Thanks to all of you for the quick replies. I've got some experimenting to do.
Orphoto wrote:
Perhaps I've got this backwards. But wouldn't a significantly slower speed average out the light and dispel the banding? Seems like a fast shutter would put you all in one state, either on or off.
Hm-m-m..thanks for the thought. I'll have to experiment with both alternatives next time I go in.
BebuLamar wrote:
I wonder if they replaced the flourescent bulbs with cheap LED tubes?
An interesting speculation. I've no idea.
I'm shooting with a Fuji X-T2, but will check to see if it has a similar setting. Thanks.
PHRubin wrote:
The best way is to make sure the shutter speed is very short compared to a line voltage cycle.
Some cameras have a line voltage sync setting.
If too dark, overcome the ambient light with a flash and, again, a short shutter speed.
Thanks for the suggestion.
I take photos for my local SPCA. In one of our rooms, the fluorescent lighting has started causing horizontal banding on images (bulbs were recently changed--before the change, I wasn't having the problem). This particular room is the only location available to me. Anyone know how I can eliminate the banding?
Sorry. Meant to add that I agree the navigation stinks, but I did eventually find a compatible product for my Fuji X-T2.
PhotogHobbyist wrote:
I am in agreement with you regarding subscription software. That is why I uses Photoshop Elements. For less than a year's subscription cost for PSCC, I have more than enough power and ability to PP my photos to my satisfaction....
Agree with you. A copy of Elements costs less than a year's subscription to its big brother. You can always upgrade to the latest version if something significant is added, but that doesn't happen many years--usually the difference between versions is fairly minor tweaks. And in the meantime, you're saving the subscription cost every year. Is Elements as robust as big brother? No, but most of us would seldom, if ever, use the "grown up" features it offers; Elements does everything we want/need for it to do and more.
Love the story. Lots of poetic justice there.
But then I started thinking about it, and something just doesn't make sense to me. You could certainly tell the cashier that you were also paying for the person behind you, but since you don't know what (or how much of it, for that matter) they want, how do you figure out the amount due? You could, of course, add 20 bucks to the total for your own order (and tell the cashier any overage was a tip for her or that the person behind you would make up any difference in the amount due), but then there'd be no fulfilled order waiting for you to pick up. What am I missing? (Before someone says it, no, I'm not missing a sense of humor--I love the story. But it just doesn't add up when I think about it a little more.)
jerryc41 wrote:
If you've never used Irfanview, you owe it to yourself to give it a try....
I use either Elements or Affinity for editing, but Irfanview is my default viewer. Quick and provides lots of info about the image.
bikinkawboy wrote:
Here’s terms I can understand. The economy is a bicycle speeding down a steep hill with a brick wall at the base. The bicycle is gaining speed all the time ....
And all it took to get the economy back under control was for an ordinary Joe like you to spend five years bedridden and have a million dollar hospital bill h*****g around your neck for the rest of your miserable life.
Now see, that wasn’t so complicated was it? And I’ve never even studied economics! Have a nice future!
Well, the reality is a real bummer, but at least the analogy is funny