August 29, 2014, 08:20:15 PM

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - tolusina

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 22
Software & Accessories / Re: Shuttercount Now Available for Windows
« on: August 28, 2014, 05:54:10 PM »
..... DSLRController shows it too

Software & Accessories / Re: Kirk BH-1 or RRS BH-55 Ballhead?
« on: August 28, 2014, 05:42:09 PM »
Also look at Acratech's ball heads.

Site Information / Re: Posts disappearing or not loading
« on: August 23, 2014, 08:42:50 PM »
I've turned my quick reply off in the profile settings.  ......
Wow, thanks, that was easy.  ;)

Site Information / Re: Posts disappearing or not loading
« on: August 21, 2014, 11:49:59 PM »
I checked the 200-400mm topic in the lens gallery, and something is definitely wrong.  I see nothing at all, so there must be some corruption in the database.  It will have to be rebuilt I think.

I'll let CR guy know about the issue, he has some support people who only take orders for things like that from him.

A post quote from the “Small or Large Thumbnails – Poll” thread......

..... As an aside, am I the only one to see threads with pages which wouldn't load?  I had a look at the "we the photographers" thread and about half the pages only came up blank - no content but no 404 either.......
I found the same on the Cars cars cars (and some bikes) thread.
I tried to back up one page to 15, got a white page. Tried clicking through from page one, got as far as page 10, can't see anything between 11 and 15.

Just now, I went back to the cars/bikes thread, page 11 returns a blank page as does page 15 .

All other pages of that thread load fine.
I as well as others have noticed the same behavior on several threads.
- - -
Another site complaint I'd like to air regards the width of the text entry field for quick reply at the bottom of each thread page.
That field is extremely wide, no issue on desktop, most annoying on mobile.
To quantify that width, I just copy/pasted a repeating text string on alternating 'i's and 'w's (narrowest and widest) as …....iwiwiwiwiw....... until a second line began, copy pasted the result from one line into a .doc, word count shows 776 characters wide.
Um, sorry, I'm only able to describe this oddity, I'm at a loss regarding possible causes and/or solutions.
- - -
Er, a First World problem for sure, I'm delighted to live in an environment that makes it possible to bother about such things rather than having to continually worry about nut job fanatics, famine, Ebola and other human miseries.

Site Information / Re: Small or Large Thumbnails - Poll
« on: August 21, 2014, 11:18:37 PM »
....  The Temporary Internet Cache files on your local hard drive store the image from the first time it loads, then that image file is used repeatedly until it is deleted or it expires from the cache area....
I learned about browser caching in a rather roundabout way many years back in the WIN 95-98 era, Netscape Navigator, I.E. 4 or 5.
I had built a web page of something or other using some WYSIWYG program, the page included an animated gif.
I copied the page and its files to floppy, took it to a friend's for review/critique/show off/whatever, friend was a NN user.
While viewing the page in NN, I happened to notice the floppy kept getting accessed, didn't do this with I.E..
I somehow reasoned that NN was not caching at all, when the gif called for another frame, NN had to go back to the server (the floppy in this case) and download all over again for each and every repeated display of the gif's frames.
In contrast, I.E. accessed and cached the page in it's entirety, once downloaded, it didn't have to go back to the server again.
It may just be that we owe the bandwidth conserving efficiencies of modern browser caching to the snail pace of ancient dial up downloading.

Lenses / Re: Advice: extension tubes Macro
« on: August 20, 2014, 07:57:38 PM »
....Middle East excavation site in progress.......


"An extension tube increases lens magnification by an amount equal to the extension distance divided by the lens focal length. For example, adding a 25 mm extension tube to a 50 mm lens will give a magnification gain of 0.5X. Therefore, if the lens's original magnification was 0.15X, then the new magnification will be 0.15X+0.5X=0.65X. The closest focusing distance will also decrease to ~210 mm."

"Note how extension tubes provide minimal magnification when used with telephoto lenses — which is unfortunately their main weakness."
"Closest Focusing Distance
0.99 ft./0.3m (maximum close-up magnification: 1x)
So, a full set of Kenko tubes adding up to 68mm will increase the magnification of your 100L macro only from 1.0 to 1.68.
You'll have a very shallow depth of field which focus stacking can overcome.
To focus stack you'll need a sturdy tripod and either a macro rail or tethered focusing control, or manual focus steps as you determine by eye, preferably in live view.
If you're shooting artifacts in situ rather than on a work bench or table, your tripod will have to be configured to mount the camera very low to the ground such as is possible with an inverted post. Manual focusing with the ground level mounted camera will be awkward and uncomfortable at best, a total failure at the worst.
I suggest tethered control.

If dust can or will be a factor, that may compromise effectiveness and longevity of a focusing rail will all its exposed components, same for a bellows.
I like Helicon Focus for processing the stacked frames.
The Canon MP-E 65mm f/2.8 1-5x Macro Photo lens magnifies between 1X and 5X but must be focused manually which rules it out of tethered focus control is desired. Might be just what you seek if you'll manually focus (and stack) while live viewing tethered.

There's a thread here, "first attempts at macro stacking, let's see some stuff. (beginners only please)"

EOS Bodies / Re: Is this a joke?
« on: August 18, 2014, 07:55:55 PM »
..... it mentions Nikon cameras:
No focus motor
Won't autofocus with all lenses.......

As Nikon has fallen off my radar, I no longer follow specs and details of current market offerings, I've no idea regarding the current state of these things.
- - -
I have, and have worn out both a D70 and a D80.
On the lens mount of these cameras is a screwdriver tip sort of affair connected to an in the camera focusing motor.
Some autofocus lenses of the era did not have their own autofocus motor(s), instead used the camera's built in motor. I have lenses of both types, in lens motors focused significantly faster, camera body focus seemed just as accurate once it finally arrived.
The next generation Nikons one step down in the marketplace omitted the in body focus motors, if a lens was to autofocus, it had to bring its own motors.
There was simply no way for a non-motorized lens to autofocus without camera drive.
Example; had I updated to the D90 generation but a step or two downmarket, my AF Nikkor 50mm 1:1.8D would not be able to autofocus.
In the photo below hot linked from dpreview, see the screwdriver tip looking tab at about 7:00? That's the in camera autofocus drive for lenses without their own motors.

Another downside of this so called 'feature', while this drive is engaged, the focus ring cannot be manually operated, autofocus must be physically disengaged on the camera body, no 'on the fly' manual focus possible.
- - -
I don't know if this is what snapsort was referring to, I looked briefly and did not find. I don't much care either, please, make no effort on my behalf to find and quote whatever passage(s).
I no longer care anything regarding anything and everything Nikon and at this point in my life, hope to maintain that indifference until my end.

Canon General / Re: Makes the 1DX seem a bit slow ;)
« on: August 15, 2014, 05:05:24 PM »
That thing might actually catch me TRYING to please my wife... ;-) lol
Is it fast enough to catch you succeeding?

EOS Bodies / Re: popup-flash - made a "pro feature"?
« on: August 13, 2014, 04:05:37 PM »
Is the 6D a 'pro body'?
Are you implying it's not?
Does Canon Europe consider the 6D to be 'for professionals'?

Note that whether or not Canon considers a body to be 'pro' has no relevance to what photographer uses it.  Plenty of professional photographers use xxD bodies, and I hear there are even some enthusiasts that use a 1D X.  ;)
Irrelevant how the manufacturer or seller classifies a product, it's the consumer who determines its actual use.

Both sides of the coin (the links you posted) work too as you've so eloquently noted, non-pros buy  Canon classified pro bodies with no apparent ill effects, no law suits, no jail time for daring to use pro gear for personal use.
Of course, if one is a corporate shill like the Samsung rep I encountered yesterday, corporate knows best, end users should compliantly and placidly accept corporate edicts with no question.

EOS Bodies / Re: popup-flash - made a "pro feature"?
« on: August 13, 2014, 02:23:05 PM »
Only slightly less convenient than a pop up is a 90EX in your pocket, same limited range, same harsh shadows, same optical trigger capability.
I keep one in my kit for those occasions where my photos only need to demonstrate I was there, I saw, verified, recorded and reported. Most of these aren't pretty but they are concisely descriptive.
Most of this work I can shoot without flash, just crank the 6D's ISO up, by the time I've resized down to the clients' 800x533 spec, noise in barely apparent.

Also in my kit is an ST-E3-RT and one or two 600EX-RTs for times when more elaborate lighting is needed, like maybe I want a nice photo rather than a just banal snapshot.
I doubt we'll see radio control built into camera bodies, each market would need its own version according to local regulations.
Terry Richardson is one, so called, pro who's signature style is on camera flash. I suspect a portion of his success and marketability is due to his subjects more than his style.
How he succeeds as a pro is beyond me, even more mysterious than Gursky though I surely don't mean to draw any parallels between the two, their work or their work ethics.


Is the 6D a 'pro body'?  ....
Are you implying it's not?

Site Information / Re: Small or Large Thumbnails - Poll
« on: August 13, 2014, 11:28:01 AM »
...... loading the same post full of images over and over can be a bind....
I'm not certain on this, perhaps someone more geeky like Rusty will conform or discredit.

As each unique image has it's own unique URL, when a page calls for that unique URL multiple times, it only gets downloaded once using only the bandwidth required for a single download, the browser then locally positions the display of that single copy in multiple locations.
So, if that ^ is correct, there's no bandwidth penalty when displaying the same image multiple times on the same page, the visual clutter issue certainly remains and is often very annoying even on a desktop, much worse when viewing mobile.
Best would be where posters learn how and implement a post/reply method that removes all from the quote that has no relevance to the reply. Being as we are all perfectly flawed humans with widely varied knowledge and experiences, this is not likely to happen.
Hmm, to eliminate visual clutter, let's all learn to post at f1.2, narrow focus and depth of field, clutter be banished to Bokeh.
edit...... visual clutter applies to text that is needlessly quoted, most especially when multi-quoted, visual clutter is not limited to images.

Business of Photography/Videography / Re: Who owns the photo?
« on: August 11, 2014, 09:39:02 PM »
Science is my domain- so let's think that way. Let's say a primate researcher sets up his equipment in a certain way to perform a certain experiment- let's say macaques shooting themselves with a camera, to study social behavior. The macaques do approach the camera, which has been set up to allow the most likelihood of an acceptable picture being taken (wide angle lens, predictive focus- which I am sure very few wildlife photographers use otherwise), and by random chance some good shots are taken. The scientist duly collects the data and processes the images.
Now, would you say the data and the images are in the public domain so anyone can use the data without citing or permission, or even publish the results in a paper.

To me, what matters in intent (which the photographer certainly had as he wanted the macaques to trigger their own images as they weren't approaching the camera otherwise) and effort (going to the location, making friends with the animals, having the insight of setting up the camera the way he did, collecting and processing the images, sharing them on his blog). He also didn't lie about how the images were generated (although the images might have been less famous if they were shot using a remote switch instead of being selfies).

The other thing that matters is ethics. This is a guy who earns his bread through this trade. He isn't some millionaire or even some rich photographer that the royalties from this photo he is losing won't affect him. On the other hand, paying royalties to him would probably not have affected those who downloaded the images, at least not in a big way anyway. So why is wikimedia citing technical reasons to deprive this guy of some earnings? Especially since they aren't getting the money, anyway!
Even worse, photographers on this forum are repeating those technical clauses instead of thinking how a fellow tog is losing the money that could have helped him and his family. I see people rant here how we should support Gary Fong and Expoimaging and not deprive them by buying the cheap knockoff versions. Where is that support now?
Much as I dislike "+1" posts, here's a +1!

Gary Fong, yup, bought the full kit, two of them. Great videos.

Business of Photography/Videography / Re: Who owns the photo?
« on: August 11, 2014, 09:10:50 PM »
Slater doesn't own the shot: it's either nobody, or it's the Indonesian government....

From the first page.......
The macaque is wild, owns its own self.
In those cases, animals are generally presumed to be owned by the sovereign government, so Indonesia likely owns the photos.  In the absence of an international treaty, it seems likely they'll win the case in an Indonesian court.

Presumed, nice, vague word. Specious argument material.
Macaque's are issued no birth certificates, there's no census unless conducted by researchers that the rulers have no interest in, they aren't taxed, have no passport, entry or exit restrictions, don't serve in the Military, have no driving privileges, no rights in court, no government health care, apparently no government protection as one can be bought for $0.20 (I know, article says 20p) worth of cigarettes in the meat market.
Should a macaque happen travel by boat to a place where there's a border crossing, Mr. Macaque's presence and crossing is sure to go unremarked, unless of course, the crossing agent chose to confiscate  Mr. Macaque for (not to) dinner.
Ownership would not automatically transfer to Malaysia, Papua New Guinea, Australia, wherever, the entire topic and concept is beneath government's notice and concern.
If in fact there is some government ownership technicality, it's only because some faceless and likely long dead bureaucrat decreed so, not because there's any real life ownership with the care and responsibility exercised that such ownership would imply.

Sulawesi macaques...
“They are critically endangered thanks mainly to us humans - from forest clearance for houses and farms, persecution for their habit of crop raiding, and poaching for bushmeat.  Indeed, they can still be found as bushmeat at local markets.  A once shuned meat source due to Muslim perspectives, but with the rise of Catholicism on the island, the meat as once again become profit making.  Below is a pic of a potentially doomed close relative, a male Booted Macaque (I didn't get a trapped crested macaque thankfully!).  I say potentially because I got him released for a 20 pence packet of cigarettes as a bribe.  The value on these monkeys lives is astonishingly low...”
But don't just take Slater's word for it, google Crested black macaque endangered

The Indonesian government simply cannot be bothered about  Mr. Macaque, his family or any ownership issues, rights, responsibilities or benefits.
- - -
By the way, have you never shot 'blind'? Have you set up a camera on a tripod during this thread, had a hand on one leg while imagining a small playful and inquisitive critter in front of the camera? Do you lack the imagination that might allow Slater to one handed guide the rig in such a manner as to assure a reasonable wide angle capture, useable after crop and rotate?
Sure, Slater didn't have perfect control, but without the control hid did exercise, there'd be no contentious photos.
- - -
How can anyone here on CR take the WikiPedia side on this? But for one, very obviously arguable point, the photos are clearly Slater's and Caters'.
If this point falls, so can any other point in the creative chain, hardware, software, input, output, anyone can make up anything, any claim they want if they've got enough money to make it so. Is this the world we want?
What minute artists' right will be next to fall to the petty bureaucrats?
How would your passion for photography fare if all photos were required to be uploaded to a government controlled cloud for review, approval and possible use against you at any random future date? No, I don't think this is far fetched at all, Putin would like to see this implemented right now or sooner.
I just learned that in Russia right now, you must present a passport in order to be permitted to purchase a cell phone sim card. In the U.S., Chase Banks require photo ID for petty cash deposits.
Some governments and businesses want to control everything, the rest are content with just enough control to allow the illusion of Freedom.

Business of Photography/Videography / Re: Who owns the photo?
« on: August 11, 2014, 07:16:08 PM »
You leave your camera in the woods with the intention of wireless remote shooting, a child comes along and moves your camera and in the process pushes the shutter button, do you own the copyright? No you do not.

Take the last scenario and exchange a child for a monkey, you still don't own the copyright, you did not frame or take the photo. …...

For the successful photos in question the camera never left Slater's physical control.

You obviously didn't read it.  It says right in the blog that it absolutely left his control.

 So I put my camera on a tripod with a very wide angle lens, settings configured such as predictive autofocus, motorwind, even a flashgun, to give me a chance of a facial close up if they were to approach again for a play.  I duly moved away and bingo, they moved in, fingering the toy, pressing the buttons and fingering the lens

  • He put it on a tripod
  • He set it to auto
  • He moved away
That's out of his control.

You gonna share the fried crow with PBD? Maybe you prefer yours deep fried.
Sulawesi macaques...

"......I wanted to keep my new found friends happy and with me.  I now wanted to get right in their faces with a wide angle lens, but that was proving too difficult as they were nervous of something - I couldn't tell what.  So I put my camera on a tripod with a very wide angle lens, settings configured such as predictive autofocus, motorwind, even a flashgun, to give me a chance of a facial close up if they were to approach again for a play.  I duly moved away and bingo, they moved in, fingering the toy, pressing the buttons and fingering the lens.  I was then to witness one of the funniest things ever as they grinned, grimaced and bared teeth at themselves in the reflection of the large glassy lens. Was this what they where afraid of earlier?  Perhaps also the sight of the shutter planes moving within the lens also amused or scared them?  They played with the camera until of course some images were inevitably taken!  I had one hand on the tripod when this was going on, ..."

Site Information / Re: Small or Large Thumbnails - Poll
« on: August 11, 2014, 07:01:59 PM »
..... As an aside, am I the only one to see threads with pages which wouldn't load?  I had a look at the "we the photographers" thread and about half the pages only came up blank - no content but no 404 either.......
I found the same on the Cars cars cars (and some bikes) thread.
I tried to back up one page to 15, got a white page. Tried clicking through from page one, got as far as page 10, can't see anything between 11 and 15.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 22