Nidelva river through Trondheim Norway

Nidelva river through Trondheim Norway
by Saaru Lindestokke                

Submit your Photo
Hall of Fame

Please participate in Meta
and help us grow.

New answers tagged

1

If both the subject and the camera are located on Earth (or any planet), the distance to the horizon is an upper bound. As explained in the link, with the camera at 1.7 meters above the ground and assuming a spherical planet, the curvature of the Earth limits sight to about 2.9 miles not counting any refraction caused by temperature changes in the air ...


0

This is just an hypothesis, but I notice that in the picture with the "problem" that the spectra of the lights in question seem very narrow. It looks like the lights are hydrogen vapor (bluish lights) and sodium vapor (yellowish ones), whereas the lights without the problem appear to have broad spectrums. It could just be that your lens has problems with ...


3

This is not a practical answer (it is not a practical question), but it is a precise answer. Let's define "not visible". If in an image, I will offer a description of "not visible" that the object is not more than one pixel size in the image, which certainly will not be considered visible (probably 5 or 10 pixels works as well ...), but "it depends", on ...


3

I will just give you a glimpse of what are you asking, so you can do your own math. We need to take in account: The object 1) What is the color. Diferent colours have diferent wavelengths, so this affects on the sensor reception, difraction, atmospheric absortion, etc. 2) The contrast with the background. This is pretty obvious, a white board on a white ...


2

Under bright sunlight conditions, a young person with 20/20 vision can resolve an object that is approximately 3000 diameters distant. A 2 meter square object has a diagonal measure of 2.8 meters. This object if viewed from 2.8 X 3000 = 8,400 meters, will appear to be a point without discernable dimension. The 3000 times its diameter rule of thumb is too ...


0

There is no "one answer", it depends from too many variables. It depends on the size of the object, the focal lengh of the lens mounted on the camera, the resolving capability of the lens (its optical resolution, so to say), the resolution of the sensor...and the definition of "not visible" for who is watching the final image. Uh, and the type of light ...


0

Noise is very subjective but one thing others dont mention is the point of the shot and subject. Main things that pop into my head that noise would simply not be acceptable for: Newborn Photos / Baby Photos Glamour / Makeup closeups Headshots Family portraits Macro most of the time too Basically - the more detail you want to be able to see, or smoother ...


0

It depends, not only on you, but also on which parts of the picture. Noise is often hardly visible in contrasty, sharp areas, but may be more disturbing in the bokeh for example. In your iris picture, I'd apply a rather brutal noise reduction (for example, a gaussian blur of several pixels) and be more conservative on the sharp parts. For an example: ...


-1

Fog, mist, moisture, particles in the air? In Alaska sometimes in the winter we get ice fog ( small frozen water particles in the air ). This results in being able to see a ray of light shooting through the air. you can see shafts of light shooting up all over town even if you can not see the light source. Normally one can not see light on air molecules ...


4

In my opinion that "flare" is caused by a dirty lens. Probably you atempted to clean it with a wipe movement, that is why the flare has directionality. Use a micro fiber cloth. I recently bought some that sells for the "kitchen" and they cost arround $1 dolar. I use theese for cleaning all the time cellphones, glasses and tablets. There is a chance that ...


0

Nothing is ever a disaster because it can always be used as an example. : ) I notice that the before and after shots you include for comparison have a different kind of luminary from the first one with the "issue." You show "solitary" lamp housings and "triple-headed" ones that appear as you expected. Looking at the reflections of the "solitary" lamps on ...


1

If the object is at fixed distance, has fixed size (and is moving at constant angular speed) and fits frame well: no, you cannot get better photograph of it with focal length reducer. Focal length reducer has three effects: it makes image brighter it reduces the number of pixels which object occupies if it contains glass it looses some small amount of ...



Top 50 recent answers are included