While AI is an interesting technology in the world of photos, videos, search engines, advertising, etc. etc., and with a myriad of legal and ethical concerns, it is my belief that there is NO SUCH THING as Artificial Intelligence.

I have used AI to produce strange and weird images, and will likely continue to do so...because it's fun!

Before retirement, I was in the IT field for many decades, and back even in the 2000's, the term and delivery of AI was in its infancy. It was the belief then, as now, that AI is produced by humans, humans writing computer programs, and as such takes on the characteristics and leanings of its authors/developers. A computer cannot think, it is just a series of 0's and 1's, created by some human, with a myriad of IF-THEN-ELSE logic. A computer cannot have emotions. When an AI deliverer want his program to react in a certain way, he programs it that way...it is a reflection of the developer. Such it is with AI that has permeated the world today.

While the term and delivery of AI is here to stay, we should always remember that in using AI, we are catering to the whims of the developer(s). We should not assign "intelligence" to a machine that can have no intelligence.

The images below were taken on the evening of 4/19/2024 at a 4064mm focal length using a full frame DSLR in 4K video mode. Since the full image wouldn't fit into a single frame multiple videos were taken each around 2 minutes long. For each video ~ 50% (~1800) of the best frames were stacked to improve the image to reduce the atmospheric turbulence. The stacked images were then combined into a single image of the entire moon. The first image is the moon as it appears to the eye. The second image has the color greatly enhanced to bring out the subtle colors on the lunar surface. Both images required some compression to fix under the 20meg limit.
All questions comments and suggestions are welcome.

I recently acquired a Sony a6700 to replace a Nikon D7500 I destroyed. The new camera is significantly smaller and lighter that the old one. If I choose to use a Sony 200-600 mm lens on the a6700, I'm putting 4.5 lbs on a mount that weighs a lot less. Since the big lens has a tripod foot on a collar, that should not be a problem if I use a monopod or tripod. So far so good. However, I would like to get a good macro lens, and those tend to be big and heavy also. So I wonder, if I put, for example, a 105 mm macro lens on that A6700, can I get a tripod foot, or will I have the a6700 body on a support with the lens hanging off the front? I fear that will bend or otherwise affect the lens mount. Or am I worrying unnecessarily?

We have here another boring image of a lass on the sand at the beach.

Want to explain this "boring" thing. A while back a viewer on this forum complained that my images as posted were boring because they were of wimmin folk in a running stream, or at the beach or in the hills. He wanted me to post a different kind ( without saying what ). Several folks suggested he just don't look. Same suggestions as were presented to the abusive psychopath in Florida.

As I explore my "stuff" I keep finding images I think would be fun to post.

Enjoy the boredom !

I decided to post these images because of recent discussions about whether or not people should use 2x extenders. I know these are birds, but putting them in the bird subsection will prevent the converter discussion.
The photos are taken with a Nikon 400f2.8s lens. The built in 1.4 converter is being used and coupled with a 2x converter. The wren also has a 5mm extension tube for closer focus.
So, the question is are these photos sharp enough, or should people not use the converters and attempt to gain the extra reach by cropping. I believe that any loss of image quality from using the converter is more than offset by the additional reach and the ability to come closer to filling the frame, but I thought it would be interesting to see where any discussion would go. Those of you who believe that no one should use teleconverters, go ahead and have your say. The photos will be posted in the first reply.

Well, I "purchased" a refurbished lens from Amazon to expand beyond my squirrel stuff.

Canon 18 -135 f/3.5- 5.6, Image Stabilization, USM. I realize it's not the best; however, this is within the budget at this stage. I have 30 days to try it, as it's a free return.

So I took it out for a spin to the nearby place where I did the signs. It's a nice place with beautiful trees, which I like photographing. While it was great to have a lens I could use to get these shots, I missed my other lens when I saw a bird and, yes, a squirrel! I confess when I played enough, I did switch back to my other, and yes, I got several pleasing squirrel shots.

I included the Robin, which was taken with the new lens because I liked that he had something in his mouth. Nice surprise when I discovered it when I edited it.

So here's what I did. I don't have much experience with this type of photography, so I gave it a try! Please feel free to comment.

Anyone ever deal with a company called Mercari?

It's supposed to be a consumer-to-consumer site. They claim that their policy is that they don't process your payment until three days after you receive a product, and that you can return it within the three-day period.

I've seen a few websites say they are legit.

Sounds Great.

They have a BBB rating of A

Sounds Great.

Their customer rating on the BBB site is 1.06 stars out of five (over 1000 reviews). WHAT? Given that some people misclick, I wouldn't have thought that was possible.

I see a listing for a Nikon Z 7 ii today for Under $400 -- with the 24-70 claiming that it has about 300 clicks. What????

My first, second and third reactions are this has got to be a scam. But if I'm not charged until I receive the item, I'm not sure I'm seeing what it is.

Anyway -- comfortable in the belief that if it looks too good to be true, it almost certainly is. I'm not going to bite.

But does anyone know what the play on the part of the seller is here.