fergus kane
-
Posts
325 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Events
Downloads
Gallery
Store
Posts posted by fergus kane
-
-
Hey. Not quite NASA.... I've not used a pinhole since I was at school, but now I've
looked around I'm quite tempted to have a go. Sadly I've got a thesis to finish before
getting allowing myself to get that distracted. Good luck with it all. I'd be interested to
know how you get on...
-
This is almost certainly far more complicated than you were thinking.. I was wondering if you could buy digital shutters, and came across this:
http://blog.makezine.com/archive/2006/08/integrated_pinhole_light_meter.html
Quite intersting, but expensive. So I had another idea, make a rotary shutter. A bit like this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shutter_angle
But I'd use a disc with small hole/apperture cut out of it. I'd attach this to a variable speed electric motor and arrange it so that the apperture passes the pinhole with each rotation. You're danish... you could use a lego motor! It should not be too difficult to arrange it with minimal light leakage. You could calculate the exposure from the speed of the disk - and thus how long the apperture would let light in.
-
To add to the cell phone... Take a patient friend and some rope with you! You could also find out who looks after the wetlands and ask their advice.
-
-
OFFER TO HELP - Practically.
As this is what photo.net is about. If you are unlucky and have no success at all with the photographer, I'd be happy to look at some of your photos. I'm sure others would as well. We could even have a competition to see who did the best job.
A couple of things come to mind:
1. Get your photos printed on canvas. I find that this can sometimes recue a low rez photo by adding texture and hiding the flaws.
2. Get someone to make a painting from the photos. I've no idea how much this would cost, but it might be less than a legal battle. However, I'm certain that a painter can 'interpolate' better than any software.
Good luck and please get in touch if you want some help with the images.
-
Just to clarify some points from above in case they are confusing. If you go the legal route, you'll want to understand everything as well as possible
1. RESOLUTION. dpi (dots per inch) and ppi (pixels per inch) resolutions are not relevant when talking about image files, they refer to the displayed image. The images you've got are 800 X 1200, thats fixed. It is possible in a digital file to specifiy a resolution, but you can specify any resolution you want. The resolution will be inversely proportional to the size the images are displayed at.
When you print a file you'd ideally like it to be at something like 150-300 dpi. 300 dpi is considered 'photo quality', but in reality this can be unnecessary. For example, if your images are to be viewed at a distance (for a poster perhaps), the resolution can be lower than if viewed close.
Given your image size of 800*1200, if you printed at 150 dpi, that would give you a 5.3 * 8 inch print. An 11X14 would be at about 75 dpi, which is totally unacceptable for a profesional print. If you wanted proof it what is considered acceptable, you might want to just get a few statements from real professionals. I'm sure they'd do it for free.
2. INTERPOLATION. Is basically a technique for enlarging images without them looking as terrible as they would without it. It CANNOT recover or recreate detail that you simply do not have in the file. Good advice has been given on trial versions of GF etc.
-
Good suggestion Colin... and indeed let's broaden the theme..<div>
</div>
-
I've tried to take interesting shots of the Tate, but they always seem
a little sterile. Is it the nature of the beast, or a lack of
imagination? (I chose travel photography as there seemed nothing
appropriate)<div>
</div> -
Lens length on the 100mm is always constant. Focusing is internal.
-
I don't know anything about the 180mm lenses. I have the canon 100mm 2.8. It produces beautiful images, with great backround blur. It is also very good for portrait pictures. I would imagine, that while the extra reach of the 180mm may be useful, it could also be a problem when trying to find a moving target - something that can be hard enough at 100mm
A few examples of my 100mm shots:
http://www.photo.net/photo/2252902
http://www.photo.net/photo/2259023
-
Glad to hear it. Perhaps you could give them a CD with the image file on as well? - although that could be a bit dangerous. Good luck with the 2200 if you decide to get it... looks like a very nice printer.
-
Seconded on the 50mm 1.8. Mine cost me ?35 second hand and is superb.
-
I hiked the Inca trail last year with a 10D and lenses. Basically I just used my camera bag and made sure I had some properly waterproof plastic bags for water protection. I had insurance so I was not unduely careful. I think I've seen the aquapac bags before and they sound like a generally good idea for protection, however, I would never recomend shooting through any kind of plastic bag..... it may work ok underwater because of the way the water would interface with the bag, but in air? Bad idea I think.
Whatever you do will be a compromise: weight, price and general inconvienience will all compete with protective value. I'm not sure how much the A70 is, but my advice would be that if you want good photos, the camera must always be easily at hand. If you're too woried about damaging it, forget the camera and just enjoy the view.
-
Have you really has a problem with your 1290 prints? I've had some now for over a year on display and there has been no obvious fading. I know this is not very long, but remeber the 65-75 year archival lives are estimates based on lab tests in artificial conditions. The best way to maintain the quality of your images will always be to keep them digital and back up regularly. Otherwise just keep your prints away from oxidising gasses (such as those frmo fridges and laser printers), keep them away from direct sunlight and think about putting them behind glass. Other than that, your choice of paper may be at least as important as the choice of ink. Illford make some nice neutral pH paper that seem to work well on my canon and other printers.
-
David, thanks for the advice, I'll have a long when I get a chance. Jim, apologies for the sense of humour failiure. I was considering placing a similar thread on one of the main forum pages, to get it a bit more exposure. Thoughts?
-
Jim,
I have to disagree; I think that, on the contrary, it would help foster the sense of community on the site. Some people may well have subjects that are next to impossible to identify by normal means - the breadth of experience on the internet would be extremely valuable in these cases. Not only that, but it would be a good way for the rest of us to learn something at the same time.
-
To all,
Please have a look at my thread below and let me know what you think?
http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=0083i9
It's about having a specific forum for subject identification.
-
<div></div>
-
I have several photos from my travels of plants and animals - and
not being a zoologist or botanist, I can't identify them. I'm sure
it could be done with some considerable effort; however, I'd like to
suggest a forum for such questions. Photo.net seems ideal for
this. Even better would be to have a seperate section for subject
identification. This could include sections for places, planes,
trains, birds, insects.......... anything.
Any thoughts?
-
I'm also interested in who it is that gets sent notification.
-
Thanks for the nice comment Michael.... I'll go and give you lots of nice ratings now. I jest, of course. However, your comment did make me go and have a look at your photos. (nice variety by the way, very diverse). And looking at your microscopy experiment led me to look at Bobby Douglas's page of landscapes....and perhaps I will email him about panorama techniques.... Now that's what I like about photo.net
As to the mechanisms behind my observation, I'm not sure.... people are pretty good at adapting to novel and even artificial situations. I am sure that a game theorist could have some fun with photo.net. Hopefully photo.net will find a way to evolve its codes to human psychology, if not perhaps it will become redundant?
Tom, well I'm pretty immune to the occasional bad rating now. It does seem that on average, the ratings represent the relative quality of my photos (compared to each other). It's interesting that our ratings are expected to average 4... I tend to only rate photos that grab my attention.... and if they do that, they probably deserve more than an 'average'. That said, many artists would suggest that it is important to get negative feedback -- in a kick up the backside kind of way. Perhaps true, but I still don't like giving bad ratings... I'd much rather give constructive criticism.
-
What an interesting thread....especially for a neuropsychologist (in training) such as myself. I'm new to photo.net and on a couple of occasions, when meant to be working, I have found myself watching my photo's ratings going up and down. I can't claim that my ego is totally immune to this process; it's quite amusing to examine my own reactions.
I don't entirely understand the ratings process and definitely do not understand the point of rating a photo after just 5 seconds consideration - really, what is the point? Then again, a ratings scale for originality seems quite strange in itself... what is very bad originality? Surely average originality is as bad as you can get? (not everything is normally distributed). I haven�t given it much thought admittedly, but I would have thought the scale should be �not original� to �very original�, probably in less than seven steps.
As for the psychological gaming that takes place on this site��..of which I�m sure I have seen only the proverbial icy tip��..A great thesis in the making for someone, some kind of analysis of the group dynamics would be fascinating, I�m sure the database has all the relevant data.
-
One more small point: Quentin smith suggests that you 'need one of those lenses that remove other people'. Well, if you don't mind a bit of digital manipulation, you can simulate this quite easily. If the conditions are right you can take several pictures of the same vista over a few minutes (probably best to use a cable release and set the exposure manually). You can then remove the offending tourists at a later date.
-
A flower from the MP trail as mentioned by someone above. Also, my last link to the MP panorama did not work so well so here's a better link:
How to get the right exposure with a pinhole and lightmeter
in Medium Format
Posted