Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Posts for: juanbalv
Page: <<prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 next>>
May 9, 2018 20:12:14   #
I believe you are absolutely right and I count three shots. I hope I did not violate any rules by doing this, but see a screen grab indicating the three misaligned shots.
CHG_CANON wrote:
Goofy beat me to the observation on alignment issues. But, taking out the purple is as easy as clicking the purple with the dropper in Lightroom (Develop module, Lens Corrections, Manual tab).


Go to
May 9, 2018 19:37:40   #
Linda From Maine wrote:
The main lady from Maine does appreciate your humor.

Apologies to the OP for hijacking; I rarely do this. I just needed a distraction from the epidemic in main forum of people refusing to read what's already been written prior to posting their own words of wisdom - no matter that the wisdom was already dispensed sixteen times


Go to
May 9, 2018 19:04:22   #
Hey Linda From Main, I am just having fun here. Trully; and truly, I enjoy your posts. Glad to have provided some comical relief for you.
Linda From Maine wrote:
Politicizing a poor little arachnid - for shame. Here's an article that says they are native to the U.S. and traveled to Mexico! You guys crack me up

https://mexiconewsdaily.com/news/health-authorities-warn-of-violin-spider/

--
Go to
May 9, 2018 19:01:45   #
You better watch out with those daddy long legs in your basement. They are prone to transformation into brown recluses in an attempt to be featured in Wikipedia, its lack of finality as an informational medium and, yes, my flawed reasoning, of course, notwithstanding.
graybeard wrote:
Oh I forgot Wikipedia is the final word in every subject. All it takes is one pregnant female spider to get in the luggage of someone going to the west coast, Canada or wherever and you have all kinds of potential bite victims. I am not trying to spread alarm, just pointing out a flaw in your reasoning. (esp citing Wiki !) I have lived in Illinois 70+ years and never laid eyes on a brown recluse (or a black widow). Plenty of Daddy Long Legs in my basement, but haven't seen the dangerous ones.
Go to
May 9, 2018 17:24:42   #
It is now in vogue to blame our neighbor to the south for all the ills befalling our great land. However, the Brown Recluse is not, I said, it is not an import from Mexico, irrespective of how paranoid we may be of Mexico. A small quote from Wikipedia follows for your erudition, or at least to give the impetus to some real research:

"The range lies roughly south of a line from southeastern Nebraska through southern Iowa, Illinois, and Indiana to southwestern Ohio. In the southern states, it is native from central Texas to western Georgia and north to Kentucky.[4][5]

Despite rumors to the contrary, the brown recluse spider has not established itself in California or anywhere outside its native range.[6] This directly contradicts numerous sensationalized media reports of bites occurring where these spiders are absent (and no specimens were found), such as a 2014 report from Thailand, where a man was claimed to have died from a brown recluse bite.[7] Over the last century, occasional spiders have been intercepted in various locations where they have no known established populations; these spiders may be transported fairly easily, though the lack of established populations well outside the natural range also indicates that such movement has not led to colonization of new areas, after decades of opportunities.[8][9] Note that the occurrence of brown recluses in a single building (such as a warehouse) outside of the native range is not considered a successful colonization; such single-building populations can occur (e.g., in several such cases in Florida),[10] but do not spread, and can be easily eradicated.[11]

There are other species of the genus Loxosceles native to the southwestern part of the United States, including California, that may resemble the brown recluse, but these species have never been documented as medically significant. The number of "false positive" reports based on misidentifications is considerable; in a nationwide study where people submitted spiders that they thought were brown recluses, of 581 from California only 1 was a brown recluse—submitted by a family that moved from Missouri and brought it with them (compared to specimens submitted from Missouri, Kansas, and Oklahoma, where between 75% and 90% were recluses).[12] From this study, the most common spider submitted from California as a brown recluse was in the genus Titiotus, whose bite is deemed harmless. A similar study documented that various arachnids were routinely misidentified by physicians, pest control operators, and other non-expert authorities, who told their patients or clients that the spider they had was a brown recluse when in fact it was not.[13] Despite the absence of brown recluses from the Western U.S., physicians in the region commonly diagnose "brown recluse bites", leading to the popular misconception that the spiders inhabit those areas.[14]" Having said all of that, I like your photographs. Good shots.

