bobbarber

bobbarber

Joined on Oct 6, 2011

Comments

Total: 923, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On Winter Wonderland: Don Komarechka's snowflakes article (36 comments in total)

Very nice.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 1, 2015 at 16:28 UTC as 9th comment
On Nikon D750 Review preview (1880 comments in total)
In reply to:

www_zeeshan_de: Missing the innovative A7S review, missing the innovative A7 II review, but what we got here is the nothing new Nikon D750 review...

So now there is a name for what a lot of us have known for a long time--"iso-invariance". The bottom line is that shutter speed and aperture matter on cameras like this, not iso setting. I did tests similar to those on page 13 a long time ago on my lowly Olympus dslr, and proved to my satisfaction that ISO 100, ISO 1600, and everything in-between were the same, given constant aperture and shutter speed. Of course, I didn't pixel-peep for slight differences to justify a "lab" report.

Interestingly, it sounds like the Canon is NOT iso-invariant. Is that a real world or a pixel-peeping result? I'm guessing pixel-peeping. Common sense says that the sensor is the same no matter what the ISO, so for constant shutter speed and aperture, how could the result really be appreciably different?

Direct link | Posted on Dec 31, 2014 at 01:27 UTC
On Starstruck: Adam Woodworth's nighttime photography article (60 comments in total)
In reply to:

Hugo808: Some amazing images, like the lighthouse one in particular.

I like photo's that make me wonder how it's done, getting the stars sharp without them leaving trails is a neat trick that I wouldn't know how to copy. I know there must be trickery involved but it doesn't look unnatural.

I think "trickery" depends on what the goal is. If it is scientific photography, and the goal is to document the position or movement of stars, then the methodology needs to be transparent. If not, not.

If that isn't a rigorous enough standard, then what is? All photographs are trickery. Color curves are different between manufacturers, etc., so even a raw file from a single capture is never "true". There are compromises inherent in the technology.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 30, 2014 at 14:41 UTC
On Starstruck: Adam Woodworth's nighttime photography article (60 comments in total)
In reply to:

riman: Great shots standing on the edge of the universe..

Kind of in-the-middle-ish, aren't we?

Direct link | Posted on Dec 30, 2014 at 14:33 UTC
On Weird Science: Olympus BioScapes 2014 winners article (21 comments in total)

Number 10 is not identified.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 29, 2014 at 19:21 UTC as 12th comment | 1 reply
On Canon EOS 7D Mark II Review preview (1261 comments in total)
In reply to:

Richard Murdey: "Finally, for raw shooters using most other EOS body, can you say "goodbye banding?"

That's an expensive way to go about it though don't you think?

It makes me feel better, though. I'm still soldiering on with old Olympus DSLR bodies, that band at high ISO. I didn't know that EOS owners had the same problem...

Direct link | Posted on Dec 12, 2014 at 03:54 UTC
In reply to:

Robert Soderlund: In the last balloon picture, doesn't it take few milliseconds for the sound to reach the flash at a meter or two? How did it fire in time?

I didn't read the description--probably should have! Thanks for the info on the flash duration.

The question is: How fast do things change when the balloon pops? Do you have to get the balloon the instant it pops to get a picture like this, or do you have a short time to wait? I think you have time. The reason is that at the moment of the pop, the air and water inside the balloon are moving very slowly. They will just hang there for a moment, with no momentum. It is the rubber shrinking that moves initially. Here the rubber has already shrunk, and you can even estimate how fast it is moving by the motion blur and the 50 microseconds time.

Something close to this could have been done with a shutter. 1/8000s is 2.5 times 50 microseconds, not on the order of tens of times different. I'd consider the times to be identical, unless I knew both shutter speed and flash duration were accurately measured. Otherwise, they're just numbers on the side of a box. CHDK does 1/100000s (claimed).

Direct link | Posted on Dec 9, 2014 at 12:59 UTC
In reply to:

Robert Soderlund: In the last balloon picture, doesn't it take few milliseconds for the sound to reach the flash at a meter or two? How did it fire in time?

Robert, it sounds like you have an idea of how long the duration of the balloon burst captured in the picture is. You're probably right, it might have been much shorter than even 1/8,000s. I was thinking that it might have been longer than that.

I guess CHDK would work, as another poster has mentioned. It has motion detection. It also has shutter speeds of as slow as 1/100,000s (would that work with constant light?). I've used it to take pictures of things like water fountains, without flash, using high ISO, and it freezes water droplets in place. I'm sure you could time it with flash somehow, if that would be a more satisfactory solution.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 7, 2014 at 21:27 UTC
In reply to:

Robert Soderlund: In the last balloon picture, doesn't it take few milliseconds for the sound to reach the flash at a meter or two? How did it fire in time?

What about 4K video? Provide plenty of light, and set a shutter speed of 1/2,000 or whatever, because you don't care about video smoothness, only the still capture. Shoot at 60 fps (if you can--not sure what current 4k cams will do, they might top out at 30 fpt).

The only variable is how quickly the burst balloon changes shape from what you see in the picture, relative to 1/30 or 1/60.

