Don't do this!!!!
Camera filters only block out visible light. They don't do anything for the IR and UV and the rest. By the time you have focused your image, you could already have seriously damaged your retina. Since the retina has no pain receptors, you will not know anything about it until you wake up blind, or with permanent blind spots in your vision...
There have been about a thousand posts on here in the past months about shooting the eclipse, and many of us have tried to explain the dangers. Shooting when there is *no* eclipse is even worse!
Mary Kate wrote:
We will be in NH. Not in the path of the total eclipse. Would you need a solar filter in those areas that have fringe views of the eclipse?
The *only* place where it will be safe to shoot or even look hard at the sun, is right in totality, during totality. Even a sliver of the sun peeking around the edge of the moon is enough to do serious damage...
Likely to outlast your lifespan, which is what's r... (
Which was kinda my point in the first place...
No, I don't get the picture. Why don't you do some... (
This proves that these particular disks survived this test of "combined temperature, humidity and light cycles" better than others. Unless they ran the tests for 1000 years, this is still no basis for claiming 1000-year lifespan. How many light cycles is equivalent to 1000 years?
Accelerated life testing was done on M-Discs by the US Military Department of Defense and the French National Laboratory of Metrology and Testing.
Could you please explain to me exactly what the phrase "accelerated life testing" really means? Seriously?
Unless they have revoked Einstein's theory of relativity, to see if a product lasts a year, it takes a year. To see if it lasts 10 years, it takes 10 years. To see if it lasts 1000 years... Well, you get the picture?
These are not mechanical devices, where you could run them at many times greater speed or duration, in order to estimate more 'normal' lifespan. Once burnt, they basically just sit there, so how on earth can you test their lifespan?
Would you buy a camera if the manufacturer said "We tested the shutter 50 times, so it should easily last for 250,000 times..."?
Ok, but not really what we were talking about... The *ancestry* part of identical twins must be the same, yes? Actually, for any full siblings, but using twins makes it even more so... I am English/Scottish/Shetlandic, but my brother is German/Italian... Hmmm...
I am not putting down the idea, just pointing out that it probably isn't wise to attach too much stock in the results. As I said, I have an interest myself. My Ex was researching her family using the various programs and sites available for this. I travelled back to the UK for some family business, and decided to try and figure out some of mine. It isn't quite as big a business there, since the waves of immigration which built the British population are mostly more than 1000 years ago, with Vikings, Danes, Gauls, etc. I spent many hours in a large regional library, going through the microfiche copy of the Register of Births, Deaths and Marriages. Turns out there is no record of the death of my paternal grandfather. None at all... We narrowed down the time period, since I had been told that my mother took me to see him when I was a baby, so post 1955, and we knew where my dad was working when one of his brothers came to tell him the old man had died, so we could figure out the end of the 'window'. There is absolutely nothing in the records... We figure they put his body out at the curb in a black plastic bag or something!
I wonder just how accurate those DNA tests are. They could tell us anything and we wouldn't know the difference. I would be particularly concerned when they are trying to sell 60+ more tests... money scam? I just don't know so take my comment with a grain of salt.
Saw a documentary about this a while ago. Some group (no idea who...) collected a bunch of identical twins, and sent their dna to be tested by various of the sites offering this service. The result was less than inspiring, since most of the companies reported different results for the pairs of twins - which would, of course, have identical dna... I had considered using one of these myself, since my family knowledge only goes back to my grandparents - 1 English, 2 Scottish and 1 Shetlandic (and hence Viking!). The report was enough to prevent me spending money on the idea.
Tests have determined that data will be stable for 1000 years.
Manufacturers making these claims always crack me up... How can you test for stability over time, other than by testing a disc repeatedly over that time period? Unless they have some of these discs sitting there, having held data for 1000 years and still working, the whole claim is just a marketing gimmick. Theory may well suggest that they are longer-lasting than other discs, but...