Should you wish to read my source for yourself, I am including the the URL, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_recluse_spider
LELON CUDE wrote:
The Brown Recluse is an aggressive, poisonous, spider in Texas. It is much more poisonous than the Black Widow Spider. It has migrated, or hitch hiked, etc. to Texas, and other southern states, from Mexico. I found this one in our house in a plastic garbage can that it could not get out of.
Go to
May 8, 2018 17:30:59   #
It's a great package and yes you can use all plugins that have been made to work with Photoshop and Lightroom. Enjoy.
Wellhiem wrote:
Are any of you using the Adobe CC photography plan? If so, how are you finding it? And, I know this is going to sound like a silly question, but can you still use all your plugins, ie. Topaz etc.? Also are you limited to using only the photos on your cloud storage? Many thanks in advance.
Go to
May 6, 2018 12:10:23   #
I appreciate your effort. Highly esoteric. However, that is required knowledge in order to achieve those awe inspiring results that we so much admire. Thank you.
selmslie wrote:
While both concepts are based on sound mathematical principals, they are fundamentally flawed by an assumption and a misunderstanding:

1. That Depth of Field (DoF) is a range of distances from the camera over which the image is equally sharp.
2. That everyone understands and agrees on the definition of the Circle of Confusion (CoC).

The first assumption is close but there is a difference between being equally sharp or acceptably sharp.

There will be only one distance at which an image is perfectly sharp. Consider a point source of light such as a star. If you set the focus at infinity, the star should project a point of light on your sensor that is smaller than a single pixel. The same would apply if the point source of light were much closer to the camera, for example 20 feet from the camera or much closer. When in focus, the point on your sensor could still be smaller than a pixel. If it were slightly out of focus it might be as large as a whole pixel and your camera would not know the difference.

How big is a pixel? A full frame 24x36 mm sensor that produces an image of 4000x6000 pixels or 24 MP – 24 mm divided by 4000 (or 36 mm divided by 6000) is 0.006 mm. Disregard for the moment that this may be either a red, blue or green pixel and that your lens might not be capable of projecting a point source that precisely. A CoC of 0.006 mm is much smaller than you normally need. If you were to aim at a star with a 50 mm lens at f/11, you might get the point of light to stay within a single pixel if your focus was anywhere from about 125 feet to infinity.

A common assumption for the size of the CoC is about 0.03 mm for a full frame sensor or film with the same format. That would mean that a point source of light could actually spread out to cover a diameter of 5 pixels and still be acceptably sharp. The star that is in focus at infinity will cover less than 5 pixels with a 50 mm lens at f/11 if you focus at any distance longer than about 25 feet, the hyperfocal distance for a 0.03 mm CoC.

Why 0.03 mm? Someone with normal eyesight can resolve a detail that is about 2 minutes of arc or 30 cycles of black/white stripes per degree. That works out to about 0.0291 mm for a 24x36 mm film or digital format.

The common assumption is that you will be making a print that is about 8x12 inches using the entire image and viewing it from about 10 inches with normal eyesight – or 8x12 feet and viewing it from 10 feet or any other ratio that keeps the print dimension proportional to the viewing distance. But if you crop the original image, view it from a distance that is different, with eyesight that is different from normal, use a loupe or magnifying glass, then 0.03 mm may no longer be appropriate.

