child wanted to watch was not produced in 3D. I think there will continue to be a huge market for 3D movies that people can enjoy in an IMAX theater. Further development of this technology and its applications, especially for video games, will likely enthrall techies and trekkies for years.
VUDU could end up being the new technology that more people try at home. The viewer seems to have plenty of content choices with VUDU, along with absolute control over when to view the selected content. There is a pleasurable sense of satisfaction associated with being able to instantly fulfill a movie wish. The insipid people of Wal-Mart are involved, so proliferation is almost a given.
On the other hand, I am not one who easily embraces the newest technologies. I'm rather adverse to being on the receiving end of marketing, to rushing towards the latest phantasmagoria. It's probably not surprising then, that my favorite media gadget, and one I'm still working on comprehending, is the remote control which remains eminently handy for turning the television off.
On my way to work I drive by two video stores. I used to patronize one of those stores on a regular basis, but I don't think I've been inside either of them for several years now. It's amazing to me that places like Hollywood Video and Blockbuster are even open, considering how quickly the video rental business has changed.
Instead of running out to the neighborhood video store, you can now order and receive movies without ever getting out of your PJs. Netflix lets you choose films from their collection; then they are mailed to your home. You pay a monthly fee and there are no late charges. This is a great deal and very convenient. My family already uses this service. When I check my mailbox at 3 pm on Saturday, I enjoy receiving my movies and treating my neighbors to the vision of me in plaid flannel.
You can get another sweet deal by using movie sites such as Hulu or The Auteurs which provide free access to full length films. I looked for the movie version of my library's book club selection for March, The Thin Man, by Dashielle Hammitt. No luck finding it on Hulu or The Auteurs. (I couldn't figure out where to look for full length movies on IMDB.) I finally found The Thin Man on Google Videos. It's wonderful to think that so many movies are literally only a few clicks away; talk about immediate gratification. I still prefer watching movies on my TV though, as that allows me to lounge. The larger TV screen seems more condusive to watching a movie with family and friends too.
Often times I don't pay attention to trailers at the beginning of DVDs. With Hulu trailers, I can look at a trailer when I have the time, and I don't get slammed with a half dozen all at once. I also have more control over the types of trailers I view. There are certain movies I'm not remotely interested in seeing. Hulu's brief trailer description makes it easier for me to skip over the trailers for those movies altogether. Since I generally like films about dancers or dancing, I decided to watch a trailer for the documentary "Dancing Across Borders", about a talented Cambodian street dancer who comes to New York to train in classical ballet. This is the first I've heard of this movie, and now I really want to see it! It will be in theatres March 26, 2010. Look for me to be dancing to my mailbox in plaid flannel as soon as the dvd becomes available.
Thanks to web sites such as hulu.com, tv.com, and the animation enthusiast's Joost, television has become accessable on PCs and laptops. Phone providers Sprint, AT&T, and Verizon have jumped on the demand-for-TV bandwagon by offering mobile TV services, and major network websites have some episodes of popular shows online. Isn't it wonderful that we have so many viewing options? There really is no excuse anymore for missing a single episode of Jerry Springer or WWE. We are so fortunate. Also, we can continue to shell out for the latest technology which allows us to tune in to our choice of mindless prattle, I mean distinctive entertainment, anywhere we are, anytime of day. A small monthly tithe to the wireless gods is all that stands between you and the opportunity to enrich your phone company. Goodness knows that life as we know it would end without being able to watch even more TV than we already do, and the quality of what one is able to watch on one's iPhone is worth any price. (If you have come to the conclusion that I do not own a cell phone and therefore won't be watching TV on my cell phone, you win.)
The Nielsen Company published results of research last year which showed that media consumption is increasing, and media multi-tasking is part of that trend. Jim O’Hara, President of Media Product Leadership for The Nielsen Company said, “The entire media universe is expanding so consumers are choosing to add elements to their media experience, rather than to replace them." One interesting development in our expanding media universe is that there are now more TVs per American household than people. You can read more of Nielsen's Three Screen Report here.
