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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
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.
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.
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.
I don't know if you are right or not. I suspect you're wrong. I'm married to a Latina and lived in Latin America for a number of years, so I'm more familiar with Latin American economies than I would be if everything I learned were just from a newspaper.
You are making a relative comparison. You are saying, "much better than..." and I can tell you right now, that doesn't sell in Latin America or anywhere else in the world, even if it's true. If you have a fancy house, they want a fancy house too. It isn't that difficult to understand. They are human beings, think exactly like you do (use yourself for a model if you get lost), and want the same things you do.
Unless you're willing to say, "It's OK for me and my family to work for $1.50 an hour," you need to drop that advice to other people.
Try explaining to working people in Latin America that $8.00/hr. isn't that much money. I've done it. They'll look at you funny. It's beyond their wildest dreams, which is why they come.
bobbarber: It's interesting to see all of the outrage on this topic.
What else do you truly get offended about? N.S.A. breaking into your computer? Bankers selling bad mortgages and taking people's homes? Anything like that, or only a college kid doing the dumb kind of thing that college kids do?
It'll be hard, but I'll try to get over this one.
In the interest of fairness, I will try to get worked up about Chen's post. I really will. I'm gritting my teeth right now, sitting in the dark, and ruminating on the injustice of Chen's post.
I mean, seriously, a college kid doing something stupid? Really? Who would have thought that? And how would he have got past the front door at Facebook? I mean, they're good people over there, right?
It's that whole slippery slope thing! I mean, one minute, the guy's posting on how to steal photos, and the next, he is signing off with the N.S.A. to install backdoors at Facebook!
Not outraged by cats, the moon, or string theory. Not outraged by Chen's post, either.
But the question was: Why are YOU outraged by something so small? I'm not flying off the handle about this. YOU are.
I didn't compare stealing photos to the collapse of an economic system.
I merely pointed out that you are outraged about one, and wondered if you had been outraged about the other. I guess you weren't... Where is my surprised face? I'm looking for it every where and can't find it.
I'm not questioning that stealing photos is wrong. If you think I am, please reread my post.
Then reread your post, for an example of the faux outrage I'm talking about. Really, comparing a dumb blog post by what in all likelihood is a socially inept geek, to knocking somebody's teeth down their throat? As other posters have pointed out, the likely economic losses from using this technique are nil, to anybody.
I'll repeat my question, this time addressed to you personally: Did you get this worked up about the N.S.A. stealing people's data? About the banks stealing hundreds of billions of dollars from the government, etc.? Were you comparing it to people losing their teeth, and murder, and everything else?
I guess we could find the smallest possible inconvenience, and make a case that it is extremely serious nonetheless. Why, just this morning, I found a molehill in my front yard. It's probably because my neighbor hasn't cared for his yard! This is serious! I'm MAD!
Legal systems and governments are fluid.
You have chosen a cutoff point in history that is convenient for you to start talking of legal systems in North America. Yet you bring up the Bedouin empire when you want to talk of injustice to your ancestors elsewhere in the world. Give me a break.
Should the Poles and Russians have just accepted the Germans? If they shouldn't have accepted the Germans, why not? Why should the Indians on reservations in the U.S., in 2014, accept what has happened to them, if the Poles shouldn't have?
I'm unclear on your ideas, because, as I suspected, they are inconsistent. You invoke principals like law and order, then apply them in the narrowest sense, as benefits you.
I'm not as invested in this messy law and order stuff as you are. I believe in justice. It's much easier. There are many people in the world without a moral compass, like yourself. If they can only decide what is right or wrong based on the law, then adjusting the law is the solution.
Point 1: The U.S. has a long history of working to impoverish Latin America, through NAFTA and other trade agreements, toppling of governments by the CIA, and even military intervention. The U.S. is ALREADY heavily invested in time, money, diplomacy and other efforts in Latin America.
Point 2: Therefore, no extra effort would be required to "work" for social justice, because the effort is already there. It would just be policy changes.
