Tom K.

Tom K.

Lives in United States Tulsa, United States
Joined on Mar 6, 2002
About me:

Feb 2000 - Canon A50 (Sold Aug 2000)
July 2000 - Canon S100 (great early pocket camera)
Oct 2000 - Olympus C-2100UZ (a classic)
Nov 2003 - Minolta A1 (CCD died 8-2006)
May 2005 - Panasonic FZ5 (given to wife after I got FZ30)
Sep 2005 - Panasonic FZ30 (great camera in its day, seems dog slow now)
Jan 2006 - Fuji F10 (don't like it-overrated)
Apr 2006 - Kodak CD33 (2 from eBay for grandkids to use)
July 2006 - Nikon 4500 (from eBay for digiscoping-disappointed)
Aug 2006 - Panasonic FX07 (lost)
Sep 2006 - Minolta A2 (from eBay to replace A1)
Aug 2007 - Kodak P880 (from eBay on a whim)
Apr 2009 - Panasonic ZS3 travel zoom
Dec 2009 - Panasonic GH1 with 14-140 lens (finally a decent EVF)
Sep 2012 - Panasonic FZ200 (lightweight, wanted more zoom reach)
Apr 2013 - Panasonic ZS19 (replaced ZS3 when zoom function got intermittent)
Feb 2014 - Panasonic GF1 (bought cheap to have a dedicated body for the Samyang 7.5mm fisheye)
Jun 2014 - Panasonic ZS40 (replaced ZS19 which lacked EVF)
Dec 2014 - Panasonic FZ1000 (4K video, beautiful EVF)
Mar 2015 - Panasonic ZS50 (replaced ZS40 due to improved EVF)

Comments

Total: 45, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous123Next ›Last »

Once there are enough of them and they can fly close enough together, there won't be any need for them to maneuver because they will just create an airborne video screen - potentially three dimensional.

Link | Posted on Feb 25, 2017 at 20:27 UTC as 19th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

SushiEater: The Wave image. In order to go there the lottery has to be won. I have a doubt that a couple plus photographer went there. That means at least 3 people won a lottery. Highly doubtful. Plus it is quite a hike. and the rocks are not reflective either.

"Just because you are not able to spot a photoshoped image does not make it real."

http://mybroadband.co.za/photos/data/500/shopped_3.jpg

Link | Posted on Feb 9, 2017 at 15:49 UTC
On article Throwback Thursday: Minolta's prosumer DiMAGE 7 (177 comments in total)

I had the 5mp A1 and it was a nice package, until the sensor died. I got a check from Sony for it and found an 8mp A2 on eBay for about a hundred bucks less, so I did okay there.

The D7/A1/A2 lens was nice in that it went down to 28mm, but after being spoiled by the Olympus 2100's 38-380 reach I always felt handicapped by the Minolta's shorter 200mm maximum. Shortly after getting the A2, Panasonic came out with the FZ30/50 with its 35-420 lens and I never looked back. Plus, the Panasonic's lens had both a real manual zoom ring, AND was non-telescoping. THAT's the type of lens that someone (Panasonic) should do again.

Link | Posted on Feb 9, 2017 at 15:39 UTC as 65th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

SushiEater: The Wave image. In order to go there the lottery has to be won. I have a doubt that a couple plus photographer went there. That means at least 3 people won a lottery. Highly doubtful. Plus it is quite a hike. and the rocks are not reflective either.

@sushiEater - The photo you linked to doesn't look like the same spot. It's surely in the vicinity, but there's no pool of water - unless you photoshopped it out....

I'm still not seeing what you think is a "smooth curve" in the original photo. Note that there is a high-water mark several inches above the water's actual edge. Here's a link to the original at the highest resolution available.
https://2.img-dpreview.com/files/p/articles/5125092729/_SLL2880.jpeg

Here are some other pictures of the same pool. As you can see the water level varies considerably.

http://mymodernmet.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/archive/efvnqgaAsbGlg1nMKdqH_1082089962.jpeg

http://20772-presscdn.pagely.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/unnamed-10.jpg

http://www.travelthruhistory.tv/ThruHistory/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/The-Wave-Arizona.jpg

I still don't see why you think the photographers would even bother to photoshop a picture like this, much less anything to indicate that it was.

Link | Posted on Feb 9, 2017 at 01:58 UTC
On article Google AI adds detail to low-resolution images (149 comments in total)

It would be interesting to see some of the multitude of poor results, that they sifted through to be able to show three good ones.

