Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Posts for: rocketride
Page: <<prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ... 132 next>>
Mar 15, 2016 09:40:37   #
jerryc41 wrote:
Right. It's definitely not one size fits all. Too much hood in the wrong place will produce vignetting.


And not enough hood elsewhere will allow flare that could have been avoided.

Solid hoods are usually used for telephotos because the petals on a petal hood would be inconveniently long. A solid hood will generally extend to the point (measuring from the part that attaches to the lens) that the petals would have started at if it had been a petal-type hood.
Go to
Feb 17, 2016 00:09:27   #
Some cameras don't allow setting a Kelven temperature, but they pretty much all allow setting a custom balance from a white or neutral gray card.

davidrb wrote:
You don't need filters. Your camera's white balance is your solution. Find out which type florescence lamp you're shooting under and set you white balance accordingly. Get more technical and shoot Kelvin, if you figure out the bulb's temperature.
Go to
Feb 17, 2016 00:07:02   #
That's one thing I do not miss about film photography. Having film of the wrong color balance in the camera.

AP wrote:
Photography has come a long way in making corrections from the days of B&W film to color print and slide film. I never thought film would ever be replaced, but it did, and for the very best!

You cannot beat digital cameras these days and what they can do technically for many needed corrections in making a photograph. All info data is in your digital camera to make these corrections especially lighting that you are shooting in.

As mentioned from others, White Balance in your camera will have a setting for Fluorecent Lighting. Soon as you set in W/B fluorecent lighting, you'll see through your camera the corrective color in your photograph. Don't forget to change it back to daylight when you go outside.

Also, you can set your camera to AUTO W/B. FLD fluorecent filters are not needed on your digital camera. I took the liberity to make a correction on your fine photograph. AP
Photography has come a long way in making correcti... (show quote)
Go to
Feb 10, 2016 22:29:39   #
MtnMan wrote:
I like mine too. But it isn't very wide angle for a DX camera. More like 10-24 for DX.

However you can take panorams handheld with the 17-50 and they are now very easy to put together in Lightroom.

But I thought one of the big features of the D3300 is panorama?


I love my 17-50 Sigma (in Canon mount). It's about my favorite crop lens.
Go to
Feb 10, 2016 09:02:27   #
MtnMan wrote:
I like mine too. But it isn't very wide angle for a DX camera. More like 10-24 for DX.

However you can take panorams handheld with the 17-50 and they are now very easy to put together in Lightroom.

But I thought one of the big features of the D3300 is panorama?


One trick that a lot of photographers who do panos don't seem to know is to shoot in portrait orientation. That gets you more vertical coverage and encourages using more shots to get the pano-- which makes the stitcher's job easier.
Go to
Feb 9, 2016 23:17:54   #
Gene51 wrote:
Software does a great job of removing most of the curving, and of course with greater distance you will get less curving. What the software doesn't do automatically you can fix in warp and with the liquify tool.


But there is a certain amount of distortion-- straight lines looking curved-- in any very wide panoramic. You won't see it if the only line parallel to the 'equator' is on it, but straight lines above or below WILL appear to curve. Vertical straight lines will remain straight. If you stitch a 2-D grid of exposures, you will get something like fisheye distortion where any line that doesn't pass through the 'center' will look like it's bowing away from it.
Go to
Jan 27, 2016 16:34:29   #
Bloke wrote:
My new Rokinon 14mm lens was just delivered, and I think I like it! I just grabbed a few test shots around the apartment, and I have a couple of observations...

Focus is a bit touchy in poor light anyway, because about 90% of the focus motion is less than 1 metre. Between that 1 metre and infinity is about 10 degrees of turn.

My question involves the metadata, though. I have smart collections set up in LR to collect all photographs taken with a given camera, and also with a given lens. For some reason, this lens doesn't know this... The lens is not displayed in metadata at all, and the focal length is displayed as 50mm. I know the lens is fully manual, and I suppose that 50mm is just the default "huh... What lens?" value.

Is there any way I can *force* this to display something else? I just want to keep my sorting straight...
My new Rokinon 14mm lens was just delivered, and I... (show quote)


Does this lens even have electrical contacts? If not, you may be able to buy a 'Dandelion' chip (IIRC, Fotodiox sells these) and epoxy it to the lens mount. Then you'd have focus confirmation and you'd be able to program it with the lens's focal length and maximum aperture.
Go to
Jan 25, 2016 12:00:54   #
lowkick wrote:
Printers that print round prints? Frames for round prints? Displaying round prints on rectangular walls? Think about how you see things through your eyes - certainly closer to rectangular than round. I don't think you could make an argument for round prints that would convince anyone to buy a camera with a round sensor. Certainly, you could crop the round print to a rectangle, but then what's the point?


I suspect that the point would be to be able to do square, landscape, and portrait images (and the non-square ones at a variety of aspect ratios) without having to flip the camera sideways. I doubt that this is compelling enough to overcome the 'mechanics' of reading out a non-rectangular array of pixels (or, actually an incomplete rectangular array) It wouldn't be so bad as long as one were taking rectangular chunks out of the image and processing them. Making an actual circular print would require extra computation. This would be needed to properly place the subset of pixels on each line that are carrying information. (It's easy on a rectangular (or square) picture-- the first pixel on each line goes right below the first pixel on the line above it.)
Go to
Jan 25, 2016 11:46:41   #
Blurryeyed wrote:
Actually I was a little off topic, the 12-24 that I was talking about is a full frame lens... it is stupid wide.


