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...
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!