Yes, and any webpage that has a Facebook button (or one of numerous others) will report your visit to that page without your even clicking on the button. I use Firefox with add-ons that do a pretty good job of thwarting these surreptitious activities of Google's.Yeah, and that's why I asked Kim earlier today in a reply if a button with an "f" in it had some Facebook function. It did. I had heard a tech. interviewee a day or two ago talking about the information that Facebook was collecting on its members. One guy (and probably the last one) asked for a copy of his data and eventually received a CD with over 1,000 pages of data on it, including the geographical area he was in when he visited different websites. He said that now when people want to see their data they're directed to a web page that has a small fraction of the data that Facebook collects, and it only contains the data that they'd be able to look up on their own.Google is nobody's friend, unless you like having someone accumulate data on everything you do on the 'net.I looked it up too, just to be sure. Google is my friend.
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
orb theory
- Thread starter knurl
- Start date
-
- Tags
- fujifilm x10
yes, i remember. i also remember it remained speculation and not conclusive.
if the nikon1 or any other camera suffers (even if only VERY RARELY) from the same defect, that could actually lead us to the (cmos) sensor being the culprit. and speculation about it being a software glitch or something related to the lens can stop. hence my question about the manufacturer of the x10 sensor.
who suggested a month ago , something in the line of the theory i suggest in this thread? that more sensors have it. but that it's always outdone by the optical artifacts from the lens. only fuji X10 manages to do this the other way around. optical artifact is outdone by the sensor artifact.
a month ago , consensus here was that NO other camera could make this kind of orbs. all examples were considered acceptable, within the limits, soft edged natural looking highlights.
you even write in this very thread that you can simulate my initial examples on any camera. you wrote "just overexpose and see what you get. but trying for the merc or st-paul's shot you will not get them".
do you think the factory image is simply overexposed? do you think the lights in that shot look the way they should? do you not see blobs instead of lines? do you not see relatively sharp edges instead of gradual ones?
so, NO, this is not old news.
this is why i mentioned earlier on that the word ORB is not to the point.
it becomes spherical when it's due to a point light source.
it becomes a stretched elliptical shape when the source is linear. as in the nikon factory shot, actually.
it becomes a blob when the shape is irregular. like the lampposts in the bilbao pic from my first post.
wow, that was the 'fix'? the 2nd image is supposedly ISO100, 15sec exposure. LOL
if this is what happens to the X10, i'm sticking with the orbs. xs-1 images also look like base ISO is boosted. I don't understand how ISO100 could end up looking the way it does, on most of the XS-1 images, given the same sensor as x10. the only reason it seems there is less orb-age must be down to less exposure/higher gain by default
if this is what happens to the X10, i'm sticking with the orbs. xs-1 images also look like base ISO is boosted. I don't understand how ISO100 could end up looking the way it does, on most of the XS-1 images, given the same sensor as x10. the only reason it seems there is less orb-age must be down to less exposure/higher gain by default
Jade Willow
Leading Member
This might be a stupid question - but, are the orbs visible on the LCD screen or only appear after processing? I ask this question because, so far, I believe that all of the specular highlights that I have photographed have been rendered fairly accurately - although sometimes a little over-exposed.
Here is a shot I took yesterday whilst trying to replicate Gary's shop orbs. I'm satisfied that the camera captured the lighting as it appeared in the LCD screen. With my own eyes, I saw a little more detail in the large lights. In PP I cropped, that's all - the exposure could probably be improved on had I of bothered.
Here is a shot I took yesterday whilst trying to replicate Gary's shop orbs. I'm satisfied that the camera captured the lighting as it appeared in the LCD screen. With my own eyes, I saw a little more detail in the large lights. In PP I cropped, that's all - the exposure could probably be improved on had I of bothered.
i think you don't see it on the screen. because it's some kind of highlight overexposure. similarly you can take any scene, overexpose whatever you want (which would result in a completely white image), you'll just see the scene as you see it on your lcd, not the white image. but maybe you should look this up. because i'm deducting from general exposure behaviour.
about the chocolatier pic.
