HB1969

Lives in somewhere on earth (mostly)
Joined on Jul 27, 2012

Comments

Total: 328, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

thomo: Great images Scott. Its was interesting to see that you mentioned Christian Fletcher as one of your inspirations. Just last week we were in Dunsborough (south west WA) and visited Christian's Art Gallery - inspirational stuff. It's amazing the extra detail you can get with MFD.

I felt the same for Scott mentioning Tony Hewitt. I was lucky enough to have a coffee with him and some other photogs after a workshop.

Link | Posted on Jan 22, 2017 at 04:54 UTC
In reply to:

sh10453: Nice work Scott.
My biggest surprise is that they have cameras down under :-)
I'm disappointed that there are no sheep pictures from the air. Maybe next time.

Keep up the fun.

"My biggest surprise is that they have cameras down under :-)"
were you expecting us to have bones through our noses and fear photography for stealing our souls? ;)

Link | Posted on Jan 22, 2017 at 04:47 UTC

"it’s just hard to justify spending $800 on a lens that will likely be soaked in beer within two weeks of my purchase (NOT THAT IT'S EVER HAPPENED TO YOUR 20mm...)"

hmmm, I bet ;)

Link | Posted on Jan 21, 2017 at 07:32 UTC as 28th comment
In reply to:

Petrogel: $500 can buy you a good microscope with a camera adapter

the cheaper microsocpes are brightfeild not flourescent, however it looks like Kuhnemund et al. have created a flouresent scope for under $1000...image looks terrible though but good enough for their purpose.

Link | Posted on Jan 21, 2017 at 06:42 UTC
In reply to:

Petrogel: $500 can buy you a good microscope with a camera adapter

$500 buys you a "toy" microscope but that's what they've essentially created with a microscope objective attached to a phone and a 3d printed box. However, the phone can also do some of the computational analysis which a toy microscope can't do.

Link | Posted on Jan 21, 2017 at 06:22 UTC
In reply to:

OlyPent: Both Nikon and Swift made field microscopes (now quite sought-after on Ebay) which would have worked, but no LCD screens of course. There have been a number of microscopy "advances" announced using smartphones but I don't know if any have ever gone into production. A single-objective microscope based on a smartphone could easily be assembled by someone in an afternoon and you could tailor it with a high-quality plan-apo microscope objective. Would cost no more than $200-$300 plus the phone. Also, they mention the one above works in fluorscence mode. Does that box actually have dyes in it for specimens? P.S., no 3D printer can print a lens so that would be an extra.

You save yourself $50000 on a proper microscope but the consumables for the molecular analysis are still quite expensive.
"Does that box actually have dyes in it for specimens?"
You add the dye to the specimens during sample processing. There's a filter and two lasers (different wavelengths) as part of the system.

Link | Posted on Jan 21, 2017 at 06:12 UTC
In reply to:

Antek R: This posting is misleading. A microscope is not a DNA sequencer. However, imaging systems similar to microscopes are used in some sequencers. What are you really talking about? Please be precise. Since you say "tissue sample" rather than a processed DNA sample, presumably you mean a microscope, not a sequencer.

This confused me to so I followed the links and came up with the original paper in Nature Communications
http://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms13913

Link | Posted on Jan 21, 2017 at 06:05 UTC
On article F is for '4th': Hands-on with Fujifilm X100F (366 comments in total)
In reply to:

MJSfoto1956: so what's fifth? "V" perhaps? then there is six and seventh. Not buying it...

M

my guess is that they'll go to X200 next
Alternatively
f(I)ve, si(X), se(V)en, (E)ight, (N)ine

Link | Posted on Jan 20, 2017 at 07:32 UTC
In reply to:

Brotherbill: Unless one plans to print optical rather than digital, I don't see the point.

It's a positive film. You shines light through it and project the image onto a wall.

Link | Posted on Jan 10, 2017 at 20:55 UTC
In reply to:

Nuno Souto: Might work if they also reduced the silly prices they're charging for E6 chemicals.
In the last 3 years most commercial development places gave up on E6 or raised the prices for development to levels never seen before. I'm talking 500% increase in prices.
Caused by Kodak's and Fuji's price rises for the chemicals.
Add to that the price of E6 film nowadays and the availability only at end of 2017 and it's a losing proposition from the word "go"...

