Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Posts for: NorCal Bohemian
Page: 1 2 3 next>>
Dec 4, 2023 02:01:10   #
E.L.. Shapiro wrote:
Could be! Maybe he won't read it all. Perhaps he'll be inspired and create a masterpiece. Small chance he'll read my "tome", find it useless and ignore it, or become overwhelmed and toss his camera in the garbage and forget about photography.

An AI-generated pizza "baked" in a 3-D printer will probably taste better than the piece of cardboard and glue the local greasy spoon sent over the other night. I think the driver got a parking ticket.

I'm certain our OP will derive a great deal of inspiration and knowledge from your post. Good to know someone is reading my stuff- I just do it for typing practice. Thanks for the "book review". My next tome will be entitled "Don't Drop this Book on Your Foot (serious injury may result)!
Could be! Maybe he won't read it all. Perhaps he'... (show quote)


I appreciate your informative posts. The time and effort you take to share your knowledge and experience help to elevate photography and make Ugly Hedgehog worth reading. Nice burn on the vacuous troll with attitude, whom I have yet to see contribute a bit of useable knowledge, let alone a whit of wit! Thank you for your continuing educational contributions - again - deeply appreciated!
Go to
Jun 17, 2023 20:36:57   #
[quote=selmslie] "By 1866, CoC was used to determine the nearest and the farthest objects that are in acceptably sharp focus, within the depth of field (DoF)..."

Thank you for the in depth explanation of "Circle of Confusion". You have provided an excellent overview of an important technical subject, and a great review and memory refresher for myself, as medical retirement has kept me away from photography for quite awhile. In the 1970's, as a student and later as a salesman at Dodd Camera in Cleveland, Ohio, and before the use of the term "Bokeh", we referred to that phenomenon as "Circles of Confusion." As a pinpoint of light - well out of the Depth of Field - renders as a circle and not a dot - I have always found that simple definition to be useful. I am sure that you or someone else here could give me the history of the term and use of "Bokeh", but I find it to be a word that brings more, pardon the pun, confusion to the subject.

I don't understand the trolling by at least one poster here, whose anti knowledge approach to photography seems to be the clueless antithesis of what the purpose of a forum to share knowledge of photography is about!

Again, thank you for sharing this information, keep up the good work, and don't be dissuaded by the ignorance of a few for whom anything beyond 'put it on auto and point and shoot' strains their technical interest and / or their cognitive abilities!
Go to
Oct 10, 2022 13:57:15   #
Lukabulla wrote:
Hi Everyone ,
So I ask , what if any could have been done by me to improve the picture ... I always shoot one stop down all the time when outside .. could I have set the camera differently ' Just in case '
Its an OMD -EM1 mk one ..
Thanks

My two cents - I would suggest that if the subject is the human activists - then the exposure is close to accurate - for facial skin tones, and for maintaining detail in the clothing - especially the woman on the right's dark pants. The background building - especially the second story - is definitely blown out - but is that a bad thing? - in that it leaves the main subject - the people - most prominent.
As for the milk - yes, that is definitely blown out - and of more importance to the subject than the background building, but in my opinion - still less important than the people. When I am using my in camera meter (as opposed to my handheld Gossen meter for my cameras without) I always use Center Weighted mode for the greatest control over what I deem the most important element and for exposure predictability.
As for editing in your software of choice - I will leave those suggestions to those far more up to date on the available options. In the darkroom - this would be a job for "Dodging and Burning" to isolate the areas that you want to accentuate or not - such as "burning in" the milk - while maintaining the correct rendering of the people.
Go to
Aug 20, 2018 13:50:07   #
I would like to buy it! I have an old one of this same model that I bought about 30 years ago. I like it a lot.
I have a PayPal account for making purchases. How do we make this work?
Mark

ELSELS wrote:
Hello Mark:

Yes it is - ready for sale and shipping today -

Thanks for your interest...

Ed

~ ~ ~
Go to
Aug 20, 2018 13:44:16   #
Hi!

Is the TAMRAC camera strap still available?

Mark

ELSELS wrote:
Hello:

For Sale:

TAMRAC - Leather camera strap.

Here is the DropBox link to photos:

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/jnmbfvra75pc2fq/AADOASwedQIWQEJZy7-S_Zvga?dl=0

If interested, please let me know?

(I would like to get $ 35 shipped and PayPal'™ed total.)

Thanks for your time,

Have a nice day -

Ed

~ ~ ~
Go to
Aug 10, 2018 13:28:33   #
zzzynick wrote:
My thought of the day is, I would rather have bigger pixels than more.


Go to
Apr 13, 2018 13:21:52   #
You mean Carbonite, and yes, I have used it for years. On a couple of occasions, it has saved my bacon - or I should say - my data! I highly recommend it. I use it in addition to an external hard drive back-up.

catgirl wrote:
Hi, I have crash plan for home use now they no longer support that and they are suggesting carbonate, has anyone used this and is it reliable thank you for the information
Go to
Mar 23, 2018 19:30:03   #
Kazik wrote:
However I am concerned about the iMacPro monitor (colour space, calibration, etc). Is the iMacPro monitor adequate for photo editing? I know I can use an external monitor but it seems nonsensical to buy a Mac with an Apple monitor and not to use it. Any other suggestions?

Hi! I'm in a similar position, in that I'm looking at purchasing a new Eizo monitor (or BenQ?), and am looking at what Mac I need to get the full use of the monitor's specs. For me - the iMac's are so close - but no sale! You hit the nail on the head on color space and calibration. While Apple is promoting it's "Wide" color space across platforms, the iMac Pro only lists "Wide color (P3)" for the monitor Tech Specs. It does not say what percentage of the P3 (DCI-P3) color space that it covers. I called Apple to get an answer on Adobe RGB coverage, but they had no record of that spec at the service center, and they never got back to me. P3 color is the standard for 4K video, but it is a smaller color space than Adobe RGB - perhaps halfway between sRGB and Adobe RGB.
The second calibration no-go for me is the iMac monitor's lack of built in hardware calibration. It has no LUT (Look Up Table), let alone 3D LUT!

I am looking forward to the new, redesigned Mac Pro. An open architecture will allow me to choose the right graphics board for the Eizo monitor - which has a 10 bit display and 16 bit 3D LUT. I don't do video. Finding information about compatibility is proving to be very difficult. Even going to the Nvidia (or Radeon) website and looking at the specs for a given graphics board - they don't list those specs or capabilities. Everything seems geared to gaming or video!

Let us know what you decide!
Go to
Aug 20, 2017 14:41:10   #
rehess wrote:
My experience has been just the opposite. Especially with B&W, I've found that a lot of detail is lost in printing, and something lost cannot be found via scanning.


Thank you for your answer and the link to Ilford history. I had completely forgotten that they were a British company.

I agree with you in your reply to Tim Stapp. I worked in the Graphic Arts industry for years, and was a technical sales representative for graphic cameras for many of them. In analogue photography and graphic arts prepress - it is always true that every generation of reproduction degrades an image, even if only to a small degree. To preserve a likely brittle negative and possibly historically important photograph, a high quality scan of the negative to be used for digital printing will yield the best archival results. A first generation print or series of prints, from the negative, on archival paper could also be a solution. The advantage of the scanned film is in the limiting of the handling of the delicate negative and the potential to make high quality prints in the future.
Go to
Aug 20, 2017 14:01:54   #
burkphoto wrote:
Probably Kodak Double-X. It's a movie film now, but was once spooled for still cameras.


Thank you for your quick reply! Having recently seen the movie “Dunkirk”, I guess that I have WWII and the heroism of British citizens on my mind. Kodak was certainly an international brand, and so could have been used. As rehess suggests this morning, Ilford was manufacturing film in Britain at the time, and so also is a likely possibility. I’ve been out of the photography business for 17 years now, and Ilford had completely slipped my mind.
I do want to thank you for your frequent informative posts. While there is a lot of bad information that gets posted on UHH, I find that you stand out amongst a handful of knowledgeable and credible posters in giving your time to share your valuable knowledge and insights. As I am reacquainting myself with the world of photography in the 21st century – I greatly appreciate your information and advice. Given some of the cranky blowhards spewing misinformation on this site, your generally excellent posts keep me from signing off! Thank you for making UHH worth reading!
Go to
Aug 19, 2017 15:48:42   #
Tim Stapp wrote:
What was the original post again?

If you are implying that we got a little off topic - you would be correct! We got wayyyyy off topic. But we can try to bring it back. The OP asked about film from WWII. George Orwell lived during WWII. As he was most likely photographed during the same time period as the OP's film - what type of film do you think that it may have been? Probably not AGFA - given the war and all. Most likely Kodak, but did the British ever manufacture their own film - or cameras? Iv'e never been to the U.K. - and that was before my time, and so honestly don't know.
Go to
Aug 19, 2017 12:21:56   #
Bobspez wrote:
More alternative facts.


“More Alternative Facts:” The flaccid epitaph thrown by Lefties whose agenda has been disproven by facts that they didn’t provide themselves and fall outside of their narrow propaganda narrative.

You were actually lucid when you replied to larryepage: “The problem today is that the labels no longer apply in politics. They are just labels and talking points. They mean something different depending on who is using them."
You should listen to yourself when you get it right! And yet, you continue to throw out labels and define other people’s viewpoints – be they Orwell’s, larryepage’s or mine – through your own hyper partisan narrow filter.

What did I say? “He was an original thinker, and doesn't fit in a neat box. Individualist, and Libertarian, I think, is a pretty good description.”

And what did you say? “We saw something similar with Ron Paul. Domestically he was a total conservative, but was an isolationist regarding foreign policy and military spending. So as a "liberal" and "progressive" I agreed with his foreign policy, but not his domestic one.
Ron Paul is a Libertarian, and even ran for President as a Libertarian. So are you saying that you are half Libertarian?

Not even Libertarians can come close to agreeing what Libertarian means. As the very recent meaning seems to have drifted towards a belief in fundamentalist minimalism in government, many are migrating towards the similar, but more encompassing, philosophy called “Classical Liberal”. Seeing as the Democrats and other lefties abandoned the term and belief in “Liberal” positions for “Progressive” policies – it’s only fit that those who believe in the fundamental rights of the individual – as ensconced in our Bill of Rights and the philosophy of the “Enlightenment” on which it is based, would reclaim the more original meaning of “Liberal”.

George Orwell was a Libertarian in his belief in the rights of the individual to be free from government oppression. Regarding foreign policy and military spending, by today’s definition of Libertarian – you are right that he is not.
“Pacifist: Those who ‘abjure’ violence can only do so because others are committing violence on their behalf.”
George Orwell

“Pacifist propaganda usually boils down to saying that one side is as bad as the other, but if one looks closely at the writings of younger intellectual pacifist, one finds that they do not by any means express impartial disapproval but are directed almost entirely against Britain and the United States. Moreover they do not as a rule condemn violence as such, but only violence used in defense of western countries. … Pacifist writers have written in praise of Carlyle, one of the intellectual fathers of fascism. All in all it is difficult to not to feel that pacifism … is inspired by an admiration for power and successful cruelty.”
George Orwell

“All through the critical years many left-wingers were chipping away at English morale, trying to spread an outlook that was sometimes squashily pacifist, sometime violently pro-Russian, but always anti-British.”
George Orwell

“Thereupon the people picked a leader nearer their mood, Churchill, who was at any rate able to grasp that wars are not won without fighting. Later, perhaps, they will pick another leader who can grasp that only Socialist nations can fight effectively.”
George Orwell

If you don’t understand that Orwell was an Individualist – than you truly don’t understand Orwell. He was not an economist; he was a novelist and a journalist. He didn’t preach a particular economic system orthodoxy – he wrote from the more emotional perspective of the individual being crushed by orthodoxy and totalitarian systems.
George Orwell learned from his experiences and changed as he grew. Is that so hard to comprehend?
Go to
Aug 18, 2017 03:24:18   #
NorCal Bohemian wrote:
"I usually copyproof myself better. My bad.
... the original inhabitants, that Taters, by force."

