Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Check out Video for DSLR and Point and Shoot Cameras section of our forum.
Posts for: f8lee
Page: <<prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 148 next>>
Feb 6, 2024 05:56:54   #
AzPicLady wrote:
On doing the eclipse at "home." I had planned on going to my farm in Illinois, but recently discovered it's 15 miles outside the totality range. I could go to my niece's in Indiana, but that's even further to drive. And I just saw a map that claimed that only in south Texas would there be clear skies. I guess i could go to Waco, but I don't know a soul there and I wouldn't know where to set up. And it would mean doing the hotel/restaurant bit that would get really expensive.

I'm getting really discouraged.
On doing the eclipse at "home." I had pl... (show quote)


Bear in mind that the entire timeframe of the eclipse is a few minutes - and even from the very beginning of the moon starting to cover the edge of the sun until the time it finally exposes the sun completely is only a few hours. Plus - you do not need to be in some special place to capture it - you are basically going to be loking up. My point is - driving all of 15 miles and finding a parking lot is not (or at least hopefully is not) that big a deal.

Last October, I drove 3 hours to Roswell to catch the previous eclipse - and took my shots from the parking lot of the motel in which i was staying. In April I am driving 9 hours to San Antonio to get in the path, but again will likely just set up in the parking lot of the motel.

That said - you must use a special (typically 17 stop) ND filter in order to shoot the sun directly - otherwise if you use a DSLR you can blind yourself, but with a mirrorless camera you will destroy the sensor by pointing the lens directly at the sun. Also, I opted to shoot in exposure bracket mode, in case the meter was fooled by the unusual lighting. Oh, and these were taken with a Fuji X-T5 and 150-600MM lens plus 2X TC, in case you're wondering.

Anyway, my point is, you don't need to make a huge fuss - as long as you have the solar filter to protect your camera (and eye) - and given you are merely 15 miles from the path of totality it seems to me a no brainer to make the drive.


(Download)


(Download)
Go to
Jan 6, 2024 08:15:01   #
Dragonophile wrote:
I am on my third Fujinon 150-600mm lens. I really love the reach, lightweight and sharpness that's fine for my needs. But there is a reason I am on my third one. The first was purchased new and worked fine until I dropped it. Sent it to Fuji for fixing. Came back with unreliable IS - worked fine at times but other times rolled and/jerked. Sent back and waited. Problem not fixed but I know intermittent problems are hard to fix sometimes. So, purchased a nearly new one from Japanese dealer off Ebay. Within a few days, it was doing the same intermittent thing. Perfect sometimes; annoying other times. I have 2 Fuji X-T4s and the same lens issue when I switched the lens from one to another. Well, I finally opted for an X-T5 and got a brand new lens. Guess what... same intermittent problem. Rock solid sometimes but jumpy others. I can not figure out a pattern of when one way or the other. Flipping on/off several times does not resolve problem. Sometimes the problem does resolve after shooting a while. Most of my pictures fine but ...
My question, am I extremely unlucky or is there a design flaw in this lens or am I not understanding something.
I am on my third Fujinon 150-600mm lens. I really ... (show quote)


Well, I've had the 150-600 for 18 months now and use it on both the X-T4 and X-T5 and FWIW have never had this problem with either body...perhaps you just got "lucky" with that second lens.
Go to
Dec 21, 2023 08:18:28   #
CHG_CANON wrote:
Why would they? How could they?


Well. I imagine their resolution could find limits at some point if there were to be a, oh, 1 gigapixel chip, right? That said, though, it would be fantastic - put a super wide angle lens on that 1GP body and never take it off - just crop to whatever angle of view you want for the final shot and have plenty of resolution to make poster sized prints! Neat!

I mean, sure, the initial question is banal, but think of the possibilities of that theoretical infinite resolution wide angle lens on a gigapixel chip!
Go to
Dec 18, 2023 18:00:27   #
Some are - though for slides or negatives the scanner needs to have a light source in the cover to illuminate from behind and a holder to keep the film flat - Epson makes some models that folks seem to like.
Go to
Dec 18, 2023 07:58:30   #
While the impact of this tech on still images is one thing, I think the real impact in the creative community will be felt in the animated versions. This same AI tech can be used to make what are essentially photo-realistic moving images - a gorgeous young woman walking down a pier on a lake with the wind blowing her hair and dress - generated without any human standing in front of a camera, etc. In fact, apparently a couple of top earning "models" on the quasi-porn site "onlyfans" are just that - completely computer generated (and raking in tens of thousands of dollars a month for whoever programmed them). I have heard that for a year or two now many car commercials where we see that vehicle driving across the salt flats or around a mountain switchback or whatever are in fact AI - this time the computer generates that Mustang or Range Rover or whatever over a battery powered blank "sled" that has four wheels (with an adjustable wheelbase) - basically a white box on wheels, as an overlay to give us the impression it was an actual car making those maneuvers.

That is what a large part of the SAG-AFTRA actor strike was about - actors are (rightfully) scared they will be replaced. Which they will. The current argument had to do with producers wanting to pay an actor for a day to take photos that they could then use, royalty free, for any purpose in perpetuity. And it seems perhaps the actors got a bit of a reprieve for now. But there is little doubt that in a few years - 2? 5? certainly before 10 - non existent actors will be generated entirely using AI - no longer will producers need to pay Brad Pitt (or whoever) royalties for using their likeness - we can see above the nature of these images that required no humans on sound stages or in front of or behind cameras, etc.

