If you need to fix some red-eyes in a photo, but don’t have an image editor handy, Red iGone is a quick and easy way to get the eyes corrected. It’s a simple web-based application that requires only that you select the eyes to be corrected. After that, all you need to do is download the fixed photo.

Here’s an example photograph that we ran through the app:

We were pretty surprised at how well the adjustment worked. It’s a great app for when you only want to fix red eyes and nothing else. PicTreat also offers web-based red-eye reduction, but it touches up the rest of the photo as well.

Here’s a useful tool you might want to bookmark: findexif.com. It has a super simple web interface in which you simply paste a URL to a photograph in order to display the EXIF data embedded in the image. It should work for any photograph that hasn’t had the EXIF stripped out for some reason, and can be a great way for you to learn how certain images were made. Here’s an example page showing the EXIF data of a photograph I made a while back.

Update: Jeffery’s Exif viewer is another neat web-based tool for showing EXIF data. Thanks @Getcolormanaged!

Nikon has a couple neat interactive tools that make it easy to explore and compare lenses. Their lens simulator lets you see what resulting photographs might look like with any lens and camera combination, while their new lens positioning map displays the NIKKOR lineup on a grid with aperture and focal length as the two axes.

Once you’ve found lenses or combinations you like, you can save them for future reference.

(via Digital Journal of Photography)

Unshake is a free program available for all operating systems that takes your blurry photographs and attempts to make them clearer. While it’s not miraculous or perfect, it does in fact help in making photographs more usable, especially at lower resolutions (i.e. for the web).

Here’s a before-and-after example using a quick snapshot I took this past weekend with an outdated point-and-shoot camera:

If you have problems using the program on a Mac, try opening the Unshake.jar file directly at the last step. Larger photographs might also take much longer to “unshake”, while lower-res (i.e. 500px wide) photos were completed very quickly.

Unshake (via Lifehacker)

Flickr has its own URL shortening system to make links suitable for things like Twitter. However, for some strange reason, the short URLs to photographs aren’t readily available on the photo pages themselves.

There are some services out there that allow you to quickly generate flic.kr URLs, but I decided to quickly write my own, and called it shortenr.

The service is extremely simple. Simply enter a long Flickr URL to have it shortened, or a short flic.kr URL to have it expanded. It’s also available as a bookmarklet to shorten URLs while you’re on the Flickr photo pages themselves: simply drag this link into your bookmarks: shortenr

If you’d like to see additional features added to this simple app, leave a comment. Hopefully some of you will find this useful.

Here’s the latest innovation from Pentax: a puppet body for your lens cap! The “Cameraman” is a handmade puppet body that comes with a 52mm lens cap showing a smiley face. It costs ¥2,914, or about $32, and is only available for a limited amount of time.

There’s also about 100 different designs you can choose from, though we think it’d be cool if they offered a blank doll for you to draw your own design. It’d be like the Munny for cameras.

This is the same company that allows you to customize the colors of its entry level DSLR, the K-x.

Looks like Pentax is trying to differentiate itself from the competition with creativity and adding a “fun factor” to entry level photography.

(via Engadget)

Here’s a good tip for life: when flying, try to keep your camera gear with you at all times. A man named Harold found out the hard way after paying $40 to check in his gear, including a Nikon D60, worth over $900, only to find it missing after arriving home. He shares over at The Consumerist:

I wish to share an event that occurred to my wife and me with United Airlines. On 2-7-10 we were returning from Hawaii after a vacation. We left Honolulu on Flight #72 with stops in San Francisco and Los Angeles and our final destination of Tucson, Arizona. When we boarded in Honolulu the agent from United indicated that our carryon luggage was too big and had to be placed in baggage. We paid $40.00 for it. In my luggage was a Nikon D60 camera with the accessories valued at over $900.00.

Upon boarding we were not given any instructions regarding any liability or insurance for my baggage. When we arrived at home in Tucson I discovered my camera was missing. I contacted Honolulu Police Department and reported my loss. I then contacted United Airlines by phone and by the web to notify them of this theft. On 2-19-10 United wrote me a letter stating that they do not assume liability for photographic equipment. This item is excluded from their published baggage liability. I find this information from United lacking when you board their flights. Consumers should be made aware of this information before placing their luggage in United’s care.

It’s true. If you take a look at the Baggage Liability policy available online, United Airlines states,

For travel wholly between points in the U.S., United will not be liable for loss of money, jewelry, cameras, negotiable papers/securities, electronic/video/photographic equipment , heirlooms, antiques, artifacts, works of art, silverware, irreplaceable books/publications/manuscripts/business documents, precious metals and other similar valuable and commercial effects. [Emphasis added]

However, this policy is by no means unique to United. A quick check of other airlines such as American Airlines or Continental show the exact same thing.

Professionals have probably long known about this policy, but it’s something that would be good for amateurs to know and keep in mind. Keep your gear with you!

Image credit: United Airlines Boeing 777 by birdlike

ffffl*ckr is a new Flickr web application that’s based around the idea that the people whose work you like probably also like photographs that you’d like as well. The app aims to make finding quality photography less of a chore:

Unless your idea of art is a painting of a hotrod on velvet, explore is useless. Groups aren’t much better, since they require people to self-promote. The interface for checking them is pretty useless too. Contacts are pretty cool except that it’s impossible to actually find new photographers.

The page starts with 20 photographs — these are either someone else’s favorites, or your own if you authenticate. Then you simply click a photograph to load the last 20 favorite photographs of that photographer. Once you authenticate your Flickr account, you can favorite new photographs straight from the app.

If you’re a tennis player in the San Francisco bay area, check out ahathereitis. This interesting new web application (though it lacks a logo and design) aims to find things for you through satellite photographs and image recognition technology.

If you’re nerdy and so inclined, you can read about how the technology behind the application works. The image recognition isn’t done real time, so you won’t be able to use the service yet if you’re outside the Bay Area (try 94704 for Berkeley, CA).

I think this is an interesting example of how the way we make, manipulate, and consume photographs will become more and more advanced as technology improves. As evidenced by the domain name and the “More coming soon” option in the drop-down menu, this app won’t be limited to finding tennis courts.

The question is, what other interesting things could it eventually help us find in satellite photographs? Any ideas?

Check it out here: ahathereitis