My acknowledged bias and I took a look around hulu. You can browse by TV and by movies. I don't really have a favorite TV show, but I noticed there is a 40th Anniversary Collection of Sesame Street clips you can watch. That sounded like fun.
The movie collection wasn't very appealing, but they did have some full length features I might enjoy, like "Inherit the Wind" with Jack Lemmon and George C. Scott or "Like Water for Chocolate." (You apparently have to create a hulu account in order to view an R rated movie.) I like that they have a documentary search feature. I was interested in Africa Unite: A Celebration of Bob Marley's 60th Birthday, but the buffering problem was terrible. There were other documentaries I would try, such as Les Paul: Chasing Sound, and Manufacturing Consent about Noam Chomsky.
Many people enjoy posting their own video productions on USTREAM. The Shiba Inu puppy streaming video is adorable. For about 3 minutes. Then I got bored. It's great seeing friends and family in the videos they post to YouTube or Facebook. Maybe some day I'll get around to making one. They say genius is one percent inspiration and 99 percent perspiration. Not that I expect to be another Speilberg; far from it. But it's probably better that I keep my first attempts, at least, well away from the public library.
The assignment: play around with video search engines such as Truveo and Blinkx. Be careful and try not to lose yourself in the online video vortex.
I happen to get lost easily (see post #31: Maps Are Not My Forte), so I'm not very opinionated about which video search engine I use. Since it's Groundhog's Day, I decided to look for the graduation-from-boot-camp scene in the movie "Stripes", starring Bill Murray. YouTube and Truveo worked equally well with my inquiry, finding the correct movie snippet right away. The first hit from Blinkx, though, was some sort of animation contest entry which I immediately regretted watching, followed by a number of interviews with Harold Ramis and a movie review posted in 2007 by Joe Ordinary. Also, most of the Blinkx hits on the first page of search results were YouTube videos, so I wondered why I should prefer Blinkx to YouTube. When a compelling reason occurs to me, I'll let you know.
In my opinion, the biggest frustration with online videos has nothing to do with which search engine is employed. It's the whole buffering problem. What does one do while waiting for that video to finish buffering? wikiHow suggests visiting their site and learning a new skill, such as how to become a bountyhunter or how to survive falling out of an airplane.
Harris County Public Library has a YouTube channel where there are lots of library videos. I was surprised by the variety of things to see. In addition to children's stories read by staff, branches have recorded presentations by guest speakers, special events, and more. It was interesting to browse the uploads and see everything from a Mariachi band to the Pileated Woodpecker who seems to have adopted Northwest Branch. Some of the videos are quite silly and entertaining, like The Henry Houndog Show, and How Not to Reserve a Computer.
I wonder if it would be useful to record a short video tour of our branch. Since it's rare that we have time for orientation before opening, staff from other HCPL branches might appreciate an opportunity to virtually familiarize themselves with the library, before working a Sunday shift. Or, they might prefer falling out of an airplane.
Library staff and customers alike often need images to use in their work. When images are utilized to promote a web site, event, or business, it's important to insure that the owner of the original material has given permission to use it. Fastidious laws that protect the use of images may seem tiresome, but protecting the rights of creators and their creations for the most part encourages new ideas, fair trade, and sharing.
There are three main types of images that are available online: public domain images, right protected images, and royalty free images. Public domain images are free, and right protected images are purchased for a certain length of time. iStockPhoto and Fotolia are sites where you may purchase royalty-free images. Royalty free means that once you "buy" the image, it may be used indefinately and without limit.
There's a press release on the Fotolia site which states that "sales of $1 images continued to generate six-figure incomes for the world’s top photographers in 2009". That's incredible! (And it's caused me to consider sharing my images with the world.)
10 places to find free images online has more information and links to many online image banks. For example, bigphoto.com is a royalty free photo bank which offers free downloads of all pictures. To credit the photographer, the user is asked simply to provide a link back to the website. bigphoto.com is where you can find "pictures from around the world", but frankly I found the site disappointing. They had pictures from only 5 of Africa's 53 countries. 51 pictures are available for "Egypt", which seems like really slim pickings. I proceeded to look for pictures under the heading "America". Did they have a picture of Slim Pickens? Nope. In my opinion, this site was not the bomb.