Acros is a beautiful film stock to be sure. I'd only every used Ilford developing chemicals in the film days. It was the cheapest where I lived. I don't recall ever seeing Rodinal. I've been considering getting back into deveolping film recently and using coffee developing process sounds like fun.

Link | Posted on Jan 7, 2017 at 09:36 UTC

I remember this camera when it came out. At the time I thought "why do you need an mp3 player and camera in the one device!"...boy was I wrong ;)

Link | Posted on Jan 6, 2017 at 20:37 UTC as 3rd comment
In reply to:

Nuno Souto: Might work if they also reduced the silly prices they're charging for E6 chemicals.
In the last 3 years most commercial development places gave up on E6 or raised the prices for development to levels never seen before. I'm talking 500% increase in prices.
Caused by Kodak's and Fuji's price rises for the chemicals.
Add to that the price of E6 film nowadays and the availability only at end of 2017 and it's a losing proposition from the word "go"...

For cheap alternative, try processing using Caffenol method (uses instant coffee). E6 film comes out in black and white though. You can also try Beerol and Beetrootol.
http://www.caffenol.org/

Link | Posted on Jan 6, 2017 at 06:25 UTC
In reply to:

Fotowitt: "...Apple Inc. is known for being a pioneer..."
Really? Or mayby, very good copypastewrapitnicelypeople?

@ Netmage
be careful about rewriting history.
2010: Apple releases iPad
2002: Microsoft Tablet PC, designed and built by HP.
and Motion Computing releases their 1st slate Tablet PC the M1200.

Apple made the tablet thinner, lighter, did away with the stylus, and made it more user friendly...not the first "consumer" tablet as you say, just the first with broad appeal.

Link | Posted on Jan 1, 2017 at 00:15 UTC
In reply to:

HRC2016: Regarding the warranty card:
In the US, returning the warranty card is not required to recieve benefits.
In most cases, the card is just a way to get your information for marketing (and more junk mail).

I would definitely hang on to the warranty info, including addresses. And of course, your receipt showing the date of purchase and serial number.

This is the same in Australia. All you need is the purchase receipt to claim warranty.

Link | Posted on Dec 26, 2016 at 08:04 UTC

I love the images of Sam Spencer feigning cluelessness :D
Sometimes it's easy to forget that we were all new at this.
Great (absolute) beginner article Carey.

Link | Posted on Dec 25, 2016 at 21:26 UTC as 25th comment | 1 reply
On a photo in the Canon 16-35mm F2.8L III USM sample gallery (3 comments in total)

The magic of blue hour. Gorgeous!

Link | Posted on Dec 16, 2016 at 21:22 UTC as 1st comment
On article Handy tool helps you say no to work for 'exposure' (83 comments in total)
In reply to:

MargoB: Spells discrepancy wrong, not exactly professional.

Your just trying to put the "phun" in phonetic ;)

Link | Posted on Dec 16, 2016 at 03:17 UTC
In reply to:

AshMills: Presumably this has an ND built in to the construction?

Sorry, I didn't mean to come off as condescending. This sites readers have a very wide range of photo knowledge (complete novices to proffesionals). It's hard to know from the question alone where each person stands.

Link | Posted on Dec 14, 2016 at 23:39 UTC
In reply to:

AshMills: Presumably this has an ND built in to the construction?

It's two polarising filters. When the polarisation is aligned 90deg to each other, it would block most if not all the light.

Link | Posted on Dec 13, 2016 at 05:05 UTC
In reply to:

Marty4650: No, the story doesn't say that.

The story says that Apple was the most popular brand of imaging device for 2016 uploads, and that "smartphones combined" accounted for 48% of all their uploads. Anyone with any knowledge of math knows this means "real cameras accounted for the other 52%."

And this shouldn't be surprising because you can upload smartphone pictures to Flickr with just one press of a button, but uploading photos from real cameras involves several more steps.

I am not denying that these devices are very popular, just that your headline is somewhat misleading. Smartphones are MORE polular than the other type of imaging devices on a hosting site that makes it easy to upload them and hard to upload anything else.

Just putting it in context.

People can also upload images from other imaging devices like scanners and video cameras. Flickr also mislabels cameras. The Fuji X100T and Sony RX1 are listed as point and shoot. Some bridge camera's are listed as DSLRs

Link | Posted on Dec 7, 2016 at 21:54 UTC
Total: 328, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »