September 23, 2017, 06:04:13 PM

Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 ... 10
1
I’m still confused. If it is the same amount of light, why does the camera consider it a different exposure?

Even with the same lens and lens opening you don’t always get the same amount of light, such as with extension tubes.

Exposure is determined by light per square area of the sensor. If the light is spread to a larger sensor then one needs a higher ISO for the light to produce correct image. Of course the larger sensor can tolerate that so the overall image qualify is same.

Except that the larger sensor covers more of the circle of light that the lens projects, and a smaller sensor covers a smaller portion of it.
2

Assuming they gather that light from same angle.
No, the aperture is at the focal point of the objective in a simple lens, the light path in a complicated one, so the angle of the light is not that relevant. Same hole size, same amount of light.

Totally incorrect. A wide angle lens gathers much more light from same size of aperture. Think about aperture of 10 mm. That could be a 20 mm wide angle at f/2 or a 160 mm Tele at f/16. The former gathers much more light.

Not when talking about it in relation to equivalence, which we were and in retrospect I don't make clear in my followup answer. When talking about equivalence the fov from the different focal lengths is the same, so the angle of light captured is the same.
3
Animal Kingdom / Re: BIRD IN FLIGHT ONLY -- share your BIF photos here
« Last post by lion rock on Today at 05:28:03 PM »
Makes it more precious.
-r

AlanF, that stork-billed kingfisher is a very cool bird.  Nice shot, thanks for sharing.

Thanks. An opportunistic shot, with the sun behind me.
4
I’m still confused. If it is the same amount of light, why does the camera consider it a different exposure?

Even with the same lens and lens opening you don’t always get the same amount of light, such as with extension tubes.

Exposure is determined by light per square area of the sensor. If the light is spread to a larger sensor then one needs a higher ISO for the light to produce correct image. Of course the larger sensor can tolerate that so the overall image qualify is same.

5

Assuming they gather that light from same angle.
No, the aperture is at the focal point of the objective in a simple lens, the light path in a complicated one, so the angle of the light is not that relevant. Same hole size, same amount of light.

Totally incorrect. A wide angle lens gathers much more light from same size of aperture. Think about aperture of 10 mm. That could be a 20 mm wide angle at f/2 or a 160 mm Tele at f/16. The former gathers much more light.
6
EOS-M / Re: Goodbye to My Canon M5
« Last post by AlanF on Today at 05:00:05 PM »
I was able to take another 677 photos on this battery charge. Final total 1410 photos on one charge of my M5 OEM battery.

Nothing like it since 5000 were fed by 5 loaves and two fishes on the mount.
7
This type of thing makes me very annoyed. Where is the incentive for Adobe to improve their products or even make them work properly when they are raking in this much money? I can't believe so many people have bought into this vision of a world where everyone pays up whether the products are being developed or not.
At least when we paid to upgrade then Adobe had to put some interesting new features in each version or their revenue would dry up. Now the money keeps coming in regardless.
Well I have had enough - what are the other options? Is Capture One the only realistic alternative to Lightroom?

Ugh, I'm with you man. I've moved off of the entire suite (I have CS6), though I still use LR Stand-alone. IF they improve LR, and offer a stand-alone license I'll consider buying it. However, if I find a better alternative I'll move from Adobe in a heart beat.

I hate what they've done to creative professionals, with the holding of tools hostage.

What bulls!t. If a creative professional can't afford $7.99 a month then they aren't very creative. If they are creative they can afford the fees which are a lot easier to find than a one off license fee many times that amount, PS as a standalone was generally in the $600-700 range.

If they are at school/college/university they can get a crazy good 'educational discount'. If they have half a brain and want to 'stick it to the man' they can get a pirated fully functional copy of CC for nothing but the 30 mins it takes to install. Nobody is holding tools hostage.

As for the development, there have been many improvements to LR and PS over the last three years, the thing is they go unnoticed and unappreciated by those who have taken a stand against the corporate evil. Now we don't have the big new releases people don't add up the various changes and improvements that have been introduced.

I can understand people who say I am not comfortable paying monthly for a product, I can understand people who want a 'perpetual' license. But I can't understand this constant Adobe bashing, they said what they are going to do, they said why they had to do it (and they did have to do it as they were going bankrupt) and they did it, you have the choice, accept their decision to not go bankrupt and get either buy their products or not. Saying you hate them is ridiculous.

Who’s said anything about “able to afford”? I’m a successful professional with the ability to purchase whatever software I need. I have however made a personal CHOICE to not “rent software” that gives a private company power over my intellectual property. As it is, LR is the  only Adobe software left where if young quit paying rent rent, you can still access your personal art.

Adobe can take a piss. I have liabilities for years beyond when a contract ends that requires me to bro able to access my art. I refuse to purchase th CC from  Adobe as long as  their current policy stands.

FYI: While I agree with you entirely on the rent vs. own question, LR will continue to have limited function after expiration. 

http://blogs.adobe.com/lightroomjournal/2014/07/what-happens-to-lightroom-after-my-membership-ends.html

8
EOS-M / Re: Goodbye to My Canon M5
« Last post by PCM-madison on Today at 04:45:02 PM »
I was able to take another 677 photos on this battery charge. Final total 1410 photos on one charge of my M5 OEM battery.
9
Black & White / Re: Black & White
« Last post by danski0224 on Today at 04:37:10 PM »
Color to monochrome conversion

10
This type of thing makes me very annoyed. Where is the incentive for Adobe to improve their products or even make them work properly when they are raking in this much money? I can't believe so many people have bought into this vision of a world where everyone pays up whether the products are being developed or not.
At least when we paid to upgrade then Adobe had to put some interesting new features in each version or their revenue would dry up. Now the money keeps coming in regardless.
Well I have had enough - what are the other options? Is Capture One the only realistic alternative to Lightroom?

Ugh, I'm with you man. I've moved off of the entire suite (I have CS6), though I still use LR Stand-alone. IF they improve LR, and offer a stand-alone license I'll consider buying it. However, if I find a better alternative I'll move from Adobe in a heart beat.

I hate what they've done to creative professionals, with the holding of tools hostage.

What bulls!t. If a creative professional can't afford $7.99 a month then they aren't very creative. If they are creative they can afford the fees which are a lot easier to find than a one off license fee many times that amount, PS as a standalone was generally in the $600-700 range.

If they are at school/college/university they can get a crazy good 'educational discount'. If they have half a brain and want to 'stick it to the man' they can get a pirated fully functional copy of CC for nothing but the 30 mins it takes to install. Nobody is holding tools hostage.

As for the development, there have been many improvements to LR and PS over the last three years, the thing is they go unnoticed and unappreciated by those who have taken a stand against the corporate evil. Now we don't have the big new releases people don't add up the various changes and improvements that have been introduced.

I can understand people who say I am not comfortable paying monthly for a product, I can understand people who want a 'perpetual' license. But I can't understand this constant Adobe bashing, they said what they are going to do, they said why they had to do it (and they did have to do it as they were going bankrupt) and they did it, you have the choice, accept their decision to not go bankrupt and get either buy their products or not. Saying you hate them is ridiculous.

Who’s said anything about “able to afford”? I’m a successful professional with the ability to purchase whatever software I need. I have however made a personal CHOICE to not “rent software” that gives a private company power over my intellectual property. As it is, LR is the  only Adobe software left where if young quit paying rent rent, you can still access your personal art.

Adobe can take a piss. I have liabilities for years beyond when a contract ends that requires me to bro able to access my art. I refuse to purchase th CC from  Adobe as long as  their current policy stands.
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 ... 10