I remember Argos... Years ago, I was in one of their stores, perusing the catalogue, as one does. They had a complete weight set in there, like for body-building. I almost felt like ordering one, to see this box full of weights come through from the back, and be carried to the counter by one of the kids working there!
I tried a few different programs, but when I would purge photos from my hard drive, it also deleted them from the back up. That's why I prefer to just manually do it.
If I had 1/2 the brains I think I do, I would come up with the million dollar idea to come up with a back up program for photographers only that will permanently archive all photos, even if I erase them from my hard drive to free up space.
Any of the SyncBack programs will do this. I run multiple backup profiles onto various hard drives, both internal and external. You specify the folders you want copied, which specific files (if needed), whether you want to program to automatically add new files from those folders to the backup, all the usual stuff. The program doesn't care about 'orphan' files on the backup. Periodically, when I am feeling industrious, I take a wander through the backed up disks to remove any old junk which isn't needed any more - multiple versions of downloaded install files, for example. This used to be important with smaller disks, to prevent the backups becoming full, but with 6TB drives, it takes quite a bit to fill them!
I can't remember if the choice to leave orphan files on the backup was a setup option, or just the program's default mode. I have been using their products for many years, and decisions like that have faded into the mists of time...
Marc G wrote:
The Andromeda aka M31 project.
Conditions not the best due to clouds, early sunrise but managed reasonable first attempt with the modified 450d.
25 lights @ 30s ISO 800
25 lights @ 45s ISO 800
25 lights @ 60s ISO 800
The reason for staggered exposure durations is an attempt to preserve the inner core & finer details within the spiral arms.
A bit of fine tuning with the frame count should reveal more detail.
I'd say you cracked it! That is a great image, really...
I thought maybe it was a shot of this week's New Moon...
Thanks to everyone for advice and suggestions (except for the one to "read the manual" - have you ever TRIED to read the manual for that camera? A kitten with a ball of yarn is linear by comparison).
Good, isn't it? For some reason, when the 5DIII came out, Canon sent me a link to a copy of its manual - no idea why, didn't even own a Canon camera at that point! It was readable, understandable (mostly...) to someone whose last SLR was an A1, back in the 80s, pretty sensible. Then I bought the SX50, and it nearly killed me trying to make sense of the impossible manual. Seems to me, it would make more sense to produce a decent manual for a beginner's camera... Most people buying a 5D probably have a fair bit of experience of the brand, but a lot of people (like *me*) bought the SX as an intro to digital cameras. There are all kinds of features that catch you out, and even if you suspect they are there, you cannot find them without knowing what esoteric naming convention Canon came up with... The worst was the one I mentioned earlier in the thread, which kicks in to over-ride your exposure settings even on full manual, if you don't turn it off explicitly. How would someone just coming to digital photography deduce the existence of that one? I don't remember what it was called, but somebody on here helped me out, otherwise I would still be looking!
Such a shame, as the camera is a marvelous piece of kit... Doesn't compete with my 5DII or my 7DII, but for some jobs, it just can't be beat. Only camera I ever owned that let me take hand-held photos of the moon, without making it appear a tiny dot in the image!
Read your manual.
I defy *anyone* to read the SX50 manual and get much out of it... It is the worst-written thing *ever*. Every paragraph refers you to another page! My first attempt at photographing Christmas lights was an exercise in frustration, as - despite having exposure set to manual - the camera ignored me and exposed for the dark background... Turns out that they have this over-ride built in, and defaulting to 'on'. I can't remember what they called it, but it wasn't obvious, and if you don't know in advance that it is there *and* what they call it, there is no way to find out how to turn it off...
Not knocking the camera here. For the money, it is one of the greatest pieces of gear out there, but the manual is absolutely useless.
I know that this will mean nothing to you, since you seem to exist just to post unhelpful comments, but maybe someone else will find it useful.
Have you *ever* made a helpful post?