Can you post a photo of the address section of the package for us to see?

Verryl

I was hacked and photos were not scattered but folders were. what a mess! I wonder if it was the same hacker. The biggest batch of photos was of my model railroad, and they were not labeled as "Photo-named" folders. Other photos I put on SlickPic.

Verryl

I was hacked and photos were not scattered but folders were. what a mess! I wonder if it was the same hacker. The biggest batch of photos was of my model railroad, and they were not labeled as "Photo-named" folders. Other photos I put on SlickPic.

Verryl

Two more birdhouses and I'll be rid of that paint.

I would imagine any camera or phone would work on auto. The strip is awfully bright. You can read there.

My IT guy and I are struggling to restore my entire windows directory which was jumbled up by some malware that I believe (with no proof, just opinion) was from some hacker's malware installed from an infecting ad site, probably from one of the ads of Ugly Hedgehog. I say UHH, because it is the one site I read every day, and I often fall for the ads. So I don't believe that a password cracking program was involved. I think my curiosity was responsible. I don't think that a password was involved.

I use Malwarebytes Premium, which probably sensed the malware (it had a "threat" recorded but did not stop it from acting), but it did not stop it. It only sensed it, and it was prepared to clean it out of my system when I ran Malwarebytes or it's daily automatic 3AM scan ran. Without too much thought by me, I had hoped that the protection program would not only sense a hack and isolate it to be cleaned out of memory, but would do so immediately, so it could stop or limit the damage to my directory.

I admit to being naive, but is there such protection--i.e., a malware program that will act automatically right away. By that I mean, 1) it senses the dangerous code, then 2) isolates/disables it, so that little or no damage occurs, and 3) probably notifies you with a screen warning displayed so a human operator can complete the protection by deleting or permanently disables the offending code.

For example Windows warns me if I start to install a new program, and will not continue without me typing my permission in a dialog box. Why can't Windows or Malwarebytes or some other protection program do that?

This is probably a naive wish I have. If that is possible/available to provide such protection, pray tell me what it is?

I fear there is no such wonder available, or my IT guy would have installed it for me on my 8 computer network in Arizona at 3 locations, and 2 machines in California. All these computers are tied to Dropbox, so any files are available to any computer, if that computer has the program installed on it that created the file. For instance, the business accounting program is only installed on three of the machines at two locations, so only those machines can access those files.

And that brings up the question of can a hacker read any file that he does not have the program that created it installed on his machine. In other words, does the 3 or 4 letter file-naming-appendage on all file names limit that file to its creating program, or another program that was created to read it?

I am building a very large HO scale model railroad that fills a 50 x 75 foot building. It is on two layers, and has about 5,300 feet of track. The double track mains are about 1,005 feet long. I hold operating sessions with as many as 45 modelers operating at once. It is on 9 double stacked benches that add to 18 benches, that are from 45 to 56 feet long. During the pandemic, of course, I did not hold any group operating sessions, so we concentrated on adding scenery and structures. Without scenery and buildings my progress photos were of the bench carpentry and bare track. I did not notice that in taking a photo along one of those benches it was impossible to get all of the 40 to 50 feet in focus while standing inside the building. Such a picture had to have the near end of one of those benches just 8 or 10 feet from the camera, and the far end 50 or more feet away. But with finely detailed scenery and small structures, depth of field ruined the images. To overcome and expand the depth of field, I had to resort to focus stacking.

First I tried Helicon, with a zoom lens and camera on a tripod and focusing at about 8 foot spacing. It was a hassle, but it worked. I proudly sent a few of my first pictures to a friend. He shot back an email with a picture of the Long Beach California Evening harbor with a ramp with hand rails in the foreground and lights across the water maybe a mile away at dusk, and the whole scene was in focus! He claimed it was a hand held shot with his new Lumix G9 mirrorless camera that takes a 1 second video, or about 30 frames, then semi-automatically--he presses 4 buttons on the viewing screen--and in about 45 seconds the camera assembles the 30 images into a focus stacked picture.

I bought me a G9, and now I almost never shoot anything but "post focus" shots as Lumix calls it.

Here is a sample stacked image of my layout over about 65 feet of layout. I suggest you down load it to critique it with the small details as large as possible.

The second image is a Sky Replacement image by Lumicon. The depth of field requirement is about 10 to 15 feet here, so focus stacking is needed, but I wanted to show Lumicon's SR tool. Actually, most of my shots of the layout that I use SR on require that I fool Lumicon by cloaning and stamping the original sky from the image up to the top of the image, then with "sky" all the way up, the SR tool works.

You must have a really big balcony to be able to take photos of the ship from its side and head on from such a distance.

Verryl

my Lumix G9 stacks 1 second of video, 30 images across the focus range, with the press of 3 buttons on the back screen. Takes about 30-45 sec. I always mean to time it, but I always forget.
Verryl

Damn, I hate when they're right.

My Watch is digital.

From Cornville, AZ between Sedona and Cottonwood, AZ. This guy just keeps adding to his collection of John Deeres.

Verryl

I've been rich, and I've been poor.
Rich is better.

Heck. I thought it was like pole dancing.

Planets are far away, but not necessarily dim. The larger ones (moon, Jupiter, Mars, Venus, Saturn are daylight or nearly daylight objects (sun illuminated, and shining in the dark), so start at daylight settings. Telephoto lens wide open or closed 1 stop (for better across the diameter sharpness), ISO 400 or so, and shutter 1/125 !!! and faster in steps.

And if the planet is not nearly so large as to extend out to the edges of the field of view, you can accept a fuzzy outer edge if nothing is there. But if stars (tiny but bright) show out to the edge, they may be out of focus, so stop down one stop or more and then shoot and adjust s speed as needed.

I used this with my telephoto lens for the moon.

For the planets I used my 16" Newtonian f/5.5 2235mm focal length with those settings. I rarely shot planets. The the scope was a "light bucket" better suited to galaxies and dimmer extended object. I still have it but have been out to the observatory for years. Too old and past my bedtime. But if some visitor to Sedona wants to observe, I'm game. Here is a photo of the scope. Sorry to kidnap the subject of the question.