Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10]
 on: February 13, 2016, 04:48:59 PM 
Started by datro - Last post by datro
Looking for either the HCT01F45T (Fuji) or HCT01K45T (Kodak Ektachrome) 4x5 transparency calibration targets. I'm hoping there is someone out there not scanning anymore that is willing to part with their scanner profiling targets. Must be in good condition, stored in the dark, and complete with reference data.


 on: February 13, 2016, 04:44:50 PM 
Started by yashima - Last post by bjanes
Considering IQ3100 has the same technology as the sensor in A7rII, why don't we have silent shutter on IQ3100?

We would be able to use shutterless lenses on tech/view cameras, and that would open up quite a lot of new possibilities.

See this article by Jim Kasson describing the silent shutter on the Sony A7S. The electronic first curtain moves quite rapidly, but the electronic equivalent of the second curtain is much slower since the exposure ends when the image data is read out--continuing exposure on the sensor will have no effect on the image. With the A7S this takes 1/30 sec from start to finish. Since the IQ3100 has a higher MP, the readout would take even more time and, depending on the readout speed, an electronic second curtain may not be feasible.



 on: February 13, 2016, 04:44:45 PM 
Started by BobDavid - Last post by Tony Jay
Stunningly executed shot!
This image deserves every accolade it can garner!

Tony Jay

 on: February 13, 2016, 04:43:13 PM 
Started by John Koerner - Last post by BernardLanguillier

What you point out isn't an autoIso issue, it is a metering issue.

You can set up the camera with easy exposure compensation to apply an exposure correction by simply rotating the dial. This works also in M mode btw, which is pure genius!


 on: February 13, 2016, 04:35:40 PM 
Started by Telecaster - Last post by Rajan Parrikar
The first guy to spot them -

 on: February 13, 2016, 04:34:20 PM 
Started by Rob C - Last post by Rob C
Window-shoppìng for something that's not there.

Rob C

 on: February 13, 2016, 04:14:46 PM 
Started by David Eichler - Last post by Mark D Segal
Stunning - thank you so much for the warning. Looks like another Adobe debacle following the Lightroom debacle with the Import module several months ago. I am given to understand that Adobe's sloppiness is causing Adobe customers to flee to alternatives such as Capture One in droves. This would just add to customer flight. I still like Lightroom very much and will give them a chance to get their act together, but as soon as I see a trend of technical sloppiness starting to affect the security of my computer environment they will lose me too - and I suspect many others. I wonder whether affected users could mount a class action in the circumstance of being able to demonstrate real harm of commercial consequence?

 on: February 13, 2016, 04:08:18 PM 
Started by - Last post by
An interesting article, and the funnel analogy is very apt (except the blue portion should be narrower).  However, I believe Peter missed the boat on art fairs. The photo shown of the display at the art fair is very atypical.  In virtually all art fairs you are given a 10'x10' space (sometimes with extra behind to store inventory, but not always - some shows will I've you the option to buy larger spaces).  In this space you need to put a canopy (which hopefully will be waterproof (light ezup types are not waterproof).  You then need to display your framed art on those walls to attract the public to come in.  You also need to have unframed work available - most purchases will be of unframed pieces. And if you don't have space behind you also need to store excess inventory, and all the other bits and pieces needed to run  a business. Obviously you need to have some space between framed pieces, but you can't go overboard, because of the limited space available.
Before you get to this stage you need to get juried into the show, which is easier said than done.  Images you use to jury in may often not be what people will buy.

 on: February 13, 2016, 04:01:18 PM 
Started by Telecaster - Last post by Telecaster
I have a simple question for any physicists here. If I was a physicist myself I would be posting to a physics forum, but I’m not. I’ve been Googling and can’t find a satisfying answer to - what causes a gravitational wave?

I know that objects with mass warp spacetime. And when masses move through spacetime the warping also moves. So is it the case that if a mass is big enough and it accelerates through spacetime fast enough a wave is produced instead of a simple movement of the warping?

Is it like when I put my hand in water slowly the water moves, but if I put it in fast I create a wave?

A good question, and one that reminds me of an issue I have with the article I linked to above. At least twice in that article gravitational waves are referred to as propagating through space. This is wrong wrong wrong. GWs are oscillations of space. Or, more precisely, of spacetime. Mass, and the movement of objects with mass, not only warps & bends space…it also slows & accelerates the passage of time. Think of spacetime as a somewhat flexible 3D grid. We—along with stars, planets, galaxies, etc.—exist within this grid. GWs are the ripple-like warping & bending of that grid in response to the movement of massive objects. (By "massive" I mean anything that has mass. You and I create teeny tiny weak GWs—many orders of magnitude tinier than even the crazy small disturbances detected by LIGO—every time we breath in or out or blink our eyes. But the amplitudes of GWs will be greater with more massive objects moving at higher speeds.) When you move your hand slowly in water you still create a wave, but it's of low amplitude and is quickly dissipated. With faster movement you create a higher amplitude wave of longer duration.

As to the other stuff being expressed here: some people respond to new phenomena and new knowledge with curiosity & wonderment & even excitement, while others respond with dread & hostility & even rejection. All the rest follows from this.


 on: February 13, 2016, 03:52:26 PM 
Started by biker - Last post by biker
Well, the attached shot is definitely nothing very special. I can get to this place in less that two hours from my home. But there are places you visit only once in your life and weather might not be the one you wish. The totally overcast sky (grey or whitish) making everything look flat and "colourless" seems to be a real enemy to your shots. And you do want some great (or at least good) pictures from that place!
So, what are your tips to get the maximum from this situation?

My shot (although it's nothing special) doesn't suffer from the overcast sky so much. As the quarry is quite "plastic" itself the absence of strong shadows is rather an advantage. It's not about greenery so it's not a big problem its dull colour. The background hills aren't so interesting so I don't mind they're suppressed by the mist. And the thin skyline - okay - there the landscape ends. Fullstop. There was no post-processing done on this shot (just reducing its size) but the Creative/Vivid mode and Adaptive contrast were turned on while shooting.

My tips:
  • HDR doesn't work in situations like this. While you can make foreground brighter and get some "colour" to the sky, it looks rather unnatural.
  • Trying to "inject" blue or dramatic sky from another shot or generate it by an algorithm doesn't fool anyone.
  • Using camera flash - please no!
  • B&W or Sepia can help much more. But sometimes you want pictures in colour.
  • Local contrast enhancement added in a reasonable amount can help.
  • The same with saturation.
  • Increasing the colour temperature setting (also in PP from RAW) to add some reddish tones to the picture.
  • Focusing on interesting subjects and so distracting people from looking at the white sky.
What more?

Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10]