ideally for orbs you need a contrasty situation (lights in dark scene or hard sun reflections) where you expose on the darker part. i think gary's shot was taken in the evening. it looks even a bit like inside a shopping mall. even if it doesn't seem so to the eye, this implies that the scene is quite dark and so there is higher contrast between the lights and the scene than in your frame (which is taken in daylight). this weekend, i took a picture in a room at night with just one small bright light. i exposed on a wall of the room (with the light outside the scene), then reframed and bingo small light was orb.
also for getting orbs you should use iso100. lower iso = worse orbs. they disappear as you increase iso.
about the chocolatier pic.
ideally for orbs you need a contrasty situation (lights in dark scene or hard sun reflections) where you expose on the darker part. i think gary's shot was taken in the evening. it looks even a bit like inside a shopping mall. even if it doesn't seem so to the eye, this implies that the scene is quite dark and so there is higher contrast between the lights and the scene than in your frame (which is taken in daylight). this weekend, i took a picture in a room at night with just one small bright light. i exposed on a wall of the room (with the light outside the scene), then reframed and bingo small light was orb.
also for getting orbs you should use iso100. lower iso = worse orbs. they disappear as you increase iso.
Jade Willow
Leading Member
Just took this - I have some orbs here (over on the left bottom corner) - still don't think they're too objectionable.
still don't think it's taken at 100iso
you'll need to put the camera on something for the long exposure.
that's an (indeed totally acceptable) example of an orb. in my opinion hidden by the optical artifacts as it is in a lot of other cameras.
that's an AWESOME view!
you'll need to put the camera on something for the long exposure.
that's an (indeed totally acceptable) example of an orb. in my opinion hidden by the optical artifacts as it is in a lot of other cameras.
that's an AWESOME view!
Again, you miss the point. With the Fuji,even if the light source is linear the orb you get is a perfect sphere.
You really seem not able to SEE what irritates everybody else so much
--
“There is only you and your camera. The limitations in your photography are in yourself, for what we see is what we are.” Ernst Haas
http://garyp.zenfolio.com/p518883873/
FeedMe
Senior Member
- Messages
- 2,474
- Solutions
- 2
- Reaction score
- 336
I know this is OT..
But you do realise (I hope) that apart from some tricky JavaScript and php code, 99% of tracking is done with cookies - if you delete cookies when you shut down or use FFox's private browser sessions then they can't track where you've been and where you go.
Some small tracking is done with java/php or referrer code, but this is usually only one site-to-site layer, not across multiple sites.
Delete your cookies and all that's recorded is just that one site access session, not where you go or where you've been.
Now-a-day this shiit is important!
And no, other cameras do NOT get Fuji (TM) Orbs.
Please explain how examining cameras with different firmware, lenses AND sensors helps you narrow ANYTHING down?
Particularly when you KNOW the EXR sensor the produces Fuji (TM) orbs is UNIQUE to Fuji.
--
“There is only you and your camera. The limitations in your photography are in yourself, for what we see is what we are.” Ernst Haas
http://garyp.zenfolio.com/p518883873/
Please explain how examining cameras with different firmware, lenses AND sensors helps you narrow ANYTHING down?
Particularly when you KNOW the EXR sensor the produces Fuji (TM) orbs is UNIQUE to Fuji.
--
“There is only you and your camera. The limitations in your photography are in yourself, for what we see is what we are.” Ernst Haas
http://garyp.zenfolio.com/p518883873/
Oh yes. As I've mentioned before you could get this kind of garbage with lousy video camera two decades or more ago too.
Fuji. Advancing into the past.
--
“There is only you and your camera. The limitations in your photography are in yourself, for what we see is what we are.” Ernst Haas
http://garyp.zenfolio.com/p518883873/
hey gary.
first of all. i KNOW the orbs can manifest themselves like perfect spheres. i KNOW. ok?
it's when the phenomenon is at it's best, so to speak.
but this is the third time i refer to the bilbao picture and i'll show it here again for you.
this is the scene with high iso where you can see the shape of the lights on the big lampposts (left side, right along the water) :
this is the same scene with iso100. look at the deformation of these lights. the one in front. also look at the top angle of the second one. it is not round but a blobbed version of the original shape.
