A.J. wrote:
Please, Need advice from all you photography buffs out there.
Looking to purchase either Lightroom or Photo Shop on software, please let me know which program is better & can I get it at STAPLES?
Personally I use GIMP, it is free and just as powerful as Photoshop.
Sorry I haven't been uploading lately, well about a year, EEEK, lifes been a biatch. Got a new GF, life is getting awesome again. Let me know what you think, and don't be shy to download and play with the photo's. This is what came from the camera, no touch-ups done.
I see this all the time where I work, the cops refuse to do anything about it, claiming the parking lot is private property and they have no jurisdiction there. In the case of this video, I say POETIC JUSTICE, and needs to happen a lot more.
To bad, it would have looked great
If you still have all the pics, maybe try doing a timelapse, I would love to see it
Very nice, thank-you for shareing these wonderful photo's
Awesome picture's, would love to download and use #2 on as my background on my desktop
:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :-P :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:
JimH123 wrote:
You should also state what your expectations are for a telescope. The words "Tasco" and "Excellent Optics" are usually never heard in the same sentence.
If the intent is to look around at the night sky a bit, then this might be OK. But is not easy to find dim objects in the sky manually. This scope is very manual and contains no Go To provisions.
There are two eyepieces. The 25mm will give you 36x. The image should be very acceptable at that power. The 12.mm will give you 72x. Usually with a scope like this, the 72x will not be as nice of an image as the 36x view. And for the stated 225x using the 3x Barlow, this is a marketing gimmick. The rule of thumb is that with excellent viewing conditions, the most magnification you can have from a telescope is approximately 50x per inch of objective or mirror. This scope has a 4.5" mirror, and 50 x 4.5 = 225. Right at the limit. But most of the time, seeing conditions are no where near this good, and the actual number is much lower, maybe as low as 30x. And that is with really good optics. With lower quality optics, that number is even lower.
As a teenager, I had a small scope like that. I do recall almost all my viewing was done with the lower power eyepiece. The image quality went downhill in a hurry at the higher power and I actually could see less detail. And later, I got my second mirror scope. It was as step up from 3" to 4.5", but it suffered all the same problems.
Also, a scope like this would not be suitable for use with a camera for several reasons:
1) The tripod would not support the extra weight
2) The lower quality optics would be very noticeable in any image taken.
3) At 900mm, without tracking, you would be limited to about 1/3 of a sec exposures.
You should also state what your expectations are f... (
show quote)
thank you, I was thinking of moon shots with it, but if it can't support my T2i then it is useless.
richosob wrote:
I have an infestation of those little rascals myself.
Rich
I think it's a freakin epidemic
> A pastor concluded that his church was getting into very serious financial
> troubles. While checking the church storeroom, he discovered several cartons
> of new Bibles that had never been opened and distributed.
>
> So at his Sunday sermon, he asked for three volunteers from the congregation
> who would be willing to sell the Bibles door-to-door for
> $10 each to raise the desperately needed money for the church.
>
> Jack, Paul and Louie all raised their hands to volunteer for the task.
>
> The minister knew that Jack and Paul earned their living as salesmen and
> were likely capable of selling some Bibles. But he had serious doubts about
> Louie who was a local farmer, who had always kept to himself because he was
> embarrassed by his speech impediment.
>
> Poor Louie stuttered badly. But, NOT WANTING TO discourage Louie, the
> minister decided to let him try anyway.
>
> He sent the three of them away with the back seat of their cars stacked with
> Bibles. He asked them to meet with him and report the results of their
> door-to-door selling efforts the following Sunday.
>
> Anxious to find out how successful they were, the minister immediately asked
> Jack, "Well, Jack, how did you make out selling our Bibles last week?"
>
> Proudly handing the reverend an envelope, Jack replied, "Using my sales
> prowess, I was able to sell 20 Bibles, and here's the $200 I collected on
> behalf of the church."
>
> "Fine job, Jack!" The minister said, vigorously shaking his hand..."You are
> indeed a fine salesman and the church is indebted to you."
>
> Turning to Paul, "And Paul, how many Bibles did you sell for the church last
> week?"
>
> Paul, smiling and sticking out his chest, confidently replied, 'I am a
> professional salesman. I sold 28 Bibles on behalf of the church, and here's
> $280 I collected.'
>
> The minister responded, "That's absolutely splendid, Paul. You are truly a
> professional salesman and the church is indebted to you."
>
> Apprehensively, the minister turned to Louie and said, "And Louie, did you
> manage to sell any Bibles last week?" Louie silently offered the minister a
> large envelope.
>
> The minister opened it and counted the contents. "What is this?"
> the minister exclaimed. "Louie, there's $3200 in here! Are you suggesting
> that you sold 320 Bibles for the church, door to door, in just one week?"
>
> Louie just nodded.
>
> "That's impossible!" both Jack and Paul said in unison. "We are professional
> salesmen, yet you claim to have sold 10 times as many Bibles as we could."
>
> "Yes, this does seem unlikely," the minister agreed. "I think you'd better
> explain how you managed to accomplish this, Louie."
>
> Louie shrugged.. "I-I-I re-re-really do-do-don't kn-kn-know f-f-f-for
> sh-sh-sh-sure," he stammered.
>
> Impatiently, Peter interrupted. "For crying out loud, Louie, just tell us
> what you said to them when they answered the door!"
>
> "A-a-a-all I-I-I s-s-said wa-wa-was," Louis replied, "W-w-w-w-would
> y-y-y-you l-l-l-l-l-like t-t-to b-b-b-buy th-th-th-this B-B-B-B-Bible
> f-f-for t-t-ten b-b-b-bucks---o-o-o-or--- wo-wo-would yo-you j-j-j-just
> l-like m-m-me t-t-to st-st-stand h-h-here and r-r-r-r-r-read it t-to
> y-y-you?"
>
>
>
>
> Remember when the funniest jokes were the clean ones?
> They still are!
jerryc41 wrote:
Some gas stations post the cash price of gas. Others post the one price they pay, regardless of payment method. We have Quick Chek here, and they have their own payment card. That's the lowest price listed. Cash is higher, and CC is higher still. Our county politicians are trying to pass a law that would require more accurate listings.
I got gas yesterday at a local place - $3.25 became $3.32 when I inserted the CC. Since I save 5% using the CC, I still came out ahead. It is annoying, though. I usually buy my gas at Citgo. It's the cheapest around, and they have one price for all payment type.
Some gas stations post the cash price of gas. Oth... (
show quote)
I'm assuming these prices are dollars per gallon, I think those of us here, that live in Canada can beat all the U.S. prices. Where I live, Penhold, Alberta, about half way between Calgary and Edmonton, the price is , wait for it, LOL, $4.98 per gallon.