PhotoNet Site Help
Subforums
13,158 topics in this forum
-
- 25 replies
- 378 views
-
- 0 replies
- 42 views
-
- 0 replies
- 52 views
-
- 2 replies
- 74 views
-
- 5 replies
- 132 views
-
- 5 replies
- 128 views
-
- 6 replies
- 143 views
-
- 2 replies
- 224 views
-
- 3 replies
- 256 views
-
- 1 reply
- 179 views
-
- 1 reply
- 288 views
-
- 2 replies
- 285 views
-
- 5 replies
- 306 views
-
- 0 replies
- 265 views
-
- 11 replies
- 494 views
-
- 2 replies
- 399 views
-
- 6 replies
- 670 views
-
- 4 replies
- 439 views
-
- 7 replies
- 648 views
-
- 11 replies
- 699 views
-
- 7 replies
- 696 views
-
- 1 reply
- 565 views
-
- 46 replies
- 2.4k views
-
- 14 replies
- 1.4k views
-
- 5 replies
- 841 views
(800x800).thumb.jpg.c94833d6ea93605f47351873a94fc0cc.jpg)
-
Who's Online 12 Members, 0 Anonymous, 260 Guests (See full list)
-
Recent Gallery Images
-
Recent Forum Wide Posts
-
By ilkka_nissila · Posted
To my eyes it looks like the bird's eye is not in focus. This is one of the problems of cropping deep (10x...), as the camera manufacturers don't design the focus areas to work optimally with such small parts of the frame. Having adequate sharpness and depth of field at the individual pixel level is very demanding for 45 MP let alone higher. The camera has to process a larger amount of data and achieve focus to a higher precision. That's just not workable with today's technology in my opinion. I saw two lynx in Porkkala yesterday, but they were fairly far away (120-150 m) and I only had a 300 mm. In this shot, the camera seems to have focused on the rock rather than the animal. About 10% was cropped from the bottom and right: In a large print, the slight misfocus doesn't bother me but when I made a significant crop (3-4x from the original) and printed that then it just doesn't quite sit right. In the overall image I would have preferred a lower vantage point (I was on a hill somewhat higher than the lynx so the agriculture equipment tracks show rather than the forest as background immediately behind the lynx. However, I am not comfortable stalking the lynx and getting into a better position - much as I like photography, this isn't going to happen. For landscape with a tripod, studio shots with flash etc. there can be benefits from going higher in the pixel count, but I think the autofocus precision, atmospheric effects, and noise are the main limitations preventing the use of deeply cropped images in wildlife photography. -
-
By Gradespire- · Posted
Are you struggling with your Java programming assignments? Look no further than GradeSpire! Our team of experienced tutors is here to provide comprehensive Java programming assignment help tailored to your specific needs. Whether you're grappling with basic concepts or tackling advanced topics, our experts are ready to guide you through every step of the way. Get top-notch assistance, clear explanations, and timely support to excel in your Java programming assignments. Don't let challenges hold you back—unlock your full potential with GradeSpire's Java programming assignment help today. -
This link looks good for learning a bit about expired film - worth bookmarking Scroll down for "Color Negative Film" https://silvergrainclassics.com/en/2020/08/how-to-shooting-expired-film/ -
That thought flashed through my mind as well, but as it turns out, 1972 was when the change came from C22 to C41, according to Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C-22_process I guess the OP could simply confirm which process is on the 1973 Vericolor film box. I can't find 4105 Vericolor on the internet, only the later 4106 shows up, so who knows what 4105 really is, and which developing process, it could very well be C22, and perhaps those chemicals were produced for a while after C41 came in, to develop the C22 film still in existence, that were bought just before the change over. Personally I was developing only slide film and B&W in that era. I have never had reason to use C22, and only started using C41 in the early 80's
-