Link | Posted on Feb 9, 2017 at 01:27 UTC as 48th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

SushiEater: The Wave image. In order to go there the lottery has to be won. I have a doubt that a couple plus photographer went there. That means at least 3 people won a lottery. Highly doubtful. Plus it is quite a hike. and the rocks are not reflective either.

@sushiEater "The rock is not flat but the edge of water is."
Did you look at the picture fullscreen? I don't see any place where the edge of the water does not follow the contour of the rock.

"The hike is kind of difficult and I don't think they came dressed like that."
Did you even READ the captions under the pictures where they SAY that they have to hike in and change, fix their hair, etc?

"Again, no reflection from the left slope."
So, what is it that is filling the left side of the picture if not the left slope and its reflection?

Nothing about this picture looks 'shopped (other than the usual post-processing of saturation, sharpening, etc.)

Link | Posted on Feb 8, 2017 at 16:32 UTC

These aren't selfies. Selfies are thoughtless snaps taken from arms length or thereabouts, of zero interest to anyone except the person taking it. These are well crafted, interesting, and fun.

I like them. For the people who think they are landscape photos that have been ruined by having people in them, isn't it difficult to sit with that stick up your butt?

Link | Posted on Feb 5, 2017 at 06:05 UTC as 30th comment | 1 reply
On article Stunning time-lapse captures the seasons of Norway (65 comments in total)

I would like to have seen more of a transition between fall and winter. Suddenly it's clear and sunny with everything covered by windblown snow, without ever showing any of it falling.

Link | Posted on Feb 2, 2017 at 16:08 UTC as 25th comment
In reply to:

matthew saville: I feel sorry for folks who still think these images are fake. It just means they simply have not experienced the real world very much. GET OUT AND SHOOT! All it takes is a little planning, a BIG lens, and a stable tripod.

PS: my favorite app, not mentioned here I think, is Sun Surveyor. It's a great interface, and also includes the Milky Way. :-)

Image 1 shows the rising full moon and was taken from New Jersey with the camera pointing towards the east. Image 8 shows the setting crescent moon (obviously on a completely different date - could be weeks, months or years different) and was likely taken from Red Hook on Long Island with the camera pointing towards the west. How can that be so hard to understand?

I guess that's why he's taking these pictures, and you are not.

Link | Posted on Jan 18, 2017 at 21:11 UTC
In reply to:

BBQue: WHY I BELIEVE THESE ARE FAKE: Please compare #1 and #8. Both are taken in evening hour as evidenced by the many street and window lights. One photo shows the statue from left with moon behind, the other shows the statue from right with moon behind. The only way this is possible is if one shows moon rise, the other shows moon set. -> contradiction! -> fake!

@Chris Butler - Presumably you've never heard of atmospheric extinction? Go to the page below and scroll down to Table 1. Moon Luminance vs. Altitude
http://www.calphoto.com/moon.htm

"Seriously, folks -- this thread is an embarrassment to yourselves as "serious photographers"...." So true, for some of the commenters.

Link | Posted on Jan 17, 2017 at 18:01 UTC
In reply to:

(unknown member): Well at these days someone with a medium knowledge of photoshop can get the same or better results. On the other hand this is a photo community.Probably if we sum the money everybody has given here we will end with some millions and as the time everybody has given here for studding and practicing we will end with some years...So because no one can take a single shot photo with such a big moon , and also because if the moon was so close to earth I guess no one would be able to read this because everybody would be dead... The photographer has to give the link of the raw file.

"makistza - well its my right sir to believe it or not"

Well, as the saying goes you are entitled to your own opinion, but you aren't entitled to your own facts. And the fact is, you are wrong. Me, I'm having a hard time believing there are people who are so willfully ignorant.

Go out and use the techniques and type of equipment laid out in the article, see what kind of results you get. Heck, doesn't even have to be a DLSR with a huge lens, I've done the same thing with my Panasonic FZ30 with its 35-420mm lens (just not quite as refined.)

Link | Posted on Jan 16, 2017 at 06:01 UTC
In reply to:

Mike FL: Great moon shoot around New York.

About the SUN, there is ONLY one day in a year @the same street/location where you can get the photo as following. Take a look and enjoy:

"Tourists observing the 2016-07-12 Manhattan"

https://www.google.com/search?q=sun+2016-07-12+Manhattan&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwik45ii5cLRAhWoIsAKHU41CskQ_AUICygE&biw=1280&bih=631

Looks like four days a year to me - around May 28 and July 12 for sunset, and December 5 and January 8 for sunrise.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manhattanhenge

Link | Posted on Jan 15, 2017 at 02:28 UTC
In reply to:

4agze: Moon is enlarged in PP... well done..