For example, NAFTA defaults to the lowest common denominator in wages, which means that the U.S. can not insist on just wages in Mexico, because that could be seen as an unfair barrier to free trade. The U.S. should work to restructure such policies, and demand that Mexicans make at least U.S. minimum wage. Don't like that? It's because you think that some people deserve money, and others don't.
zigi_S: I don't know what the majority of "photographers" on this site think. But I don't think a photographer has the right to publish a photo from an individual on the internet, without prior explicit permit. When a photo is on the internet, it can't be deleted. The right to a persons privacy ABSOLUTELY TRUMPS any copyright. Did the graduates permit the photographer to publish pictures of them on the internet? I don't think so. So the problem with the watermark is negligible in contrast to a serious trespass in a person's privacy.
This is probably a minor point, but can you please stop spelling "steal" as "steel"?
I'm not the grammar police, honest, but seeing this for like the eighth time got to me.
It's interesting to see all of the outrage on this topic.
I'm not trying to take the moral high ground. You are.
My position is simple: Low wages in Latin America, driven by U.S. policy among other factors, will continue to drive immigration unless steps are taken towards social justice.
Your position is also simple: They've broken the law. This is a country of law and order. Something must be done about it.
However, if you are to avoid inconsistency in your argument, you have to be law and order across the board, don't you? Or are you only law and order when it is convenient for you?
Texas, New Mexico, California, etc. were seized after Mexico was invaded by the U.S. with a very dubious justification--the U.S. having attempted to buy land (rejected by Mexico) south of the Nueces River in Texas. Do you judge that to be a legal action? Why? It is just the start of how this whole continent was illegally seized.
You are arguing from a legal system that is the result of illegal actions, unless you forgive things after time. Do you?
Latinos are socially conservative. They are predominantly Catholic, and strongly anti-abortion. They would tend to vote Republican, if Republicans had anything like a social policy that treated minorities fairly. It is absurd to contend that Democrats promote immigration to get voters.
You don't seem to want to talk about low wages in Latin America, which in large measure result from U.S. policies. We are not bystanders in Latin America, we topple governments, covertly and overtly, influence policies, and sign economic agreements favorable to us. That is what drives immigration.
Finally, any brown-skinned person migrating up to the U.S. from Mexico likely has a much longer family history on this continent than you do. You benefit from wars of genocide against Native Americans in the past, and broken treaties signed by Europeans. Were you or your ancestors granted amnesty for that law-breaking? If not, why are you ignoring your own history to focus on Latin Americans?
Rachotilko: Anyone performing apologetics for this product: please have a look at samples of its predecessor, ZS15. Then you'll see that 1/2.3" can be done right.
No extreme highlight overexposures, no unpleasant corner softness.
Regarding corner softness:
I own a Canon SX230HS. I've installed CHDK on it. I get truly raw images, without any funny business from the manufacturer. I think most people would be shocked at how much manipulation of these photos is done in this class of camera, especially stretching pixels, before you see a "raw" image.
A lens with this much zoom produces an image circle that is (way!) too small at wide angle. Pre-manipulation, this camera probably produces images that have no data whatsoever in the corners (black) at wide angle, with a fisheye-type circle of light in the middle, that is stretched out to fill the frame to give you a "raw" image. Hence the extremely soft corners at wide angle. There should be a sweet spot somewhere in the zoom range, though, where you can get relatively sharp corners, because the image circle fills the frame without the need for correction.
Travel zooms are what they are. I love them, but they aren't for pixel peepers.
ludwik123: My favourite print size is A4If an A4 print is pin sharp with no intrusive noise or artifacts. Then it is good enough for displaying to friends and family!If a TZ60 can do this and we can carry it in a pocket with a 30X zoom then it's a technical marvel. 10 years ago common pocket cameras only had a 3X zoom.
I wouldn't say that you "need" 6 Mp to print A4. You can do it with 2 Mp, as other posters have pointed out, and get quite sharp prints. It depends on the subject matter, and the camera. My first digital was a cheap 2 Mp Kodak point and shoot, and it printed 8x10 no problem, and the prints were nice and sharp (and colorful!).
I guess one way of thinking of this is looking at pictures or video on a computer screen. 1920 x 1080 is 2 Mp. Is nothing ever sharp in HD video? Even if downsized to an 8x10 print? That resolution looks sharp to me, in many cases...