Mark Z

When I bring up your profile page it lists 77 photos as being Featured, but when I click on the Featured icon I can see only 17 of them (and the Featured section lists the count as 17). Your total Photos is listed as 48, and I can see them all. As I scroll through Galleries, I see 13 galleries and they list a total of 47 photos. I can see the Moroccan Dunes photo (which I'm assuming is the one you just uploaded) in all three sections (Featured, Photos, and Galleries). As for Trending photos, I see Moroccan Dunes on the last page, but none of your other shots. I assume there is a time limit for Trending photos - maybe "stale" photos that were uploaded more than 30 days ago are removed from Trending.

 

Hope this helps. I'm using a Windows 10 laptop with the latest Firefox.

Steve, it really isn't possible to see detail on Mars with your lens. What you're getting are out of focus images of what is nearly a point source, and "details" are most likely atmospheric effects. With Mars being rather low in the sky for you, these effects are worsened - you are looking through at least three air masses (three times the amount of air compared to looking straight up) when you look at Mars.

 

People who are getting nice images of Mars, including surface details, are using longer focal lengths and image stacking (often thousands of images) to wring out details. See the Solar System Imaging and Processing forum on Cloudy Nights. Cloudy Nights Forums

The Sunny 16 rule applies to terrestrial scenes, and it needs to be adjusted for something like Mars, which is farther from the light source (the Sun) than the Earth. Mars receives a little less than half the sunlight as does Earth. In addition, the light from Mars needs to pass through our entire atmosphere, which scatters and absorbs light, further diminishing its brightness. For a photo of Mars, Sunny 16 may need to be modified to Sunny 9.5 or even Sunny 8.

we can calculate the square root of negative one.

 

Wow, imagine that!

Granted, Mars is near opposition and appears bigger than it usually does, but it's still mighty small at only 24 arcseconds. With a 105 mm lens, it would make an image about 12 micrometers across, or about 3 pixels on the D7100 sensor. Being orange, it should also show some color. In Minnesota, Mars is only going to get 20 degrees or so above the southern horizon, so there may be some atmospheric degradation of the image.

 

I suspect we are seeing either a focusing problem, or an object that is not Mars.

In the video it's brought up several times how hard it is to grasp how big the universe is, and how citing the diameter in light years is almost useless in helping us visualize its size. Then it's claimed that the image from Hubble helps us visualize the immensity. I don't buy it. There is no good way to describe what the deep field shows that makes me understand the size of the universe any better than previous photos of galaxies. Whether a galaxy is a zettameter away, or a yottameter away, there is no way to really visualize the difference.

 

I have seen stars that are ten thousand light years away, and I've looked through a telescope at a quasar that is two billion light years away. I can't truly visualize either of these distances, even though I've seen these objects with my eyes.

 

The Hubble deep field image is technically amazing, and scientifically important, and I do not intend to detract from that. But to claim that we can visualize the size of the universe when we look at the image is bogus. To say that it's the single most important image ever taken is just melodrama.

Paul, wow that's really "impressive"! Over 8,000 impressions per day.

Sanford, check it out here: untitled | Photo.net

Your "personalUrl" had a space in it, see below. I've just removed the space.

 

I hope all of the "personalUrl"s that have a space in them will be found by technicalsupport, and the spaces removed, so this problem will be fixed for everyone.

you might check why it is that when I click my Public Profile tab I get a This page could not be found, Error 404.

 

Regarding this problem, when I go to my Public Profile page and click on Users, I get thumbnails of the people I follow. If I click on Jack's picture, I get the 404 Error. The same error occurs if I click on Todd Kowalski or on Carlos H. On all of the other photographers, I'm taken to their page and portfolio. So, there must be something in common with Jack, Todd, and Carlos. Hope this helps.

Out of curiosity I scrolled through a Philosophy thread from about a year ago that had a lot of responses. There were 11 different participants, and only one of them hasn't been seen on PN in the last few days. Another thread from April 2017 (shortly after PN2 started) had 18 participants, and four of them are not active today. In the few months before the rollout, a couple of other long threads had 14 and 21 participants, with three and 11 of them, respectively, no longer active. There seems to be a core of about ten Philosophy participants that have stuck around for at least two years. Although site traffic is down, and the number of active members may be less, it still seems like there should be enough people on this forum to get discussion going.

My experience is much the same as Wouter's. I'm a poor multi-tasker, and when I'm behind the camera my brain seems to prevent me from being wholly engaged with the experience. I don't think I'm depending on the camera as a substitute for my memory, I just think the camera distracts me enough that I disengage from other things that are happening around me.

In her memoir, Sally Mann writes about her memory of the artist Cy Twombly, and how vivid and detailed her memories are, despite not photographing him often. She says "I am convinced that the reason I can remember him so clearly and in such detail is because I have so few pictures of him." She contrasts this with her memories of her father: "Because of the many pictures I have of my father, he eludes me completely. In my outrageously disloyal memory he does not exist in three dimensions, or with associated smells or timbre of voice. He exists as a series of pictures....I don't have a memory of the man; I have a memory of a photograph." In this video she talks about the same thing:

 

The way photographing can affect memory has been studied recently, and the phenomenon of not remembering well what was photographed has been given the name photo-taking-impairment effect.

 

Forget in a Flash: A Further Investigation of the Photo-Taking-Impairment Effect - ScienceDirect

 

The authors of that article believe there is such a phenomenon, and they speculate on the causes of it. It makes me wonder if prior to the popularity of photography if people's memories were somehow better. Could it be that if we want to remember something - a scene or a person - we'd be better off putting down the camera and concentrating more on what our senses are telling us? (I've read that Laura Ingalls Wilder was able to remember scenes from her childhood so well in part because she often verbally described them to her blind sister Mary. That would take a measure of observation and study that may not have occurred if she had been making photographs instead.)

 

I'm curious about your personal experience with this. When you remember places and people and events, are your memories more vivid for those times when you did not photograph them? Do you feel like you remember photographs rather than actual events? Do you suspect that you "offload" your memories to the prosthetic memory of a camera?

Bald Eagle

The still photo in question was shot with a flash. The drop off of the light with distance is one clue. The shadows the flash created, especially the shadow of 88's right arm as it falls across Cannon and the ground, but other shadows as well, confirm it. Film like Tri-X was around then, but in order to stop the motion with this degree of detail, a flash would have been used.

 

The video offered by Vincent actually does show a flash going off at the time the photo was made. Check out the slow motion replay, and at 1:02 there is a flash just as Cannon is a step from the 25 yard line.

Wogears, there are some photos at this site:

Kodak Teases First Test Photos Shot on New Ektachrome Film

You are not the only one with this problem. Some of the photos here:

Random Photos, with Yashica Microtec Zoom 70, Uploaded 25 June 2013

have an almost identical issue.

I suspect there is a design flaw in the lens that allows leakage or reflections, especially at certain focal lengths. You might try shooting a scene at different zoom settings, and then seeing if the light leaks appear at only some settings.

Dustin suggested finding a way to block any light that is coming through the side of the lens, and maybe that's possible to do. If not, and you still want to use the camera, you can either avoid zoom settings that produce the flaw, or crop out the flaws on prints in which they appear.

Fred, I agree with you on what PN has lost. Regarding site traffic, there was apparently a dramatic decrease immediately after the redesign, according to some online web traffic estimating sites. Of course those stats are estimates, and only PN knows the actual figures, but on PN's "advertising" page they used to claim there were 6 million visitors per month; now they claim half of that.. After the plunge traffic more or less leveled off, and there is no indication of an increasing trend. It is hard to believe that such a drop is good for advertisers or the health of the site.