Wingpilot wrote:
I just had cataract surgery on my left eye last Monday, and had a revelation. I found that suddenly, white looked really white out of my left eye, while my right eye saw it as a slightly off white color. I just had my right eye done this morning, and I’m sitting here using one eye while the other is blurred from being dilated for the procedure. What I’m getting at is, I wonder if the cataracts altered the color perception enough to adversely affect adjusting images in post. I mean, if white doesn’t actually appear pure white, what about the other colors? The only thing I’ve learned about cataracts is that they reduce the amount of light entering the eyes and they’re slightly yellow in color, so I wonder what effect that has on processing images in post.
I just had cataract surgery on my left eye last Mo... (
show quote)
As an artist, my answer is a definite “yes!” Participating in several plein air workshops, painting landscapes, I saw that compared to those of others, my paintings seemed washed out, lacking the vibrancy of their paintings. After my cataract surgery 20 years ago, that problem disappeared. Basically, I was simply painting what I saw and I saw things differently, prior and post surgery, and I would think that would be a problem in processing photos, as well.
Custer wrote:
Howdy: I am trying to find a bridge camera for my wife that costs from one to three hundred dollars. It can be refurbished, as opposed to brand new. She wants a superzoom with 25x or more, simple point and shoot model, and very importantly, an optical viewfinder (she hates having to use a camera's monitor to compose and shoot.) Does anyone have any suggestions? Thanks in advance.
A year ago I bought a refurbished Panasonic LUMIX ZS-60 in your price range. It has an electronic viewfinder, zooms to 30x, shoots RAW and JPEG, has a great touchscreen and has 18 megapixels. Small enough for a pocket, it’s a great, little camera!
ziggy_nc wrote:
I am thinking about upgrade my Nikon D7100 to Olympus E-M5 iii or Nikon D7500. Both companies are having black Friday deals. My only issue with the Olympus E-M5 iii the lowest ISO is 200. I take many landscape and sunrise/sunset picture and I like using the ISO setting of 100 on the D7100. I am curious if having an ISO of 200 will be an issue. When I used film back in the day, the standard was 100 for every day used and 400 or 800 of evening photos and 200 was in between. The only issue I have with the D7500 is the LCD in the D7100 is broken and it will cost over $300 plus to repair. For a camera that should had lasted a life time (6 years or more) it did not. The Z-50 I think is out of the picture even though Nikon is offering a good deal, it doesn't have the capability I am looking for. It doesn't seem to fit my needs for great landscape photos. I checked the website camera decision and did a comparison, and seem the E-M5 iii and Z-50 is 1 and 2 for mirrorless at that range, but Z-50 is entry level while the E-M5 is immediate. Comparing the D7500 with E-M5 iii, both immediate cameras, the E-M5 iii score a little better. What do you think?
I am thinking about upgrade my Nikon D7100 to Olym... (
show quote)
Although it is true that the lowest ISO setting available is 200 while in Auto ISO, you can manually set ISO to 100 by selecting “low” in the ISO setting menu.
I may be wrong, but I think that Yellowstone is closed to auto traffic in the winter. It’s open to snowmobile and snow coach tours, though.
My Garmin Oregon 650T GPS not only allows me to drop a waypoint at a particular spot, it also has a built-in camera that allows me to take a photo of that spot. It stores both in its internal mapping system, which can be downloaded to companion mapping software on my computer. I can return to that spot with my Oly M-5ii and with Oly’s OL Share, add the GPS data to the Exif data of the photos I take.
Linda From Maine wrote:
I'll repeat what I explained at the top of page 2 of this thread:
"I made the connection because of the Chromebook reference, which I addressed in the first thread.
It seemed to me that the OP forgot he'd posted that earlier topic and since there are several excellent responses there, I said 'Take a look at your previous topic and update us with any unanswered questions.'
Hopefully, you'll see that key sentence if you re-read my first comments more carefully. I'd suggest that you also take a little more care with what you assume, especially about people you don't know.
I'll repeat what I explained at the top of page 2 ... (
show quote)
I didn’t miss your key sentence at all. I question your apparent need to chastise the questioner—as you do with some regularity.
Linda From Maine wrote:
Howdy. You asked these same questions on UHH at the end of August. Take a look at your previous topic and update us with any unanswered questions. Click the link below:
https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-608044-1.htmlAll the best.
What an odd response!! Almost any question on UHH has been asked and answered numerous times. Whether the same person asked it before or not is unimportant. Perhaps some members didn’t see it before, perhaps there are new answers to an old question. But, your response implies that the best way to participate in this forum is to simply “search,” not ask.
The same can be said about all the “best camera,” “best printer,” “best lens” q&a, not to mention all the same ol, same ol Canon vs Nikon ad nauseum questions.
Are you a forum moderator? You obviously keep track of who asks what and when. Why? Why not just pass over a question that annoys you—letting those of us that didn’t see the question and answer the first time get some benefit from it this time around.
I suspect that as with many products made in non/English speaking countries, something was lost in the written translation , ie, “calibration” instead of “charge.”
You can’t go wrong with the Oly 14-150.
Pablo8 wrote:
Produce (if you can) a 24 x 20 print from a 'Top of the range DSLR' and a 24 x 20 from your I phone, of the same subject. Ask your students if they can see any difference in quality. Also ask yourself if you can see any difference. Like to know the results.
I frequently see this “test of quality” in discussions about full frame/crop factor cameras, so it doesn’t surprise me that it’s here in this discussion on phone cameras. I wonder how many actually print to 24x20, and , thus, I find the argument kind of academic. Seems to me that quality should be defined by our photographic purposes and uses, not by a standard that’s not applicable to one’s specific purpose.
My goodness—so many snarky comments!! If the question had been about a “real” camera, like a Kodak Brownie, commentators would have been rhapsodizing about the joys of photography, rather than the gear. It seems to me that photography should always about the eye of the photographer, composition., the light, the framing, the atmosphere, and the story the photographer wants to tell, and not about the camera. A smart-phone camera is as capable of story-telling as today’s best gear, a better piece of equipment than that of decades ago, and in the hands of a superb photographer, an incredible instrument, as capable as the highest priced gear, of telling a story.
That’s a very tall order!! Gyclees are a scan and print process, produced on very, very expensive equipment, not likely to be equaled with a camera.
In Astoria, be sure to visit the Maritime Museum. At the other end of the trip, all in the immediate vicinity of Yosemite NP, are the Sequoia NP and the Sequoia National Forest. While the Redeoods are magnificent—as someone mentioned—the Giant Sequoias are truly awesome.
moosus wrote:
Among other things, I like taking shots in cemeteries. Rows of tombstones on rolling green hills, trees, statuary, crypts, haunting messages, flowers carefully placed, lots of opportunities. But what about the names? Is there some sort of protocol, short of showing respect for the past and common sense, about putting these sort of captures on the Web? When sitting at home, viewing the captures on my monitor, I sometimes feel like I'm doing something unnatural(?). I get the feeling I shouldn't even go there. The only place I would post the shots would be here for critique or Flickr, just because they might be interesting. Your POV please. MM
Among other things, I like taking shots in cemeter... (
show quote)
Many people shoot gravestones for genealogical purposes, posting their shots on the “find a grave” website. Some do it with a specific family in mind, but many who, like you, enjoy photographing cemeteries without being that specific. Check out the website and see how it might fit what you’re doing.