Checking the resolution of the photo given here, it could have been a still extracted from 1/120 or 1/240s footage (again--not exactly sure of the specs) shot by one of those funny Ricoh compacts or something like that.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 7, 2014 at 18:46 UTC
In reply to:

Rod McD: Thanks. Some fantastic photographs there - something really different and thought provoking. I guess it's not the usual DPR photographers' fare because in most cases the tools and techniques needed to take shots like these are beyond the reach of most amateur and professional photographers.

Amen to that. I studied science in graduate school, but I'm out of it now. I have lots of great ideas for photos, but lack the microscopes, processing equipment for samples, etc.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 7, 2014 at 18:39 UTC
On Canon PowerShot G7 X Review preview (444 comments in total)
In reply to:

Roland Karlsson: So - excellent image quality but lots of quirks in handling. This seems to be the verdict for by far too many cameras nowadays.

I wonder if the focus of the reviews is changing--logically--more towards handling as cameras get better. IQ is fantastic on pretty much every camera that gets reviewed on this site.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 12, 2014 at 00:34 UTC
On Olympus Stylus 1s camera announced in Japan article (93 comments in total)

Olympus fanboy here. Still shooting E-410.

I looked for reasons to like the first iteration of this camera, and there were a few, but I didn't pull the trigger. I carry a smaller travel zoom by another maker for approximately this reach and photo quality.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 31, 2014 at 17:19 UTC as 11th comment
On Canon PowerShot G7 X First Impressions Review preview (947 comments in total)

It looks like a nice camera to me, but the price is awful high. IQ is great, using a reasonable standard, such as ability to print at 13x19. Performance seems a little off. That's what really counts. I'm not sure that I understand the IQ-based attacks, but I get the complaints about sluggishness.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 22, 2014 at 00:19 UTC as 53rd comment

Not sure about the comment that a traditional setup has to be fixed to the microscope. There are many ways to make a camera-microscope setup portable. The eyepiece of a microscope often slides out and can be replaced with whatever kind of adapter you want. I've done a lot of photography like this, specifically of histology slides of fish gonads.

I used to use a 5 Mp Nikon Coolpix and 7 Mp Olympus C-7070, both high resolution cameras at the time. I had a hard time convincing other scientists that my setup was better than the 600x400 pixel (or thereabouts) setups that had been marketed to them as "made to take pictures through the microscope". They definitely had a blind spot where photography was concerned.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 6, 2014 at 11:32 UTC as 3rd comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

ProfHankD: Slow news day? This is two film-only items in a row.... ;-)

At least the IR false color in the previous article makes the foliage red, which I suppose adds to the violent content? Here, as davidrm said below, only image 1 (and the shoes in 14) have that anachronistic flair. In fact, the wet plate processing seems a little sloppy; a newly-processed wet plate shouldn't have yellow splotches -- insufficient fixing? At least I didn't have that problem when I tried homemade emulsions back in the 1970s....

I guess my overall impression of both these stories is sadness that using film, and not using it particularly well, is apparently in itself newsworthy now.

He's a professor. Show some respect.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 1, 2014 at 13:40 UTC
In reply to:

bobbarber: Ilegal immigration can only be solved by social justice. As long as there are pronounced inequalities between the developed nations and the rest of the world, people will find a way to move towards the money.

I lived in South America for a while, and people paid coyotes (human traffickers) $7,000 -15,000 (often not cash, but the family home, etc.) to smuggle them north across the U.S. border. The journey involved extreme hardship, possibilities of abuse, and even death in the desert. Obviously the migrants would have preferred to wait in line at the U.S. embassy, even for months, and buy a plane ticket, if there had even remotely been a possibility of legally emigrating.

Illegal gangs are a symptom of the larger problem, which is social inequality. The richer countries have become an enormous gated community. The idea is to keep as much money as possible inside the gates, and fence everybody else out. Obviously the people outside the gates disagree with that model.

peevee

That corrupt Latin American presidents take over firms is well known. It's a risk that companies decide to take after discussing it over in board rooms. If they lose their bet--too bad. They knew the deal going in. Why do they take the risk? Because they are greedy, and want to exploit natural resources and labor that is being offered to them at a fraction of their true cost.

Now, re immigration, I have seen hundreds and hundreds of miners in Ecuador protesting against government plans to sell off the land they work to a Canadian firm. Why? The mining will be mechanized, and all jobs lost. The firm is probably sliding money under the table to get the deal done. I guess the company officials offering bribes are not "true criminals" in your world. You are worried about the guy with a 10,000 family history in the Americas, crossing the border to make a living because he can't work his claim anymore. Give me a break.

Now go read your bank statements.

Direct link | Posted on May 31, 2014 at 12:48 UTC
In reply to:

Mssimo: I have a D800e and sigma 120-300 f2.8 sport. Something I started to notice is that the bigger your gear gets, the less pictures you take.

Mainly because it stays home most...