(If I credit wikipedia for this picture, have I followed the rules?)
On the other hand, MorgueFile.com has an absolutely incredible collection of images. The images are free, but cannot be published "on a standalone basis". I'm not sure what that means. I don't even have to post an attribution, but I linked back to the site anyway, just because I want to acknowledge the person who is allowing me to add this butterfly to my blog. Beautiful!
I used AllFreeClipArt and found a picture of a Santa Mouse in 4 clicks. With 7 clicks I found a Santa that looked like he hadn't slept in a week. I suppose it has it's uses, but after seeing what's available on morguefile.com, the clip art wasn't very exciting.
HCPL subscribes to Schools.clipart. Staff may use this resource to create posters, flyers, bulletin boards, and other materials suitable for an educational environment. The site doesn't just contain line drawings and cartoonish pictures; it offers illustrations, photos, 3d clip art, and signart. If I was making a children's display for Chinese New Year, I might use this image of a cat.
Every kid who grows up watching cartoons understands the value of sound effects. Good sound effects make any story more real, more believable, more funny. From scrambling feet to kabong!, unique sounds add punch to theatre, radio, and television. Thanks to streaming audio, file compression, and musical instrument digital interface, now sounds can even be used to spice up the written word.
I've been using Google as a Search Engine for quite some time, with generally good results. At least, I've always thought I was perfectly happy with Google as a Search Engine. I surely didn't give much thought to the notion that my bias for searching in a particular way could be limiting my results. Then Microsoft conducted a study which revealed that Search Engine branding has an impact on the perceived quality of results. Enter Michael Kordahi, a Microsoft employee. He created a website called "BlindSearch" in response to the study.
When you enter a search query on BlindSearch, you get results from the three most popular Search Engines: Google, Bing, and Yahoo, but you don't know whose results are whose. After viewing the responses to the search, you can vote for the set which you feel best supplied the information you were seeking, and thus learn which Search Engine best served your needs.
I tried a few queries through BlindSearch and, taking into consideration my opinion about the relevancy of the results, cast my votes. Most often, Google came up as the Search Engine I preferred. Bing was second and Yahoo was third. Performance-wise, after four tries, I didn't notice any huge differences between the Search Engines, but there were a few surprises, such as when a search for the most popular books of 2009 through what turned out to be Bing returned a link to a website for books that "explain Buddhism for a modern western audience". It was interesting to try and imagine what exactly happened to that request in cyberspace.
Trying different Search Engines, without knowing their brands ahead of time, probably won't change the way I search in the future, but it did teach me to be aware of Search Engine branding bias.
Hitwise is a website which tracks the volume of traffic to various websites and ranks them by frequency of hits. For the week ending 01/02/2010, Search Engine usage was ranked as follows: Google 64.05%, Yahoo!Search 10.96%, and Bing 8.91%. Google is the most popular Search Engine by far, which jives with my personal choice of a favorite.
It was a real eye-opener exploring Google's features. I didn't know that you could do mathematical calculations in the Google search box, automatically convert measurements (like centimeters to inches or kilometers to miles), instantly find local businesses by zip code, read a Tip of the Day, and much more. With so many ways to improve your searches, it's no wonder Google is extremely popular. I found the sheer number of features a little overwhelming; they have so much stuff to strut! The Google Search Engine reminds me of:
It is a blue-ribbon Mummer's band of Search Engines, elaborate and fancy and fun. With all there was to explore, I didn't spend as much time sifting through the features of the other Search Engines. I noticed that Bing, though, had an absolutely gorgeous home page today, displaying an exquisite photograph of a secluded beach in Greece. Maybe Bing is politely promoting the quest for Nirvana this week. They don't seem to realize that, on New Year's Day at least, some people's idea of ecstasy is being in Philadelphia, at Broad and City Hall, watching the string bands.