actually, it's not even blobbed. it looks as if every side of the lights is translated individually into a curve of its own and they result in these strange shapes which are a connection of big and small radius curves with sometimes even sharp corners when they meet at an angle (see top right corner of the second lamppost). this resembles drawing functions in cad-software where you can transform straight shapes into curved shapes.
is this orbing? YES
are they spherical? NO
if this is not orbing according to you? what is going on with the lampposts then? normal behaviour? or is it yet another phenomenon that coincidentlly manifests itself when the round orbs come out?
perhaps if you further expose (suppose you could go to lower iso with this image or expose longer) they would become perfect spheres. but what's interesting here is that you see HOW they grow.
Yes, and I have demonstrated the same thing with the studio lights IF THE LIGHT SOURCE IS BIG ENOUGH IN THE PICTURE.
But if the light source is NOT that big, even if it is sphere or a cube, it becomes an orb. It's a function of the SIZE of the area as well as the brightness.
In my lamp shot, there was a sliver of light from those lamp sources. Not a circle of anything approaching a circle. The bulb did not even extend lower than the rear side of the lamp shade.
I have written of this a long time ago. You can note in the picture published weeks ago how these studio lights are turned into "pillows". This is an intermediate stage of orbing, if the light source is big enough. ALL these lights should have straight edges, well inside the confines of the semi-orb situation we are beginning to get here.
--
“There is only you and your camera. The limitations in your photography are in yourself, for what we see is what we are.” Ernst Haas
http://garyp.zenfolio.com/p518883873/
then in your previous post you simply should have written this :
because about nikon pic you wrote :
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1012&message=40528791
and not this :
and certainly not this :
and if you think the blown lights in your studio shot classify as orbing and the ones in the nikon1 factory shot are not. well, then you just WANT x10 to be the only one.
because about nikon pic you wrote :
just as you keep on writing :
even though this morning danielepaolo posted this perfect example from a sigma camera :
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1012&message=40528791
True. And the cookie issue is yet another reason to use Firefox with addons such as TACO to block cookies, or CCleaner to clear your history much better than just deleting files within (say) IE.
Okay, sorry to go off topic. I'll say something on-topic...
I agree with KL - one doesn't need to take photos in extreme conditions for (that problem) to appear with the X10, and that is probably the part that makes it the most unacceptable to me. Normal, well-exposed photos can be ruined when there is no reason whatever to expect such a thing.
'Bass-ackward' does not equate to 'superior'.
Okay, sorry to go off topic. I'll say something on-topic...
I agree with KL - one doesn't need to take photos in extreme conditions for (that problem) to appear with the X10, and that is probably the part that makes it the most unacceptable to me. Normal, well-exposed photos can be ruined when there is no reason whatever to expect such a thing.
--
'Bass-ackward' does not equate to 'superior'.
Back to the chopped logic game of Sunday.
Sorry, not interested.
You are, as Kim noted, covering old ground and without even having read the information from that time.
--
“There is only you and your camera. The limitations in your photography are in yourself, for what we see is what we are.” Ernst Haas
http://garyp.zenfolio.com/p518883873/
Sorry, not interested.
You are, as Kim noted, covering old ground and without even having read the information from that time.
--
“There is only you and your camera. The limitations in your photography are in yourself, for what we see is what we are.” Ernst Haas
http://garyp.zenfolio.com/p518883873/
Timur Born
Senior Member
Yep, function of size and brightness, aka the more "pointed" a light-source is the higher the chance to see a disc. Likely a percentage thing as in "put a circle on a point and you see a circle, put the same sized circle on a square and you see a square with edges stretching outwards.
The upper crops are the street-lamp closest to me, the lower one are the lamps coming behind that.
The upper crops are the street-lamp closest to me, the lower one are the lamps coming behind that.
Midwest
Google is the least of your worries at least you know they are doing it!
--
JB
I am not a photographer, I am just a guy that takes pictures.
http://buckshotsimageblog.blogspot.com/
Google is the least of your worries at least you know they are doing it!
--
JB
I am not a photographer, I am just a guy that takes pictures.
http://buckshotsimageblog.blogspot.com/
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum