E
ex-orbinaut
Guest
Okay, I see what you mean; the pale green smudges in the sky. I have rescanned the image in a different format, lowered the compression level and replaced it in the original post.
Cool Photography
- Thread starter Andy44
- Start date
Okay, I see what you mean; the pale green smudges in the sky. I have rescanned the image in a different format, lowered the compression level and replaced it in the original post.
Matias Saibene
Development hell
I love photographing the clouds. They are awesome.
Andy44
owner: Oil Creek Astronautix
Unstung
Active member
I'm not familiar with that photographer's work, but the skylight is part of a new building on campus that looks interesting. I've actually posted another part of the building before:Looks familiar...
(October 2013)
Andy44
owner: Oil Creek Astronautix
"That photographer" is me LOL.
I shot that photo in the National Gallery of Art in Washington DC a year or two ago. I just thought it was interesting that you and I both saw a similar visual pattern and decided to photgraph them. I purposely waited until there were people visible.
Unstung
Active member
It's a very nice photo that I thought was an old film photograph for an organization like Magnum, honestly. Both shots include a similarly shaped object, but how you've filled the frame and waited for people makes your version more interesting. The two people are positioned well, it's simple, interesting, well exposed, and has pleasing shapes.
Andy44
owner: Oil Creek Astronautix
It is a film photograph. I used Kodak 400Tx film for that and printed it myself in a darkroom. That's why I started this thread!
Unstung
Active member
I could tell. I prefer the quality of digital, but the process of developing film is interesting. I still have a few rolls of 35mm film and inherited an old Pentax SLR, but I don't plan on devoting time to it soon.
I either forgot or didn't read the purpose of this thread, but it turned into something for photography in general. There's a few photography threads around but not many people who spend time with photography.
I either forgot or didn't read the purpose of this thread, but it turned into something for photography in general. There's a few photography threads around but not many people who spend time with photography.
Eccentrus
Geekernaut
So I recently bought myself a clean and well maintained Canonet QL17 G-III (1977 production methinks) and started to shoot film again (my last film camera was an Olympus mju-III).
Here's some pics from my pre-med prom night. All done in Ilford PAN400, processed by the only black and white processing left in town with Micro-MF
Here's some pics from my pre-med prom night. All done in Ilford PAN400, processed by the only black and white processing left in town with Micro-MF
Artlav
Aperiodic traveller
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2008
- Messages
- 5,790
- Reaction score
- 780
- Points
- 203
- Location
- Earth
- Website
- orbides.org
- Preferred Pronouns
- she/her
Some random shots from experiments with invisible light over the past years.
NIR (near infrared), visible and NUV (near ultraviolet) compressed into one image:
A couple of pictures from the eyes of someone who see the spectrum below ours:
And a hot M12 nut shining brightly in NIR:
NIR (near infrared), visible and NUV (near ultraviolet) compressed into one image:
A couple of pictures from the eyes of someone who see the spectrum below ours:
And a hot M12 nut shining brightly in NIR:
sorindafabico
New member
I just bought a new battery to replace the old damaged one. Tested the new one on a downtown building:
Andy44
owner: Oil Creek Astronautix
A friend asked me to photograph him and his band a couple of weeks ago.
Unstung
Active member
I made a retrospective video of my photography since I started in 2009.
The whole "contact me about using any photos" and creative commons stuff at the end is to indicate that I am open to people inquiring about using my work. If anybody contacts me about using any of my work, as long as it's non-commercial, I'd probably let them do the thing with it.
The whole "contact me about using any photos" and creative commons stuff at the end is to indicate that I am open to people inquiring about using my work. If anybody contacts me about using any of my work, as long as it's non-commercial, I'd probably let them do the thing with it.
E
ex-orbinaut
Guest
I thought it was a pretty cool image of dissipating fog patches from above, taken with my iPad of all things, at 07:00 this morning, location 15 miles NW of Bogota. A sort of a meteorology book illustration!
Eccentrus
Geekernaut
Long exposure unstung?
These little 
box iCamera things seem to be outperforming DSLRs. And they're getting better every year.
The SLR part in DSLR, Single Lens Reflex, is an early 20th century solution to a problem that no longer exists. Helping you to see things as the film would see them.
Today that is accomplished with electronics. And saddling electronics with those cumbersome mechanisms of the past is just a performance-sapping burden. The mirror and pentaprism and all that just create bulk and get in the way of fitting more and better 'tronics and larger sensors.
One could argue that DSLRs come with a huge selection of superior lenses. Oh I don't doubt that for an instant. But there is absolutely no reason these lenses can't be fitted to a faster and lighter mirrorless body.
