If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Ping WHISKERS
Whiskers wrote:
On 2008-01-19, Blinky the Shark wrote: Whiskers wrote: On 2008-01-19, Blinky the Shark wrote: Whiskers wrote: On 2008-01-18, Blinky the Shark wrote: Whiskers wrote: On 2008-01-17, Blinky the Shark wrote: [...] I've considered a roll-film-sized 'field' camera with movements as a reasonable tool, possibly with a range-finder and view-finder attachment for hand-held use. Linhoff or Plaubel perhaps. But a 'Woodsman' or When I mentioned brands from 40 years ago, when I first got interested in photography, I almost mentined Linhof because it popped into my mind, but then I thought it might be a foreign word in a p'n's group. Probably; but give it a viewfinder and a digiback and you could point and shoot with it, digitally G Okay, but this stuff's going on your tab, not mine. similar kit for a 5x4 'plate' might be cheaper, and quite a lot of fun. When I'm not broke ... I keep waiting for that condition. I keep buying stuff anyway. 5x4 reminds me of contact printing onto Kodalith, back in the day. clickety I guess that's been discontinued. Chemical photography stuff is getting narrowed down in variety as computers sweep all before them. We're moving towards the stage when 'traditional' photography will be a 'fine art' (like engraving, etching, drawing, and painting, have become) with 'digital' taking over virtually all the 'commercial', 'record', and 'souvenir' aspects. [...] I'm on my way to becoming a fine artist. Cool! Hey, I can see why lenses wouldn't be as fast on these cameras as on more costly ones -- but why are they so limited at the *small* aperature end of the spectrum? This one seems to only go to f7-point-something. Come to think of it, even my DSLR lens (non-interchangeable) only goes to f8. Physics. With the very short focal lengths that go with most 'amateur' digicams (to get sensible angles of view with the tiny image sensors), anything much smaller than f/8 will result in the diffraction of the light rays hitting the edge of the apperture overwhelming the un-diffracted rays passing through the centre of the hole, thus degrading the image unacceptably. Ah! Diffraction at the blades. I didn't realize that was an issue. I'm used to abberations toward the outside of the lens -- but this is kinda the reverse because it gets worse nearer the center of the lens axis. And that's why I never thought of it. The curvature of the lens elements will also tend to be sharper at these smaller focal lengths, which limits the maximum diameter you can get without making the lenses very thick and heavy. That creates a physical restraint to the maximum apperture possible. At least when I was doing film, par for common stopped-down lenses was f16 and I think I have a 24mm with f32. That would be unusually small at that focal length. I don't think I've seen f/32 on anything shorter than 4" or 90mm (regardless of film size). But longer lenses can go down to f/64 or even less without diffraction getting in the way. Sorry. I just looked, and it's f22 on a 135mm Super-Takumar. I was thinking it was on my 24mm S-T, but no, that's offers a routine f16. In summer of 2002, less than two years after 9/11, my buddy and I were Uh...less than *one* year after. I was apparently using shark years. on a road trip out east. One of our stops, since we were nearby, was the first US nuclear powerplant, at Shpping Port, Pennsylvania. It's not like they had tours or anything -- we just wanted to see it. We did, and took photos from outside the fence. It wasn't until we were driving to our next point of interest that we realized that it wouldn't have been a stretch to have to do some explaining to this or that authority about those photos, and in retrospect I *am* surpised that we weren't met by Vehicles With Government Agency Names On Them. They can probably follow you with a geiger counter from the ISS ) I do have a certain glow, but that's always been attributable to my personality. I shot those two coupler images at the Chinatown stop while I was waiting for my train. The front view is of the train I boarded. After I got on, some guy in transit authority garb got on, too. I've only ridden the Metro trains twice, and not seen that, so I wondered if he'd was keeping me in view and had radioed for backup. You seem to have got away with it that time ... Good thing they didn't compare notes with the guys from the nuke plant. There ya go. One good thing about that is that I've found, being a dialup user, that with some of them you have to wait for a bunch of unrelated images (site stuff, teases for other photos and/or galleries, etc.) to download. So mostly, when I see links to them I just don't bother. Using Opera, even on broadband I browse with images, scripts, Java, and plugins, all disabled by default. I can then get only the images I'm interested in, after the page has loaded. On dial-up that makes a big difference to the time and expense of web browsing. I'm not sure how I can view images on image-sharing sites with my images disabled to save bandwidth. Now that I've sussed how this program makes its galleries, I can make the url less cumbersome, too, by removing a couple unneeded directories. I think various 'web page templates' and 'design tools' are provided for my Linux distro. I'll investigate, eventually. Or I'll go to gopherspace where content rules and all there is apart from content, is the means of finding it (and no Google!). (Lynx can get into gopherspace, but most web browsers can't. Gopher can, of course). For the record, I did that little gallery (with only the slightest of tweaks to the output) with the copy of KDE's digiKam that came with my powerpack edition of Mandriva 2005. It's okay for something light; I wouldn't use it for something important. -- Blinky Killing all posts from Google Groups The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org Blinky: http://blinkynet.net |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Ping WHISKERS
On 2008-01-19, Blinky the Shark wrote:
Whiskers wrote: On 2008-01-19, Blinky the Shark wrote: Whiskers wrote: On 2008-01-19, Blinky the Shark wrote: Whiskers wrote: On 2008-01-18, Blinky the Shark wrote: Whiskers wrote: On 2008-01-17, Blinky the Shark wrote: [...] I've considered a roll-film-sized 'field' camera with movements as a reasonable tool, possibly with a range-finder and view-finder attachment for hand-held use. Linhoff or Plaubel perhaps. But a 'Woodsman' or When I mentioned brands from 40 years ago, when I first got interested in photography, I almost mentined Linhof because it popped into my mind, but then I thought it might be a foreign word in a p'n's group. Probably; but give it a viewfinder and a digiback and you could point and shoot with it, digitally G Okay, but this stuff's going on your tab, not mine. Darn, I'm rumbled similar kit for a 5x4 'plate' might be cheaper, and quite a lot of fun. When I'm not broke ... I keep waiting for that condition. I keep buying stuff anyway. 5x4 reminds me of contact printing onto Kodalith, back in the day. clickety I guess that's been discontinued. Chemical photography stuff is getting narrowed down in variety as computers sweep all before them. We're moving towards the stage when 'traditional' photography will be a 'fine art' (like engraving, etching, drawing, and painting, have become) with 'digital' taking over virtually all the 'commercial', 'record', and 'souvenir' aspects. [...] I'm on my way to becoming a fine artist. Cool! The next step is the hat. Get a silly hat and you're well on your way. Hey, I can see why lenses wouldn't be as fast on these cameras as on more costly ones -- but why are they so limited at the *small* aperature end of the spectrum? This one seems to only go to f7-point-something. Come to think of it, even my DSLR lens (non-interchangeable) only goes to f8. Physics. With the very short focal lengths that go with most 'amateur' digicams (to get sensible angles of view with the tiny image sensors), anything much smaller than f/8 will result in the diffraction of the light rays hitting the edge of the apperture overwhelming the un-diffracted rays passing through the centre of the hole, thus degrading the image unacceptably. Ah! Diffraction at the blades. I didn't realize that was an issue. I'm used to abberations toward the outside of the lens -- but this is kinda the reverse because it gets worse nearer the center of the lens axis. And that's why I never thought of it. The Minox sub-miniature camera lens has a fixed apperture of f/3.5; apparently the lens designers worked out that anything smaller was worse and anything bigger was going to spoil the smallness of the camera. Depth of field is so large at these image dimensions that there's little or no point in trying to exploit the 'out of focus' effects that work well with varying the apperture on 35mm and '120' film cameras - and can be a real problem on 'large format'. The curvature of the lens elements will also tend to be sharper at these smaller focal lengths, which limits the maximum diameter you can get without making the lenses very thick and heavy. That creates a physical restraint to the maximum apperture possible. At least when I was doing film, par for common stopped-down lenses was f16 and I think I have a 24mm with f32. That would be unusually small at that focal length. I don't think I've seen f/32 on anything shorter than 4" or 90mm (regardless of film size). But longer lenses can go down to f/64 or even less without diffraction getting in the way. Sorry. I just looked, and it's f22 on a 135mm Super-Takumar. I was thinking it was on my 24mm S-T, but no, that's offers a routine f16. In summer of 2002, less than two years after 9/11, my buddy and I were Uh...less than *one* year after. I was apparently using shark years. It's all relative anyway. on a road trip out east. One of our stops, since we were nearby, was the first US nuclear powerplant, at Shpping Port, Pennsylvania. It's not like they had tours or anything -- we just wanted to see it. We did, and took photos from outside the fence. It wasn't until we were driving to our next point of interest that we realized that it wouldn't have been a stretch to have to do some explaining to this or that authority about those photos, and in retrospect I *am* surpised that we weren't met by Vehicles With Government Agency Names On Them. They can probably follow you with a geiger counter from the ISS ) I do have a certain glow, but that's always been attributable to my personality. I shot those two coupler images at the Chinatown stop while I was waiting for my train. The front view is of the train I boarded. After I got on, some guy in transit authority garb got on, too. I've only ridden the Metro trains twice, and not seen that, so I wondered if he'd was keeping me in view and had radioed for backup. You seem to have got away with it that time ... Good thing they didn't compare notes with the guys from the nuke plant. You got off the train too soon ... There ya go. One good thing about that is that I've found, being a dialup user, that with some of them you have to wait for a bunch of unrelated images (site stuff, teases for other photos and/or galleries, etc.) to download. So mostly, when I see links to them I just don't bother. Using Opera, even on broadband I browse with images, scripts, Java, and plugins, all disabled by default. I can then get only the images I'm interested in, after the page has loaded. On dial-up that makes a big difference to the time and expense of web browsing. I'm not sure how I can view images on image-sharing sites with my images disabled to save bandwidth. With Opera set to 'cached images only', the placeholders for images are visible. If there's one I think might be worth a look, right-click on it and 'reload image'; that image (and nothing else) is fetched. Or (as I did on landing on your album page) shift-i fetches all the images at once. It was that ability that sold me on Opera the first time I tried it, when I was still on dial-up - I got the binary from a magazine CD. About 7 years ago that was, and 4 and a half versions of Opera and on a different OS. Now that I've sussed how this program makes its galleries, I can make the url less cumbersome, too, by removing a couple unneeded directories. I think various 'web page templates' and 'design tools' are provided for my Linux distro. I'll investigate, eventually. Or I'll go to gopherspace where content rules and all there is apart from content, is the means of finding it (and no Google!). (Lynx can get into gopherspace, but most web browsers can't. Gopher can, of course). For the record, I did that little gallery (with only the slightest of tweaks to the output) with the copy of KDE's digiKam that came with my powerpack edition of Mandriva 2005. It's okay for something light; I wouldn't use it for something important. I'm up to Mandriva 2007 and about to move everything to 2008. Mdv2008 us worth the switch, if you can get hold of the DVD (I wouldn't recommend trying to download the whole thing over dialup, even Linux distros are a bit big for that these days). -- -- ^^^^^^^^^^ -- Whiskers -- ~~~~~~~~~~ |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Ping WHISKERS
Whiskers wrote:
On 2008-01-19, Blinky the Shark wrote: Whiskers wrote: On 2008-01-19, Blinky the Shark wrote: Whiskers wrote: Chemical photography stuff is getting narrowed down in variety as computers sweep all before them. We're moving towards the stage when 'traditional' photography will be a 'fine art' (like engraving, etching, drawing, and painting, have become) with 'digital' taking over virtually all the 'commercial', 'record', and 'souvenir' aspects. [...] I'm on my way to becoming a fine artist. Cool! The next step is the hat. Get a silly hat and you're well on your way. If my black beret doesn't establish my fine artisthood, nothing will. I shot those two coupler images at the Chinatown stop while I was waiting for my train. The front view is of the train I boarded. After I got on, some guy in transit authority garb got on, too. I've only ridden the Metro trains twice, and not seen that, so I wondered if he'd was keeping me in view and had radioed for backup. You seem to have got away with it that time ... Good thing they didn't compare notes with the guys from the nuke plant. You got off the train too soon ... I think you misspelled "just in time". There ya go. One good thing about that is that I've found, being a dialup user, that with some of them you have to wait for a bunch of unrelated images (site stuff, teases for other photos and/or galleries, etc.) to download. So mostly, when I see links to them I just don't bother. Using Opera, even on broadband I browse with images, scripts, Java, and plugins, all disabled by default. I can then get only the images I'm interested in, after the page has loaded. On dial-up that makes a big difference to the time and expense of web browsing. I'm not sure how I can view images on image-sharing sites with my images disabled to save bandwidth. With Opera set to 'cached images only', the placeholders for images are visible. If there's one I think might be worth a look, right-click on it and 'reload image'; that image (and nothing else) is fetched. Or (as Gotcha. I did on landing on your album page) shift-i fetches all the images at So even with the images blocked, you didn't read the text? once. It was that ability that sold me on Opera the first time I tried it, when I was still on dial-up - I got the binary from a magazine CD. About 7 years ago that was, and 4 and a half versions of Opera and on a different OS. I moved to Opera at...I think it was 5.02 or so. Of course, I switched to FF after a few years. For the record, I did that little gallery (with only the slightest of tweaks to the output) with the copy of KDE's digiKam that came with my powerpack edition of Mandriva 2005. It's okay for something light; I wouldn't use it for something important. I'm up to Mandriva 2007 and about to move everything to 2008. Mdv2008 us worth the switch, if you can get hold of the DVD (I wouldn't recommend trying to download the whole thing over dialup, even Linux distros are a bit big for that these days). Uh...yeah, they are. -- Blinky Killing all posts from Google Groups The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org Blinky: http://blinkynet.net |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Ping WHISKERS
On 2008-01-20, Blinky the Shark wrote:
Whiskers wrote: On 2008-01-19, Blinky the Shark wrote: Whiskers wrote: On 2008-01-19, Blinky the Shark wrote: Whiskers wrote: Chemical photography stuff is getting narrowed down in variety as computers sweep all before them. We're moving towards the stage when 'traditional' photography will be a 'fine art' (like engraving, etching, drawing, and painting, have become) with 'digital' taking over virtually all the 'commercial', 'record', and 'souvenir' aspects. [...] I'm on my way to becoming a fine artist. Cool! The next step is the hat. Get a silly hat and you're well on your way. If my black beret doesn't establish my fine artisthood, nothing will. You're definitely on the right track. I shot those two coupler images at the Chinatown stop while I was waiting for my train. The front view is of the train I boarded. After I got on, some guy in transit authority garb got on, too. I've only ridden the Metro trains twice, and not seen that, so I wondered if he'd was keeping me in view and had radioed for backup. You seem to have got away with it that time ... Good thing they didn't compare notes with the guys from the nuke plant. You got off the train too soon ... I think you misspelled "just in time". That's one interpretation ... There ya go. One good thing about that is that I've found, being a dialup user, that with some of them you have to wait for a bunch of unrelated images (site stuff, teases for other photos and/or galleries, etc.) to download. So mostly, when I see links to them I just don't bother. Using Opera, even on broadband I browse with images, scripts, Java, and plugins, all disabled by default. I can then get only the images I'm interested in, after the page has loaded. On dial-up that makes a big difference to the time and expense of web browsing. I'm not sure how I can view images on image-sharing sites with my images disabled to save bandwidth. With Opera set to 'cached images only', the placeholders for images are visible. If there's one I think might be worth a look, right-click on it and 'reload image'; that image (and nothing else) is fetched. Or (as Gotcha. I did on landing on your album page) shift-i fetches all the images at So even with the images blocked, you didn't read the text? No; as soon as I got the first page I did the 'duh, I'm here for pictures' thing and