So you need to know something about how your image will be viewed before deciding on the size of the CoC. If you are going to display it within the parameters described in the previous paragraph the 0.03 mm will work. If you will be displaying the whole image on a smart phone, tablet or printing it smaller than 8x12 inches then 0.03 mm will be more than adequate. But if you plan to enlarge it, crop it, pixel peep, print it large and look at it closer than normal viewing distance, you will need to use a smaller CoC.
While both concepts are based on sound mathematica... (show quote)
Go to
May 3, 2018 17:42:42   #
Check this Amazon URL. https://www.amazon.com/Pentax-K-01-Mirrorless-Body-Black/dp/B0076396OA/ref=sr_1_3?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1525383634&sr=1-3&keywords=Pentax+K-01&dpID=41qNMNlCH4L&preST=_SX300_QL70_&dpSrc=srch
lamiaceae wrote:
This is actually old information. Pentax has / had a Mirrorless camera they barely advertised that is next to impossible to find, the Pentax K-01. It is a APS-C format digital camera that has the modern common Pentax K-mount and can utilize directly all Pentax K-series lenses. And retains Auto features for -A, -FA, -DA and such lenses.
Go to
Apr 30, 2018 13:35:27   #
It is not an automatic thing. There are issues and tests that have to be met. Chief among these, is the distance that a vet has to travel in order to be seen. I am not sure but I think that it must be over 45 miles as long as the facility does not provide any type of transportation. There are other qualifiers. You can find those at www.VA.Gov. Many people are against these types of services being privatized. For myself, I am very satisfied with the medical help I receive in Los Angeles, CA. I say medical help, because the support staff are not necessarily the best. In fact, in many instances, here in Los Angeles, these folks would not last a week working in a private practice, or even an HMO. For a while, things started to straighten up as fears of being fired motivated some to provide better service.
Alas, things have gone back to what it was before pretty much. But the fault resides on our shoulders, the vets, for allowing it. You need to complain in writing to do something about it.
I have attached a copy of the card sent during 2015 to all plan members. I hope this helps.
GENorkus wrote:
You know how if you only hear the last little bit of a message well, I briefly heard something about vets being able to use civilian hospital because of the VA hospitals being so full. Does anyone know if there is any truth to this?


Go to
Apr 30, 2018 12:32:50   #
I am looking to sell my Canon EF24-70mm f/2.8L II USM. Pristine condition. Includes hood and both caps. I paid $2200. I am asking for $1600, or best, realistic offer. To tell the truth, I would rather trade for the EF85mm f/1.4L IS USM.


Go to
Apr 30, 2018 12:02:06   #
rmalarz wrote:
The nano coating for one. Easier to keep clean. The other is the Kaesemann construction for the filter.
--Bob


Go to
Apr 30, 2018 11:51:45   #
Why that one? What are its merits/features that make it your choice?
rmalarz wrote:
I'd go with the XS-Pro Kaesemann High Transmission Circular Polarizer MRC-Nano Filter.
--Bob
Go to
Apr 29, 2018 10:54:53   #
Beautiful capture.
joer wrote:
Recently sold my macro lenses because they seldom came out of the camera bag. I didn't shoot macro very often, mostly when I did it was close up anyway and not 1:1.

My 70-300 DX AF-P VR at 300mm gets me as close as I need to get. Its not a macro lens but it gets the job done for me and is far more versatile.

You may have something in your bag that will double duty so take advantage of it and resist collecting seldom used gear.

Here is an example: Don't know why it rotates CCW but its not bad that way.
Recently sold my macro lenses because they seldom ... (show quote)
Go to
Apr 28, 2018 11:29:30   #
armandoluiz wrote:
... And there we go again 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

I have a similar problem, but instead birds is bears, wolves, wolverines, mooses, foxes and reindeers.

I wrote a post here with 100 of comments and 4000 of viewers and guess what, I finished even more confused than before.

Instead people answer your question (actually like I'm doing right now 😂😂) they just want to tell that you/me should get close (good idea, bears are so peaceful), you/me will loose light (OK, good to know) and the autofocus will not work (blaaaa).

Whatever, back to the question: A TC is for the lens, but anyways goes for the camera as well, if the lens is for Nikon, the TC will not work in a Canon, well, I guess.

Cheers
... And there we go again 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 br br I have... (show quote)


Go to
Apr 28, 2018 11:21:38   #
Ditto.
kpmac wrote:
I use it and will never go back.
Go to
Page: <<prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 next>>
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.