So once Hollywood is essentially decimated (and imagine if A.I. is put to use to write scripts as well!) what I foresee is a major shift in the world of thespians. Actors who truly love the craft, who want to act in front of other people, will migrate to the stage - live theater might make a comeback as audiences start to get fed up with "fake" talent. Meanwhile, those who today are celebrities without talent (they slept with the right director, whatever) - who I personally think constitutes the majority of that celebrity actor group - they will fade away and perhaps have to learn to code or something.
Go to
Dec 8, 2023 07:19:42   #
Jrhoffman75 wrote:
Free trial still there:


Thanks - that page I did not see - but as I dig further I did find it. And yesterday when I looked no mention was made of LrC, only LR, but today the description details do show LrC so I'm glad to see it is not going anywhere (at least any time soon)

Thanks again!
Go to
Dec 8, 2023 07:07:21   #
Now this is concerning to me, because when I was showing a friend the options for the various Adobe cloud subscriptions I saw that there is no longer a 30 (0r 7) day free trial period with LR Classic - only with Lightroom (cloud). Is it possible that Adobe is going to abandon LRC altogether?
Go to
Check out Close Up Photography section of our forum.
Dec 7, 2023 21:49:44   #
Klickitatdave wrote:
No, unless anything that he wrote or said crossed that line that separates freedom of speech from libel or slander then there would be no basis for a lawsuit. The fact that the entities that you mentioned have not filed lawsuits does not in and by itself establish that what he wrote is accurate or even true. I was not taking a position one way or another in my response to what you wrote, only that lawsuits have nothing to do with the veracity of his assertions.


Well, perhaps it would help to actually read the book and determine if what he states might rise to the level of libel...just sayin'
Go to
Dec 7, 2023 19:45:54   #
Klickitatdave wrote:
"The fact that he names (Fauci, Gates, CDC, NIH, NAIAD, Johns Hopkins and more) with loads of facts and citations to same AND that he hasn't been sued to oblivion by any of those miscreants tells us what he wrote is in fact, factual."

The fact that he has not yet been sued does not automatically mean that his assertions are correct. We have the First Amendment right to express our opinions even if they are totally off the wall and wrong-headed as long as they don't cross the line and represent examples of defamation or slander.
"The fact that he names (Fauci, Gates, CDC, N... (show quote)


Sure, but given the book has been out for over ayear, do you really thing none of those lovely folks would not be sending busloads of lawyers to Kennedy to sue for libel - except that it's all true?
Go to
Dec 7, 2023 10:11:15   #
Shellback wrote:
Maybe all the anti-vaxxers should move to an island and see how many survive...


It's fun to see witless comments like this one...for those who do not want to be disabused of their feelings of superiority for getting the jab, I recommend you avoid reading Robert Kennedy's "The Real Anthony Fauci" because you might learn how deep and wide the lies you were fed have been. The fact that he names names (Fauci, Gates, CDC, NIH, NAIAD, Johns Hopkins and more) with loads of facts and citations to same AND that he hasn't been sued to oblivion by any of those miscreants tells us what he wrote is in fact, factual. So avoid learning about the big hoodwink at all costs!
Go to
Dec 2, 2023 06:50:22   #
That might have been a phishing attempt - I have seen things like that allegedly from Microsoft. Also 'single use codes" for facebook (which I am not on). And these bogus mails get sent to all of my email addresses, so it is obviously spam.
Go to
Check out Software and Computer Support for Photographers section of our forum.
Nov 30, 2023 11:34:28   #
tshift wrote:
Would like to see some of your stuff. Post please.Thanks BE SAFE!!

Tom


If you pay attention, you can see my website at the bottom of my signature...enjoy

I look forward to your witty japes!
Go to
Nov 30, 2023 08:21:57   #
tshift wrote:
DON'T be nasty. I am not your pal number one. I was just making a comment. Apparently you don't think we all have an opinion.


I am not certain as to what part of reality eludes you. I simply proffered my opinion. YOU came back with YOUR opinion that MPIX is good - and I am not disputing that...only that in MY OPINION Aluminyze is better. And then you went off on a tear somehow accusing me of arguing with you...have some camomile tea, pal - calm down.

Oh, and as for "showing you" - how the heck can that be done? Want to come to see the dozens of prints I have including some at a couple of local restaurants? Or ones I sold from said restaurants? Ignore me - I don't care - the world doesn't care - if you want to satisfy yourself get a print from Aluminyze to compare with one from MPIX...whatever. But you need to calm down.
Go to
Nov 30, 2023 08:00:37   #
tshift wrote:
Your opinion!! We all have one.


Do we, really? Because you seem intent on berating me for mine, pal.
Go to
Nov 30, 2023 06:24:11   #
tshift wrote:
MPIX has excellent quality!!!


And yet, I found Aluminyze to be better...what can I tell you? I mean, I've only done 50+ prints with them after trying a number of shops over the years, so what could i know? But that does not mean that MPIX is bad by any means.
Go to
Page: <<prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 148 next>>
Check out Sports Photography section of our forum.
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.