Direct link | Posted on May 31, 2014 at 03:22 UTC
In reply to:

bobbarber: Ilegal immigration can only be solved by social justice. As long as there are pronounced inequalities between the developed nations and the rest of the world, people will find a way to move towards the money.

I lived in South America for a while, and people paid coyotes (human traffickers) $7,000 -15,000 (often not cash, but the family home, etc.) to smuggle them north across the U.S. border. The journey involved extreme hardship, possibilities of abuse, and even death in the desert. Obviously the migrants would have preferred to wait in line at the U.S. embassy, even for months, and buy a plane ticket, if there had even remotely been a possibility of legally emigrating.

Illegal gangs are a symptom of the larger problem, which is social inequality. The richer countries have become an enormous gated community. The idea is to keep as much money as possible inside the gates, and fence everybody else out. Obviously the people outside the gates disagree with that model.

If you want to make a jobs argument for foreign firms investing in Latin America, then make it, but I've been there, so if you're full of B.S., I'll challenge you.

One example of job creation that I've seen is the exemption on tariffs for flowers imported from Ecuador and Colombia. That is a policy that has worked, and has made money for agricultural interests in those countries. U.S. flower growers don't like it. The jobs, however, except for the owners, are low-paying and hazardous (exposure to chemicals).

Foreign investment? I see Canadian mining interests trying to steal ore at a fraction of its true cost by negotiating with powerful politicians, U.S. and South American oil companies trying to get into national parks, etc. Do those industries create jobs? Not many, that I've seen. For any good-paying technical jobs, they just bring their own people. They hire a few grunts, sure. Big deal.

Without a growing middle class in Latin America, with U.S. help, immigration will continue.

Direct link | Posted on May 30, 2014 at 13:14 UTC
In reply to:

bobbarber: Ilegal immigration can only be solved by social justice. As long as there are pronounced inequalities between the developed nations and the rest of the world, people will find a way to move towards the money.

I lived in South America for a while, and people paid coyotes (human traffickers) $7,000 -15,000 (often not cash, but the family home, etc.) to smuggle them north across the U.S. border. The journey involved extreme hardship, possibilities of abuse, and even death in the desert. Obviously the migrants would have preferred to wait in line at the U.S. embassy, even for months, and buy a plane ticket, if there had even remotely been a possibility of legally emigrating.

Illegal gangs are a symptom of the larger problem, which is social inequality. The richer countries have become an enormous gated community. The idea is to keep as much money as possible inside the gates, and fence everybody else out. Obviously the people outside the gates disagree with that model.

peevee

I sense your mind isn't very open, but I'll give it a shot, anyway.

Yes, many (most?) of the politicians in Central and South America are corrupt, as they are here. Nationalizations of foreign firms are very sketchy, as you point out. It IS theft, but who is doing the theft, and who are they robbing? IMHO, it is the politicians, who tend to be rich people (or "new rich", as they say in Spanish, which is code for people robbing the public coffers) who are stealing. And who are they robbing? Rich, multi-national firms who are not in Latin America to create jobs, but appropriate resources at a fraction of their true cost. You get a President who sells off a national park to a multi-national mining interest, puts a few million in his Swiss bank account, and that's it.

You (peevee) end up crying about how "our" firms are taken away (along with Chinese, Argentinian--whoever-- interests), but those firms never cared about you or me, or the citizens of the countries they exploit.

Direct link | Posted on May 30, 2014 at 13:10 UTC
In reply to:

bobbarber: Ilegal immigration can only be solved by social justice. As long as there are pronounced inequalities between the developed nations and the rest of the world, people will find a way to move towards the money.

I lived in South America for a while, and people paid coyotes (human traffickers) $7,000 -15,000 (often not cash, but the family home, etc.) to smuggle them north across the U.S. border. The journey involved extreme hardship, possibilities of abuse, and even death in the desert. Obviously the migrants would have preferred to wait in line at the U.S. embassy, even for months, and buy a plane ticket, if there had even remotely been a possibility of legally emigrating.

Illegal gangs are a symptom of the larger problem, which is social inequality. The richer countries have become an enormous gated community. The idea is to keep as much money as possible inside the gates, and fence everybody else out. Obviously the people outside the gates disagree with that model.

Why don't you insist on the U.S. not breaking THEIR laws, for starters? Or do you think that the Mexican and Venezuelan equivalents of the C.I.A. have been secretly overthrowing our government? Is that something I've missed?

Also, how can you possibly bring up money sent back to Mexico and other countries, largely by illegal immigrants, as a benefit of the U.S. being here? They came here against U.S. policy, as you yourself pointed out! They are sending back money to Mexico as a result of breaking the law, not because opportunity was provided to them! How do you think they're going to reason through that one: "I guess going to the U.S. was a bad idea." Yeah, right. Hope you're ready for more!

Anyway, I'm about spent on this issue. I've made clear the way things work. You can hope that impoverished people in Latin America, who have all watched T.V. at some point in their lives, will stop wishing to come here. Or you can support fairer U.S. policy towards Latin America. Your choice.

Direct link | Posted on May 29, 2014 at 22:13 UTC
Total: 923, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »