April 18, 2014, 10:35:50 AM

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 - jrista

Pages: 1 ... 83 84 [85] 86 87 ... 216
1261
Animal Kingdom / Re: Show your Bird Portraits
« on: August 14, 2013, 03:32:43 PM »
The common cry of Avian photographers world wide:

@#$!!**#$  branch !!!

( juvenile Cooper's Hawk )

Photoshop's Content Aware Heal and Patch are your friends! :P

It's tough, but you can indeed eliminate that branch. I have a shot of a juvi Red-tailed that had a branch intruding. I used the content aware tools of PSCS6 to remove it. I'll see if I can find before and after versions for a demonstration.

I would be interested to see your before and after. I posted the pict with humorous  intent. I did have the time to move a bit to the left and got some good shots before it moved. I have used content aware but not on birds as I did not wish to add any artifacts to the plumage.

Yeah, I knew it was humorous. ;) Just wanted to point out that, despite the cursing, the evil branches can still be removed in post. It is no easy task...probably the most time I've ever spent on any given photo were the ones where I removed branches. I think I actually have a couple good examples. I did not have a top-end lens at the time, so feather detail was low enough that cleaning up the branch was doable. If you have really razor sharp detail on the bird's feathers, then it would either be a much more difficult task, or impossible.

1262
EOS Bodies / Re: The last Canon crop sensor - ever
« on: August 14, 2013, 02:48:48 PM »
Peace out guys. Sorry the thread got derailed...the debate was peaceful at first...

1263
EOS Bodies / Re: The last Canon crop sensor - ever
« on: August 14, 2013, 02:32:20 PM »
...image quality, what is it more than the sensor and the measurements for example DXO does to classify a sensor?
color quality/ color resolution
resolution lp/mm
dynamic range
noise and high iso properties
measurable values


Here's what 14.4 EV of dynamic range, 25.3 bits of color depth, ISO 2853 low light score, and and an overall DxOMark Score of 95 can look like:



Just look at that amazing IQ.  I wish I could take shots of gulls that looked that good, but alas, I don't have a D800.

The point is that there's more to a good image than the sensor.  Some people can't seem to grasp that fact, maybe because they shoot mainly static subjects, or have biases of their own.


:D Thanks for the ideal example! I just hope people understand it is blurry because of missfocus, one of those non-sensor factors that affect IQ. :P

1264
EOS Bodies / Re: The last Canon crop sensor - ever
« on: August 14, 2013, 02:29:04 PM »
You're correct, I should have said "will probably have".  I could bet you a lot of money right now that the 7D2 will have a 20 mp sensor very similar if not identical to that in the 70D, but I can't afford to, and you wouldn't pay up anyways. 

We can get into a debate that wastes my time about whether there is an "overall" or not, but on the "hole", it's not worth my time in debating something like that with you...mostly because it's silly, immature, etc...but then I'm not the one wanting to debate it...I wish I could make as much money while wasting my time as you do, but at this time I don't.  One thing is for sure, both you and neuro are overpaid by orders of magnitude for what you do...and apparently you have something on your bosses, or you would be fired for dallying...:-D

Why do you have to get so personal and spiteful? Its not just with me, either...you seem to do the same thing with neuro:

You're rather humorless more than usual today, John.  Never claimed I knew how others should spend their money, I said how I would spend MY money.  And you did agree with me that the 6D is a good value.  To debate this further, is immature and silly, borderline schoolgirl-ish...but then that's what you and jrista are good at.  Get back to work and lay off the nugenix...I prefer a more mature and humorous exchange.  Good Day Dr. Bigshot.

You call us childish...but what exactly are the quotes above, with the name calling and insults? Refined and mature?

 ???  :-\

Ok Jrista, you are not only more intelligent, evolved, masculine, wealthy, and mature than me, but you're also a better photographer...more artistic...your whole existence is better than mine.  You are my superior sir, thank you for endlessly pointing it out, I know I can always count on you both to point out how I am inferior to you.

I could repeat the question...but I wonder what that would actually accomplish...  ???  ???  ???

Why are you taking my criticism of the 7D as some kind of insult to your manhood (or lack thereof) already?  And what names did I call you exactly?  I believe you have called me some names in the past...so let's not get all high and mighty mr. polly prissy pants.  And you know what I'm talking about.

I think you are severely misunderstanding something. I take no insult from your criticism of the 7D. I take insult at your blatant personal insults...  ::) You know, the ones that said I was silly, immature, wasteful of my money, etc.

I debated your criticism of the 7D because the argument demonstrated a bias that did not call into play all of the facts, or analyze the subject from other angles.  I don't debate because I am insulted...I debate when I see inaccuracies, falsehoods, fallacies, bias, etc. in peoples posts. It isn't personal most of the time (ankorwatt is an exception, I'll happily admit that), its really just about the facts. I'm happy to change my opinion if you either prove me wrong with hard facts, or demonstrate a different way of looking at a problem (of which there is evidence for in a couple threads this year.)

As for names, it was the "Mr. Bigshot" you called Neuro. Did you somehow think that wasn't equivalent to the childish playground act of name calling?

Anyway, your continued use of playground insults making my point for me... I have no personal malice towards you for criticizing the 7D. It has its flaws. Your continued use of insults of both neuro and myself, simply because we made a few cogent arguments, however, will probably cause some people to have malice towards you (neuro has a lot of fans....)

1265
EOS Bodies / Re: The last Canon crop sensor - ever
« on: August 14, 2013, 02:19:32 PM »
The arguments for higher fps are good ones, but only if a good bit of shooting a person does, are high speed objects with things like wings and legs that look better in certain positions.

I had rented a 10fps 1D4, loved the high speed.  Also had tried a 5D3 (have since used a 1DX)...before deciding on my 6D.  For me it was equal parts price, image quality, and general performance/speed.  The 6D is certainly not a fast DSLR camera, but it is supersonic compared to most compact cameras...which is what several of you don't seem to mind using extensively...in addition to your precious 7D.

What the 6D has, is very high image quality and good to decent overall performance for the money.  The 5D3 has lesser image quality, and similar performance for its price point (i.e., higher speed, better AF, more capable video...all for a whopping 50% increase in price). 

As for the 7D having good image quality, sorry, but no.  Can it achieve quality that is passable to use professionally?  Yes.  Is it mostly for the uses described?  (i.e., video, practical use of crop sensor wide angle zooms, more "reach" with long telephotos, high burst capability).  Yes.

That's why it's good to have choices in the Canon lineup.  And I never agreed with the original thread premise that aps-c would be going away.  It's too practical to go away.  My complaint is that it looks like the 7D2 is not going to be the overall performance jump many wanted it to be...yet it will quite possibly be priced at a level that makes it no better of a value, than the 7D has been...if not a poorer value.  It will be about speed, but not image quality, and that's a shame.

Image quality is about more than sensor, though. If you use a 6D, and end up with the best frame being one in which a Cheetah's head is pointed away from the camera...well, that would be a reject. Higher frame rate, better AF system, more reach....sometimes those things are far more important to getting the best image quality (not just pixels and noise, but subject framing and pose as well) than a sensor. It is all relative. Obviously a 1D X or a 1D IV is going to do a better job than the 7D. The 1D IV has become increasingly rare these days, and the 1D X is well out of most peoples price range. Does the 7D produce clean, near-noiseless IQ at ISO 1600? No. Does it improve ones chances of producing exactly the kind of photographs with just the right subject pose for the subjects they photograph? Yes.

I know several literal professionals who use the 7D for their bird and wildlife photography. One even uses nothing other than the 7D and 100-400mm, and his primary form of income is his work and his instructional tours. Knowing how to use the equipment goes a long way towards making "professional quality" results.

I think the notion that low noise is the single most important factor in photography missing a lot of the other factors, all of which combine to produce quality in the final outcome. A 6D can do great in a lot of circumstances, but it will fall short of even a 7D in others. Just as the 7D will fall short of a 5D III in certain circumstances. Etc.

tell me Jrista, image quality, what is it more than the sensor and the measurements for example DXO does?
color quality/ color resolution
resolution lp/mm
dynamic range
noise and high iso properties

Proper focus (AF system)
Non-blurry frame (FPS/AF system)
Correct frame (FPS)
Pixels on subject (pixel density)
Subject size, clarity, and noise levels in cropped frame (pixel density)

If any of the above are wrong, it doesn't really matter how good the sensor is. There is more to IQ than just the technical design of each pixel in a sensor.

I would offer that color quality/reproduction is more of a mathematical problem, handled by the demosaicing process in post, than one of the critical factors in sensor design. High ISO properties are ultimately governed by physics, so pixel design does not matter as much once you surpass ISO 400. Resolution is a convolution of lens and sensor properties, so lp/mm is not just a sensor measure.

Dynamic range is probably the one key thing that one can improve with better sensor technology such that it can matter significantly for the right types of photography. Two additional stops of DR for landscape photographers is probably far more important than any other factor. Total pixel count (not pixel density, but pixel count) is probably the next most important. Hence the reason I do hold out hope that Canon will improve their dynamic range with their next sensor.

But again, that all supports my argument that there is no one size fits all, "globally overall" better camera. If there was, then one might as well say that a hammer is the only tool a construction contractor would ever need...

1266
EOS Bodies / Re: The last Canon crop sensor - ever
« on: August 14, 2013, 02:06:04 PM »
You're correct, I should have said "will probably have".  I could bet you a lot of money right now that the 7D2 will have a 20 mp sensor very similar if not identical to that in the 70D, but I can't afford to, and you wouldn't pay up anyways. 

We can get into a debate that wastes my time about whether there is an "overall" or not, but on the "hole", it's not worth my time in debating something like that with you...mostly because it's silly, immature, etc...but then I'm not the one wanting to debate it...I wish I could make as much money while wasting my time as you do, but at this time I don't.  One thing is for sure, both you and neuro are overpaid by orders of magnitude for what you do...and apparently you have something on your bosses, or you would be fired for dallying...:-D

Why do you have to get so personal and spiteful? Its not just with me, either...you seem to do the same thing with neuro:

You're rather humorless more than usual today, John.  Never claimed I knew how others should spend their money, I said how I would spend MY money.  And you did agree with me that the 6D is a good value.  To debate this further, is immature and silly, borderline schoolgirl-ish...but then that's what you and jrista are good at.  Get back to work and lay off the nugenix...I prefer a more mature and humorous exchange.  Good Day Dr. Bigshot.

You call us childish...but what exactly are the quotes above, with the name calling and insults? Refined and mature?

 ???  :-\

1267
Animal Kingdom / Re: Show your Bird Portraits
« on: August 14, 2013, 01:53:27 PM »
The common cry of Avian photographers world wide:

@#$!!**#$  branch !!!

( juvenile Cooper's Hawk )

Photoshop's Content Aware Heal and Patch are your friends! :P

It's tough, but you can indeed eliminate that branch. I have a shot of a juvi Red-tailed that had a branch intruding. I used the content aware tools of PSCS6 to remove it. I'll see if I can find before and after versions for a demonstration.

1268
EOS Bodies / Re: The last Canon crop sensor - ever
« on: August 14, 2013, 01:48:32 PM »
The arguments for higher fps are good ones, but only if a good bit of shooting a person does, are high speed objects with things like wings and legs that look better in certain positions.

I had rented a 10fps 1D4, loved the high speed.  Also had tried a 5D3 (have since used a 1DX)...before deciding on my 6D.  For me it was equal parts price, image quality, and general performance/speed.  The 6D is certainly not a fast DSLR camera, but it is supersonic compared to most compact cameras...which is what several of you don't seem to mind using extensively...in addition to your precious 7D.

What the 6D has, is very high image quality and good to decent overall performance for the money.  The 5D3 has lesser image quality, and similar performance for its price point (i.e., higher speed, better AF, more capable video...all for a whopping 50% increase in price). 

As for the 7D having good image quality, sorry, but no.  Can it achieve quality that is passable to use professionally?  Yes.  Is it mostly for the uses described?  (i.e., video, practical use of crop sensor wide angle zooms, more "reach" with long telephotos, high burst capability).  Yes.

That's why it's good to have choices in the Canon lineup.  And I never agreed with the original thread premise that aps-c would be going away.  It's too practical to go away.  My complaint is that it looks like the 7D2 is not going to be the overall performance jump many wanted it to be...yet it will quite possibly be priced at a level that makes it no better of a value, than the 7D has been...if not a poorer value.  It will be about speed, but not image quality, and that's a shame.

Image quality is about more than sensor, though. If you use a 6D, and end up with the best frame being one in which a Cheetah's head is pointed away from the camera...well, that would be a reject. Higher frame rate, better AF system, more reach....sometimes those things are far more important to getting the best image quality (not just pixels and noise, but subject framing and pose as well) than a sensor. It is all relative. Obviously a 1D X or a 1D IV is going to do a better job than the 7D. The 1D IV has become increasingly rare these days, and the 1D X is well out of most peoples price range. Does the 7D produce clean, near-noiseless IQ at ISO 1600? No. Does it improve ones chances of producing exactly the kind of photographs with just the right subject pose for the subjects they photograph? Yes.

I know several literal professionals who use the 7D for their bird and wildlife photography. One even uses nothing other than the 7D and 100-400mm, and his primary form of income is his work and his instructional tours. Knowing how to use the equipment goes a long way towards making "professional quality" results.

I think the notion that low noise is the single most important factor in photography missing a lot of the other factors, all of which combine to produce quality in the final outcome. A 6D can do great in a lot of circumstances, but it will fall short of even a 7D in others. Just as the 7D will fall short of a 5D III in certain circumstances. Etc.

Points taken and well stated, but my point is the 7D falls short of the 6D in a lot of situations as well.  And the 7D2 will very likely be priced significantly higher than both the 6D and the 7D, yet its image quality will be barely better than the 7D (and inferior to the year-earlier-released Nikon D7100...and the D7100 has 20% more pixels than the 7D2 will have).  Certainly as the old 7D price falls as it gets closer to being replaced, its value for money increases.  It's not an "incapable-of-pro-results" camera, but it is not a better camera overall than the 6D.  Not saying you don't think it is for your uses, but overall, it is not.

What do you mean by "overall"? The point I was trying to make with my previous reply is that there really isn't an "overall"...at least, not in a true global context. Overall, for my night sky photography and landscapes, the 6D would definitely be better. Overall, the 7D wins hands down every time for my birds and wildlife. Globally overall....? There is no end-all, be-all winner...at least, not until you get up into the ranks of the 1D X or D4, and both of those cameras lack the reach factor...

As for this:

(...and the D7100 has 20% more pixels than the 7D2 will have)

When did the 7D II feature set become finalized, such that the term "will have" could be applied? Last realistic rumor I heard about the 7D II was that its feature set was highly unlikely to be finalized this year even, let alone now. Canon has been rumored to be testing a 24mp+ sensor as well as the 20.2mp sensor. A Canon employee directly stated that they would be doing something extra with the 7D II sensor on DPR a while back. I think its a bit premature to be cleanly stating the 7D II "will" have worse IQ than any of the competitors yet.

1269
EOS Bodies / Re: The last Canon crop sensor - ever
« on: August 14, 2013, 01:13:55 PM »
The arguments for higher fps are good ones, but only if a good bit of shooting a person does, are high speed objects with things like wings and legs that look better in certain positions.

I had rented a 10fps 1D4, loved the high speed.  Also had tried a 5D3 (have since used a 1DX)...before deciding on my 6D.  For me it was equal parts price, image quality, and general performance/speed.  The 6D is certainly not a fast DSLR camera, but it is supersonic compared to most compact cameras...which is what several of you don't seem to mind using extensively...in addition to your precious 7D.

What the 6D has, is very high image quality and good to decent overall performance for the money.  The 5D3 has lesser image quality, and similar performance for its price point (i.e., higher speed, better AF, more capable video...all for a whopping 50% increase in price). 

As for the 7D having good image quality, sorry, but no.  Can it achieve quality that is passable to use professionally?  Yes.  Is it mostly for the uses described?  (i.e., video, practical use of crop sensor wide angle zooms, more "reach" with long telephotos, high burst capability).  Yes.

That's why it's good to have choices in the Canon lineup.  And I never agreed with the original thread premise that aps-c would be going away.  It's too practical to go away.  My complaint is that it looks like the 7D2 is not going to be the overall performance jump many wanted it to be...yet it will quite possibly be priced at a level that makes it no better of a value, than the 7D has been...if not a poorer value.  It will be about speed, but not image quality, and that's a shame.

Image quality is about more than sensor, though. If you use a 6D, and end up with the best frame being one in which a Cheetah's head is pointed away from the camera...well, that would be a reject. Higher frame rate, better AF system, more reach....sometimes those things are far more important to getting the best image quality (not just pixels and noise, but subject framing and pose as well) than a sensor. It is all relative. Obviously a 1D X or a 1D IV is going to do a better job than the 7D. The 1D IV has become increasingly rare these days, and the 1D X is well out of most peoples price range. Does the 7D produce clean, near-noiseless IQ at ISO 1600? No. Does it improve ones chances of producing exactly the kind of photographs with just the right subject pose for the subjects they photograph? Yes.

I know several literal professionals who use the 7D for their bird and wildlife photography. One even uses nothing other than the 7D and 100-400mm, and his primary form of income is his work and his instructional tours. Knowing how to use the equipment goes a long way towards making "professional quality" results.

I think the notion that low noise is the single most important factor in photography missing a lot of the other factors, all of which combine to produce quality in the final outcome. A 6D can do great in a lot of circumstances, but it will fall short of even a 7D in others. Just as the 7D will fall short of a 5D III in certain circumstances. Etc.

1270
EOS Bodies / Re: An Update on the 75+mp Camera in the Wild
« on: August 14, 2013, 11:42:22 AM »
Assuming we were still only using 14 bits per pixel when that sensor rolls around, it would mean a whopping 1.9GB file size per image.

Only if they don't bother adding any compression.  You should be able to losslessly compress that data by at least a factor of 2 without even trying, and probably more than that if your compression scheme properly takes into account the insanely high probability of adjacent pixels having similar values.

Ah, very true. Forgot about compression. That would change filesize, which would still be a whopping 1GB. In-memory load when editing would be several gigs, however...still can't imagine a tool like lightroom handling that. :P

1271
EOS Bodies / Re: The last Canon crop sensor - ever
« on: August 14, 2013, 11:39:15 AM »
After 8 fps, shooting at 6fps felt almost as restricted as the 4fps on my SL1.

What do you shoot at 8 fps that cannot be shot at 6 fps? I am not trolling but this being a photography forum, I believe some pictures from time to time could refresh the boring look. Most of the pictures we see here are ads.  :(

It is not a matter of what can or cannot be shot at a certain frame rate. It is about the number of moments of any given, usually rather short, sequence of action that you can capture in the time that action occurs. When you get into the nuances of bird photography, for example, there are a lot of minutia that matter when it comes down to the best frame out of a sequence. Head angle, wing position, body position, background intrusions, shading and phase angle, etc.

The more frames you can capture, the better your chances of capturing the perfect moment. The 7D has a 50% greater chance of doing that than the 5D III, and a 100% greater chance than the D800. The 1D X has a 200% greater chance of getting that perfect shot than the D800. That does not mean you cannot do bird photography with the D800. Some people do, although you'll notice that few of them do birds in flight...usually its slower moving birds, waterfowl on a lake, etc. The difference is simply a finer division of any given action sequence, and that tends to increase not only your keeper rate, but the rate of keepers that contain more ideal minutia than not.

1272
EOS Bodies / Re: An Update on the 75+mp Camera in the Wild
« on: August 13, 2013, 08:57:06 PM »
These days, there are even smaller pixels, though. Some of the latest tech is down to 1.1µm, and the next generation is supposed to be 900nm (0.9µm)! A 900nm pixel on FF would allow a gigapixel sensor. Or 1,066,680,000 pixels, to be exact. ;P

Assuming we were still only using 14 bits per pixel when that sensor rolls around, it would mean a whopping 1.9GB file size per image.

The numbers of bits should actually drop. Something like 8 bits would suffice then, maybe even less. The RAWs would still be much larger though; after all, you get more information.

The future higher mp cameras will downsize the RAW files into smaller pseudo-RAW ones, like the ones we have today, in camera. This would require faster chips, indeed. I am not sure that they will reach 1 Gp, but 100mp+ is in the near future. They will make beautiful 20mp files, and everybody will be happy. This forum will be closed because there would be nothing to argue about.  :)

True, you could get away with less bit depth.

Having used mRAW and sRAW quite a bit when I first got my 7D, I am not sure I would want such a thing...even with a Gigapixel sensor. Those pseudo-RAW formats limit your editing latitude. They are like a TIFF, far more than they are like a RAW. I spent a couple months playing with mRAW, and you don't have the same kind of highlight or shadow recovery you do with RAW. When you do any kind of even moderately extreme pushing and pulling in post, the difference becomes clear in an instant. White balance corrections, most color corrections, or any significant tweaking of the tone curve only go so far before you either see the limitations, or start encountering artifacts.

If they do produce gigapixel sensors at some point in the future, I'll happily take my true RAW. ;P

1273
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon 70d RAW Samples
« on: August 13, 2013, 08:53:45 PM »
How hot did the heat sink get? Too hot to touch, or just warm?

Just warm, not too hot to touch. It's a small sensor, though - a 2/3" CCD with 1.4 MP, meaning a pixel pitch in the 6D/5DII range.  But Zeiss uses some clever tricks to increase resolution.  There are no microlenses, meaning the pixels have a 'sweet spot' - by translating the sensor in sub-pixel movements as a 2x2 or 3x3 array, a 6 MP or 13 MP image can be generated. There is a Bayer CFA in the color version of the camera, but full-pixel movements allow each pixel to be imaged through each CFA color.  So, you can get anything from a fast-acquisition 1.4 MP color-interpolated image (actually, even faster if binning is used) to a longer-to-acquire 13 MP image with full color-channel resolution.  Granted, that sort of thing only works with non-moving subjects - but fixed tissue tends not to move...  ;)

Yeah, it would be a little creepy if your tissue started...twitching! :P

Pretty small sensor, for sure. I guess a FF sensor and TEC would probably produce a fair bit more heat, but with heat pipes that heat could be distributed and released at various areas of the camera body. Personally, I'd love to see it happen. You wouldn't necessarily need to supercool. Twenty degrees of cooling would have a very substantial effect on dark current, which should help higher ISO settings.

I guess the only real drawback would be the power draw...I had to buy a separate specialized power supply capable of supplying a minimum of 13.8 volts to power the TECs I used on that old computer.

1274
EOS Bodies / Re: An Update on the 75+mp Camera in the Wild
« on: August 13, 2013, 08:08:45 PM »
Canon's best pixel is the tiny 1.84 micron one in the G15.
I would love to have such  24x36mm camera / sensor with this tiny pixels regardless Im  out in the nature or in the studio

That would be pretty awesome. A FF with that pitch would clock in at 256mp.

These days, there are even smaller pixels, though. Some of the latest tech is down to 1.1µm, and the next generation is supposed to be 900nm (0.9µm)! A 900nm pixel on FF would allow a gigapixel sensor. Or 1,066,680,000 pixels, to be exact. ;P

Assuming we were still only using 14 bits per pixel when that sensor rolls around, it would mean a whopping 1.9GB file size per image. To maintain a 10fps rate, we would need an image processor with a data throughput rate of 150Gbit. To support a 30 frame buffer, the camera wold need 64GB of memory. :P Ironically, these numbers are not unheard of. A basic desktop gaming computer GPU can process at a much higher rate, and tends to have more memory. By the time FF sensors have pixels this small, one should figure a 150Gbit data path and throughput rate, and 64GB of the necessary memory, would be a no brainer.

Processing a 2Gb RAW image in Lightroom 10, however...that might be a whole different matter...

1275
Landscape / Re: Perseid Meteor Shower Aug. 11-12 2013
« on: August 13, 2013, 07:59:43 PM »
From the you-think-that's-bad department......Florida Panhandle here.  In August, 90% humidity would be considered arid.  Just in case the unimagineable occurs and the sky clears up for one evening, we have Ninja mosquitoes just waiting for us to be foolish enough to set up scopes and cameras.  In all my years here, I have once and only once enjoyed astrophotography on an August night.  It was while a hurricane was crossing central Florida and sucking dry air over Pensacola, dropped to the low 60's that night, it felt frigid.  A few weeks later we were hit by Hurricane Ivan, took out the U.S. Interstate 10 bridge over the bay and knocked out power for weeks.  But oh how gourgeous the skies were after that.....dark, clear, no light pollution.  We slept in the screen room because it was too hot in the house, I still recall seeing the Pleiades rising through the branches of the leafless trees in my back yard.

I bet that dark, light-pollution-free sky was pretty freakin amazing! Got any photos?

I'll admit, 90-100% humidity is not as bad as many places along the east cost. It is still pretty bad, though. Two weekends ago we had really high humidity. I just had to walk out side and stand there, and I'd be dripping within five minutes. That is pretty much unheard of out here in Colorado. Things are usually bone dry. :P

What has been nice is the weather...Colorado went through about a decade of weird weather...less and less summer rain, until last year we literally got nothing between the second week of June through the first couple weeks of September. It was blistering hot, our water reserves dropped by five to six feet (hundreds of millions of gallons at least), etc. The rain this year has been like a kick back to the 90's...when it rained like clockwork at 4pm every summer evening. Not quite as clockworklike this year, but regular enough that we get rain almost every day.

Pages: 1 ... 83 84 [85] 86 87 ... 216