Well, yes, that is stupid wide.
Go to
Jan 23, 2016 02:39:59   #
Blurryeyed wrote:
It will be interesting, but I am not so sure that EF-S lenses make sense on a full frame even if you could mount them because they are not designed to cover the larger sensor....

I have currently have two ultra wides, although one of them is for sale, but the Sigma 12-24 is pretty wide on an APS-C and stupid wide on a full frame.


It would be stupid wide on a FF body, except the lens likely wouldn't illuminate the entire FF sensor (or at least not at all focal lengths), and even if it did do so at some part of the zoom range, the optical quality outside the part of the FF sensor corresponding to the crop sensor's diameter would likely not be acceptable.
Go to
Jan 23, 2016 02:35:55   #
melismus wrote:
No way. EF-s lenses are barred from mounting on EF camera because they would interfere with mirror.


Canon relaxed the restrictions on how far the mechanical and optical parts could protrude into the body for the EF-S lenses. Since the focal length of the lens needed to get the same field of view for a 1.6 crop factor sensor is smaller than that needed for full-frame by a factor of 0.625, it is useful (from the optical design standpoint) to be able to get the back of the glass a bit closer to the sensor, especially for short focal lengths. But this makes them incompatible with the larger flip mirrors of the FF bodies.

Nikon didn't relax the similar constraint on their crop sensor lenses, which makes the short focal lengths a little harder to design. But they did get the ability to not have the crop optics interfere with the full-frame sensor. Many Nikon FF bodies can use the Crop lenses, using only the center portion of the chip's area.

The other relevant factor here is that the Canon EF/EF-S flange to sensor distance is a couple of mm shorter than the Nikon F mount equivalent. And its diameter is also markedly larger. This means that is physically possible to make mechanical adapters for Nikon-F and many other old film camera lenses (Olympus-OM, for instance) that will allow the lenses to be mounted on Canon EOS bodies. There are even versions that will allow manual focus with focus confirmation and manual aperture operation. (Fotodiox sells these.)
Go to
Jan 23, 2016 01:58:50   #
louparker wrote:
Yes, what she did 45 years ago was certainly "unspeakable," but Jane Fonda today is not the same Jane Fonda of 45 years ago.


Saggier, for a start.
Go to
Jan 22, 2016 00:00:27   #
St3v3M wrote:
10 fish are in a tank
- 2 drown
- 4 swim away
- 3 die
How many are left?


6

The 4 that swam away are obviously gone.
It is not mentioned that the 3 that died or the 2 that 'drowned' were removed. So they are presumably still present in the tank-- unless the deaths and drownings were among those that swam away.
Go to
Jan 21, 2016 23:54:01   #
lorenww wrote:
Worth Your Time to Read.

Richard, (my husband), never really talked a lot about his time in Viet Nam, other than he had been shot by a sniper. However, he had a rather grainy, 8 x 10 black and white photo he had taken at a USO show of Ann Margret with Bob Hope in the background that was one of his treasures.

A few years ago, Ann Margaret was doing a book signing at a local bookstore. Richard wanted to see if he could get her to Sign the treasured photo so he arrived at the bookstore at 12 o'clock for the 7:30 signing.

When I got there after work, the line went all the way around the bookstore, circled the parking lot, and disappeared behind a parking garage. Before her appearance, bookstore employees announced that she would sign only her book and no memorabilia would be permitted.

Richard was disappointed, but wanted to show her the photo and let her know how much those
shows meant to lonely GI's so far from home.. Ann Margaret came out looking as
beautiful as ever and, as second in line, it was soon Richard's turn.

He presented the book for her signature and then took out the photo. When he did, there were many shouts from the employees that she would not sign it. Richard said, "I understand. I just wanted her to see it."

She took one look at the photo, tears welled up in her eyes and she said, "This is one of my gentlemen from Viet Nam and I most certainly will sign his photo. I know what these men did for their country and I always have time for 'my gentlemen.'' With that, she pulled Richard across the table and planted a big kiss on him. She then made quite a to-do about the bravery of the young men she met over the years, how much she admired them, and how much she appreciated them. There weren't too many dry eyes among those close enough to hear. She then posed for pictures and acted as if he were the only one there.

That night was a turning point for him. He walked a little straighter and, for the first time in years, was proud to have been a Vet. I'll never forget Ann Margaret for her graciousness and how much that small act of kindness meant to my husband.

Later at dinner, Richard was very quiet. When I asked if he'd like to talk about it, my big, strong husband broke down in tears.. ''That's the first time anyone ever thanked
me for my time in the Army,'' he said.

I now make it a point to say 'Thank you' to every person I come across who served in our Armed Forces. Freedom does not come cheap and I am grateful for all those who have served their country.

If you'd like to pass on this story, feel free to do so. Perhaps it will help others to become aware of how important it is to acknowledge the contribution our service people make.

A True Patriot Will Pass This On. A Foreigner In This Country Might Not.
Worth Your Time to Read. br br Richard, (my husba... (show quote)


:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:
Go to
Jan 21, 2016 23:49:55   #
Merlin1300 wrote:
I think the building was supposed to explode - -
They should have had 4 drums set up
Let me know when they're ready to try again


Got a house you're not using? :)
Go to
Page: <<prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ... 132 next>>
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.