Hate to say it, but DSLRs were a solution in the early 2000's when the digital photography revolution was just getting underway. Today that solution is no longer optimal and its mix of 20th and 21st century technology is excess baggage getting in the way.
Finally these new iCamera doohickey things are superior in ease of use, pervasiveness, and automated to the point where a 3yr old can do a good job.
box iCamera things seem to be outperforming DSLRs. And they're getting better every year.The SLR part in DSLR, Single Lens Reflex, is an early 20th century solution to a problem that no longer exists. Helping you to see things as the film would see them.
Today that is accomplished with electronics. And saddling electronics with those cumbersome mechanisms of the past is just a performance-sapping burden. The mirror and pentaprism and all that just create bulk and get in the way of fitting more and better 'tronics and larger sensors.
One could argue that DSLRs come with a huge selection of superior lenses. Oh I don't doubt that for an instant. But there is absolutely no reason these lenses can't be fitted to a faster and lighter mirrorless body.
Hate to say it, but DSLRs were a solution in the early 2000's when the digital photography revolution was just getting underway. Today that solution is no longer optimal and its mix of 20th and 21st century technology is excess baggage getting in the way.
Finally these new iCamera doohickey things are superior in ease of use, pervasiveness, and automated to the point where a 3yr old can do a good job.
Last edited:
Unstung
Active member
DSLRs still have the best performance and are cheaper than interchangeable lens compacts (ILCs), probably due to their less compact bodies. There is more to a DSLR than its mirror and viewfinder. While smaller cameras have to rely on a contrast detection system for autofocus, DSLRs have a more accurate and faster phase detection system. There's an explanation here.
The performance of ILCs are improving and closing the gap, but they also fall behind DSLRs in burst shooting, weather sealing, and battery life. It's also easier to fit a larger sensor into a bigger SLR body, which results in better image quality. DSLRs have a bigger lens selection, and the bigger lenses are superior because they can hold more elements, have longer focal lengths and wider apertures.
There is definitely a place for DSLRs, but most people don't require that kind of performance.
In comparison, iPhones and other smartphones have miniscule sensors which cannot come near to matching the light sensitivity and image quality of a simply larger piece of silicon. It's also very difficult to generate a thin depth of field with a smaller light collecting area, and impossible with the tiny lenses on smartphones unless the subject is very close.
Point-and-shoots (or compact cameras) have made giant gains in sensor size recently because camera companies have to compete with smartphones. So the performance of some compact cameras are far better than smartphones, but they still don't match cameras with changeable lenses. However, compacts are approacing that kind of performance.
Most photographs I take now are with the original Sony RX100, one of the first cameras to fit a large sensor into a tiny body. The image quality from that little compact is close to a DSLR, but it lacks the lenses, battery life, depth of field control, and performance.
Smartphone: http://fav.me/d7zlkug
2008 point-and-shoot: http://fav.me/d6oz6fz
2012 point-and-shoot: http://fav.me/d85jzpj
DSLR (shallow DoF): http://fav.me/d4u0yn0
DSLR (wide DoF): http://fav.me/d6eadg2
The performance of ILCs are improving and closing the gap, but they also fall behind DSLRs in burst shooting, weather sealing, and battery life. It's also easier to fit a larger sensor into a bigger SLR body, which results in better image quality. DSLRs have a bigger lens selection, and the bigger lenses are superior because they can hold more elements, have longer focal lengths and wider apertures.
There is definitely a place for DSLRs, but most people don't require that kind of performance.
In comparison, iPhones and other smartphones have miniscule sensors which cannot come near to matching the light sensitivity and image quality of a simply larger piece of silicon. It's also very difficult to generate a thin depth of field with a smaller light collecting area, and impossible with the tiny lenses on smartphones unless the subject is very close.
Point-and-shoots (or compact cameras) have made giant gains in sensor size recently because camera companies have to compete with smartphones. So the performance of some compact cameras are far better than smartphones, but they still don't match cameras with changeable lenses. However, compacts are approacing that kind of performance.
Most photographs I take now are with the original Sony RX100, one of the first cameras to fit a large sensor into a tiny body. The image quality from that little compact is close to a DSLR, but it lacks the lenses, battery life, depth of field control, and performance.
Smartphone: http://fav.me/d7zlkug
2008 point-and-shoot: http://fav.me/d6oz6fz
2012 point-and-shoot: http://fav.me/d85jzpj
DSLR (shallow DoF): http://fav.me/d4u0yn0
DSLR (wide DoF): http://fav.me/d6eadg2
Similar threads