hit the I to get them once. It was that ability that sold me on Opera the first time I tried it, when I was still on dial-up - I got the binary from a magazine CD. About 7 years ago that was, and 4 and a half versions of Opera and on a different OS. I moved to Opera at...I think it was 5.02 or so. Of course, I switched to FF after a few years. Ah well, it takes all sorts. For the record, I did that little gallery (with only the slightest of tweaks to the output) with the copy of KDE's digiKam that came with my powerpack edition of Mandriva 2005. It's okay for something light; I wouldn't use it for something important. I'm up to Mandriva 2007 and about to move everything to 2008. Mdv2008 us worth the switch, if you can get hold of the DVD (I wouldn't recommend trying to download the whole thing over dialup, even Linux distros are a bit big for that these days). Uh...yeah, they are. Snail-mail still works at high bandwidth, though ) -- -- ^^^^^^^^^^ -- Whiskers -- ~~~~~~~~~~ |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Ping WHISKERS
Whiskers wrote:
For the record, I did that little gallery (with only the slightest of tweaks to the output) with the copy of KDE's digiKam that came with my powerpack edition of Mandriva 2005. It's okay for something light; I wouldn't use it for something important. I'm up to Mandriva 2007 and about to move everything to 2008. Mdv2008 us worth the switch, if you can get hold of the DVD (I wouldn't recommend trying to download the whole thing over dialup, even Linux distros are a bit big for that these days). Uh...yeah, they are. Snail-mail still works at high bandwidth, though ) Yeah. I buy from Mandriva or Cheap Bytes. -- Blinky Killing all posts from Google Groups The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org Blinky: http://blinkynet.net |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Ping WHISKERS
Blinky the Shark wrote:
Whiskers wrote: Physics. With the very short focal lengths that go with most 'amateur' digicams (to get sensible angles of view with the tiny image sensors), anything much smaller than f/8 will result in the diffraction of the light rays hitting the edge of the apperture overwhelming the un-diffracted rays passing through the centre of the hole, thus degrading the image unacceptably. Ah! Diffraction at the blades. I didn't realize that was an issue. I'm used to abberations toward the outside of the lens -- but this is kinda the reverse because it gets worse nearer the center of the lens axis. And that's why I never thought of it. And what did I just run across in r.p.digital? q You /can/ get the depth of field, but at apertures of f/16 or so and smaller, diffraction softening comes into play. Just makes the image not quite as sharp. I'm no expert, just what I've read. /q I love the Net. -- Blinky Killing all posts from Google Groups The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org Blinky: http://blinkynet.net |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Ping WHISKERS
On 2008-01-21, Blinky the Shark wrote:
Blinky the Shark wrote: Whiskers wrote: Physics. With the very short focal lengths that go with most 'amateur' digicams (to get sensible angles of view with the tiny image sensors), anything much smaller than f/8 will result in the diffraction of the light rays hitting the edge of the apperture overwhelming the un-diffracted rays passing through the centre of the hole, thus degrading the image unacceptably. Ah! Diffraction at the blades. I didn't realize that was an issue. I'm used to abberations toward the outside of the lens -- but this is kinda the reverse because it gets worse nearer the center of the lens axis. And that's why I never thought of it. And what did I just run across in r.p.digital? q You /can/ get the depth of field, but at apertures of f/16 or so and smaller, diffraction softening comes into play. Just makes the image not quite as sharp. I'm no expert, just what I've read. /q I love the Net. So much quicker than going to the library and finding a book. But there are books about 'depth of field' and lens abberations and so on, and why Leica lenses are so much better than Zeiss (or not, according to taste) and so on. -- -- ^^^^^^^^^^ -- Whiskers -- ~~~~~~~~~~ |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
PING: D-Mac | Annika1980 | 35mm Photo Equipment | 3 | November 15th 07 03:05 AM |
PING: D-Mac ! | Annika1980 | 35mm Photo Equipment | 5 | August 20th 07 06:18 AM |
[SI] Ping Jim / Al | Alan Browne | 35mm Photo Equipment | 1 | October 10th 06 04:04 PM |
SI - ping Al D | Alan Browne | 35mm Photo Equipment | 2 | July 25th 06 11:22 PM |
PING: Al D / Jim K | Alan Browne | 35mm Photo Equipment | 4 | November 10th 04 04:02 AM |