[soosh]

I’ve got two old projectors, that I’m going to have to take a closer look at their lenses now.

Does it have any sort of adjustable aperture to it, or is it fixed?

[soosh]

if you want to get serious about monitor profiling and whatnot, White House Custom Color is great to work with. I think they have that side of things down better than mpix. They will let you do test prints for free so that you can calibrate your workstation’s display to what their printers are going to give you. I wish to hell this kind of thing wasn’t more critical to prints than it really can quickly become, if you’re trying to get any sort of series run of similar photos.

[soosh]

cool, thanks!

I wish there was something like that which would take topo information into account for where I live. There’s a whole big difference between ‘moonrise’ and the moon making it over a 2000′ ridge.

[soosh]

I wouldn’t personally use isoprop on your sensor. there’s quite a lot of other stuff in with it that will leave a residue/film if not outright streaks. You can get Eclipse from B&H or Adorama, or any good camera store, and it’s the cleanest thing I’ve come across.

There are plenty of other things that will do the job, but there is a whole market of products that have been tested safe for use on sensors, which are a whole lot more delicate than lens surfaces.

[soosh]

I’ve got two of those arguses, one a complete brick that doesn’t move a bit, and one a perfectly functional one that a TF’er sent me for free after he found out I collected old ones.

If you’re interested in selling that projector or the lens from it, let me know.

[soosh]

I’ve found the best results with Eclipse brand cleaner and one-use wipes on what looks all the world like a tiny silicone spatula. I have a box of the pads at home, but my camera guy sells them pre-cut to sensor size on a disposable paddle, and I just run down there and buy one for a couple of dollars when I need one.

Mostly, I shoot wide apertures and clone the crap out. I don’t take any particular care with swapping lenses, and I don’t usually have anything that shows up unless I go f/8 or tighter.

[soosh]

It comes down to a question of what the voters are voting on. The photo you posted or the photo you link/pop-link to or a combination of the two?

that how i feel about the ubiquitous “pops to bigger” that we see so much of. hell yeah all our entries look better bigger but the contest in held on fark with a 640 pixel width and 200KB file size.

and any captions added are to enhance the image 99% of the time. and therefore should be against the rules.

mumble mumble mumble

I hear what you’re saying, but I’m going to continue to have the click to see larger, because, well, dammit, 640 is too damned small to judge a photo. It just is. I wish everyone would link to a larger one.

If anything gets an unfair advantage, it’s the photos that are vertical and therefore larger on the page, so they get the enlargement without the user having to go to any effort. If we’re going to go by fark’s limit of 640 horizontal, I think 640 should be the max length on any side.

[soosh]

those were 30 seconds at ISO 3200 using a 20mm lens open to f/1.8

we have crazy dark skies in the winter, and suitably dark even in August. Main problem here is 300+ days a year when it’s overcast.

[soosh]

I’ve gotten lucky with meteors a few times

one night I was out and I saw one that was just fantastic, it absolutely looked like a huge wide sword in the sky, bright as hell for just a fraction of a second. one of the coolest things I’ve ever seen. of course, the camera was pointed in a completely different direction.

[soosh]

I’d say national monuments would be right in.

[soosh]

would a totem pole count?

[soosh]

my host was down for a while tonight, too. I think there was something wonky going on at a high level.

[soosh]

I’ve had one photo in Discover magazine, one in a magazine from New York, an album cover in the UK, and a few breaking news things in the local paper. My local paper doesn’t pay, either, or I would submit a lot more.

That’s awesome that they printed yours!

[soosh]

I thought digital crossprocessing was OK because either traditional or digital, it’s done to the image in the course of developing it for final. With film, you’re processing it in the wrong type of chemicals for a certain look, with digital, you’re doing the same thing equally across the photo for the same sort of look. I can’t see why one would be ok and the other wouldn’t.

[soosh]

I think I must have done channel-swapping on the skyline picture. I don’t think the in the trees ever showed up like that straight out of the camera.

I’ll have to go back and try to find the raw files at home to see what they look like.

Hmmm…..

Has there been any discussion about this? I’ve seen lots of other people using digital IR from time to time in the themes, and never really thought about it. Now that I’ve started playing with it myself, and researching/learning, I’ve realized that the blue sky effect comes from the (pretty standard) process of swapping the red and blue channels. I was planning on bringing it up in discussion at some point, since I’m leary about using mine under the thoughts that channel swapping is too software intensive. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying you should pull yours, I’m just curious if a decision was made before I came around, if it should be unaltered only from here out, or, since it’s been used fairly commonly in the past, let it be. Even unaltered out of the camera, you can get wild effects just by changing the white balance. On the road trip, I was shooting IR with WB braketing, and getting three completely different photos.

Great stuff in your directory, BTW. Here’s my foray into digital IR so far, All of them channel swapped, some with B+W 099 (orange) filter, some with Ha+IR (red astrophoto) filter.

well, if i recall correctly, it was considered to be kosher, as it was something that was applied evenly across the whole photo, like doing software editing for cross-processing.

[Author]

Posts