4agze, I took a look at the listings on your "Gear" page. All that high dollar Canon equipment (including a Canon EF 500mm f/4.0L IS II USM) and you still don't understand perspective?!

Link | Posted on Jan 14, 2017 at 19:52 UTC
In reply to:

Tom K.: When people think photos like these are faked, I'm always exasperated by how ignorant most people are of the sky. They don't seem to have any grasp at all of the moon's phases or its motion through the sky, not to mention the motions of the planets and seasonal changes in the stars of the night sky. They'll think these pictures are bogus, yet believe Facebook posts that Mars will look as big as the full moon on some once-in-a-lifetime specific night. *sigh*

Even Alessandria (who should know better) gets it wrong when he says, "Most of my photos are shot when the moon is low on the horizon and the moon appears larger when it is on the horizon than when it is overhead." This is strictly an illusion that the human brain creates - the moon's angular diameter is no larger in a photograph when it's on the horizon that it is when overhead. (Technically, it's fractionally smaller on the horizon but the difference is imperceptible.)

Yes, the moon "appears" larger to the human eye in real life when on the horizon, but it has no relevance to how large it appears in a photograph. The caption on Photo 7 says:

"There are three factors that determine the size of the moon:"

"Most of my photos are shot when the moon is low on the horizon..." (is coupled with) "...and the moon appears larger when it is on the horizon than when it is overhead."

These statements together seem to imply that the moon being on the horizon will have an affect on how large it appears in his photographs, when it will not. Alessandria may understand that, but I feel it is a carelessly worded statement.

But it is hard to convey all the subtlety of setting up for a shot like this and I congratulate him and DPR for this article.

Link | Posted on Jan 14, 2017 at 17:14 UTC

When people think photos like these are faked, I'm always exasperated by how ignorant most people are of the sky. They don't seem to have any grasp at all of the moon's phases or its motion through the sky, not to mention the motions of the planets and seasonal changes in the stars of the night sky. They'll think these pictures are bogus, yet believe Facebook posts that Mars will look as big as the full moon on some once-in-a-lifetime specific night. *sigh*

Even Alessandria (who should know better) gets it wrong when he says, "Most of my photos are shot when the moon is low on the horizon and the moon appears larger when it is on the horizon than when it is overhead." This is strictly an illusion that the human brain creates - the moon's angular diameter is no larger in a photograph when it's on the horizon that it is when overhead. (Technically, it's fractionally smaller on the horizon but the difference is imperceptible.)

Link | Posted on Jan 14, 2017 at 16:41 UTC as 46th comment | 4 replies
In reply to:

4agze: Moon is enlarged in PP... well done..

Nope, it's strictly position and perspective.

Link | Posted on Jan 14, 2017 at 16:30 UTC
In reply to:

OlyPent: One of the hardest things to do is to find a night where atmospheric conditions on or near the horizon are steady enough to allow for a clear shot of the Moon. Turbulence, temperature gradients usually mess it up. The larger aperture of the lens, the worse the effect is.

This is true. I did a variety of moon/building shots a few years back and having clear, still air is probably the toughest part. This is especially true since you're shooting towards the horizon where the deleterious effects accumulate. Dust in the air, haze, heat shimmer and the like all add up and are worse than when shooting at a high angle.

Link | Posted on Jan 14, 2017 at 16:28 UTC
In reply to:

usernamealreadyinuse: I wonder more about the implications of © infringement and image piracy, now that images can be up-sampled 400% above their original file size with apparently 'little loss' in quality. Thanks, AI?

I think you mean 200%. Resolution is measured by linear dimensions, not area.

Link | Posted on Jan 14, 2017 at 00:20 UTC

Too bad it doesn't have a jack for a wired/wireless remote. Why not allow that kind of simple remote connectivity using the USB port? I've tried the smartphone remote app on my ZS50 and FZ1000 and it's a pain to use.

Other than that it looks pretty impressive for $399.

Link | Posted on Jan 5, 2017 at 21:08 UTC as 4th comment
In reply to:

Yake: Forget the camera. Just sell the app that "ensures that you get remarkable photos".

Remarkable photos that emphasize vignetting.

Link | Posted on Dec 14, 2016 at 16:17 UTC
Total: 45, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous123Next ›Last »