the Tatars - not "that Taters"! my spellcheck is failing me - and my "edit" tab disappeared!
Go to
Aug 18, 2017 02:45:02   #
Bobspez wrote:
Orwell was never a conservative. He was a socialist. He was against Hitler and he was against Stalin, and he was against British Imperialism. He was for the common man and against any sort of totalitarian state, whether fascist or communist. Anyone who read 1984 could not believe Orwell was ever or ever would be a conservative.


larryepage is mostly correct. George Orwell was a socialist when he was young, but changed his views after his adventures fighting against Franco in Spain and on seeing Stalin's totalitarian brutality. Anyone who has read "Animal Farm" could not believe that Orwell was a socialist. I don't think that "conservative" describes him, either. He was an original thinker, and doesn't fit in a neat box. Individualist, and Libertarian, I think, is a pretty good description.

“The enemies of intellectual liberty always try to present their case as a plea for discipline versus individualism. The issue truth – versus - untruth is as far as possible kept in the background.”
George Orwell - penname of Eric Arthur Blair, English novelist, essayist, journalist, anti-totalitarian social critic. (1903-1950)

“The real division is not between conservatives and revolutionaries but between authoritarians and libertarians.”
George Orwell

“As with the Christian religion, the worst advertisement for Socialism is its adherents.”
George Orwell

“One sometimes gets the impression that the mere words ' Socialism ' and ' Communism ' draw towards them with magnetic force every fruit-juice drinker, nudist, sandal-wearer, sex-maniac, Quaker, 'Nature Cure' quack, pacifist, and feminist in England.”
George Orwell

“The tendency of advanced capitalism has been to enlarge the middle class and not to wipe it out, as it once seemed likely to do.”
George Orwell

“Liberal: a power worshipper without power.”
George Orwell

“So much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot.”
George Orwell

“All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.”
George Orwell“ from "Animal Farm"

“In our age there is no such thing as 'keeping out of politics.' All issues are political issues, and politics itself is a mass of lies, evasions, folly, hatred and schizophrenia.”
George Orwell

"I worked out an anarchistic theory that all government is evil, that the punishment always does more harm than the crime and the people can be trusted to behave decently if you will only let them alone.”
George Orwell
Go to
Aug 18, 2017 00:48:32   #
Peterff wrote:
"Yes, and no. First it is secession not succession. They are slightly different.

Secession from "The Union" or any other regime is an option under a democratic process. How or whether it is done is certainly an issue and worthy of discussion. ...
Let's not confuse this by disregarding the rights of democratic processes however misguided they may be. Brexit appears to be a dumb move by the UK, but it was the result of a democratic process. Should California be allowed to secede if its population wants to? Sure, it may not be a smart thing to do, but it should be allowed under a democratic process. Should the civilized parts of the US be allowed to secede from Texas? Sure if enough people wish to. What is to be done about Crimea, Ukraine, and Russia? It is all very complicated.
"Yes, and no. First it is secession not succe... (show quote)


Yes, and no. You are correct about my word use. I usually copyproof myself better. My bad.
The U.S. is a democratic Constitutional Republic, not a Democracy. The number one issue that was settled by the Civil War is that no state may secede from the Union. There were other issues - slavery being a major one, but NO secession by a state was won and guaranteed by the Union victory, and paid for in lots of blood. I live in the Bay Area of California myself, and have heard too much of the Cal-exit nonsense. It may well get enough signatures to be put on the ballot as a proposition. I highly doubt that it would pass - but even if it somehow did - there is zero chance of the U.S. surrendering it's west coast. We have much bigger problems to deal with in this state - like the coming pension tsunami, to be wasting time on foolishness that has no chance of happening. Brexit is for the Brits to decide. Crimea, Ukraine and Russia is very complicated - but Russia illegally annexed part of a neighboring country, a country whose sovereignty the U.S. and the U.K. guaranteed in 1994 in the Budapest Memorandum of Security Assurances, when they surrendered their nuclear weapons to Russia. While Crimea is of primarily Russian ethnicity today - that is because Stalin expelled the majority of the original inhabitants, that Taters, by force.
Go to
Page: 1 2 3 next>>
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.