meta user
network profile
| bio | website | quantdec.com |
|---|---|---|
| location | ||
| age | ||
| visits | member for | 2 years, 8 months |
| seen | Apr 15 at 4:05 | |
| stats | profile views | 233 |
Consultant (environmental stats a specialty) and teacher.
|
Dec 5 |
comment |
Best location for group photo near canals in Amsterdam I have voted to close this question as too localized. If it were recast in a more general form, such as asking about criteria for selecting locations for group photos, I suspect it would have much more value to most readers. |
|
Oct 1 |
comment |
Should I choose Hoya HD CP or Nikon CP II polarization filters? +1 A little EV difference wouldn't sway me, but the difference between 1.7 (Marumi) and 1.1 (this Hoya) is substantial. |
|
Aug 15 |
comment |
How can I avoid star effect on light sources on long exposure photos? I tried it and it sort of works. The image quality is heavily degraded with small holes and the radial falloff is intense. I can't see any practical way to make truly smooth large holes. But perhaps an alternative, such as a machined disk (think of a washer) might work. |
|
Aug 14 |
comment |
How can I avoid star effect on light sources on long exposure photos? Clever! But where, precisely, should this mask be placed? Moreover, it's unclear that aluminum foil will work at all: even small irregularities seem likely to produce similarly irregular stars in the photo. And wouldn't a perfect pinhole produce a halo of blurred light around each point of light? |
|
Jul 19 |
comment |
Canon 5D Mark III - problems with fluorescent light It is a duplicate of photo.stackexchange.com/questions/4115. |
|
May 14 |
comment |
What kind of photo effect is this? Yes: it could be the result of years of industrialization leading to rampant, uncontrolled air pollution. (It reminds me of a good day in Mexico City in the 1980's.) |
|
Apr 15 |
comment |
Is there a linear relationship between shutter speed and speed of subject to freeze motion? You're right, mattdm. However, most of the variables do not need to be known. If you gauge subject speed (relative to the camera) in terms of how long it might take to cross the field of view, you arrive at an extremely simple solution: divide that time by the length of the sensor in pixels to obtain an exposure duration that will cause less than one pixel of blur. Adjust that answer to meet your personal standards of sharpness (and to match the lens's sharpness). The formula is so simple, and so little needs to be memorized (sensor size), that this works well in the field. |
|
Apr 13 |
comment |
Auto cropping scanned document or photo Yes, @Una, the title may suggest that, but the question seems to leave it open. Before voting (or suggesting) to close you should at least request a verification from the OP on that point. In fact, why would automatic solutions be off topic here, anyway? |
|
Apr 7 |
comment |
What is a reasonable amount to pay for 120 b&w processing? @Dreamager It's easy to make a contact sheet with a lightbulb and piece of glass: no enlarger is needed. You can even use a shielded candle as a safelight when developing the sheet. I have done this in campground bathrooms and in basements (at night with foil taped over the windows). |
|
Apr 6 |
comment |
What is a reasonable amount to pay for 120 b&w processing? I agree the question as presently formulated is off topic. But if it were changed to ask respondents to suggest less expensive alternatives to using local labs (and their pros and cons), that might survive (and perhaps collect some interesting answers). |
|
Mar 26 |
comment |
How to become a wedding photographer? This question is about building a portfolio; although it was asked differently, it seems to be inquiring about exactly the same topic. It has some great answers: photo.stackexchange.com/questions/7443/…. |
|
Mar 14 |
comment |
Do bigger focal lengths capture more light? Not bad intuition. Some of it we can fix; some we have to change. You can put your response on a more rigorous footing--and explain otherwise paradoxical things like f/0.95 lenses--by recognizing that an f/1 lens is actually letting in only about (1-sqrt(3)/2)/2 = 0.067 of all the light. But the thing you must change to make this reply correct is to recognize that the amount of light admitted scales with the inverse square of the f/stop, not the f-stop itself; e.g., f/11 lets in 1/121 times as much light as f/1. This is an essential thing to know when choosing exposures in photography. |
|
Mar 10 |
comment |
Why does blue sky gets rendered as black in black and white film photos? +1 I simply cannot convert the sky in the color image into something like the film image without darkening the foreground beyond all recognition. This convinces me that Stan is right: the sky received special attention during printing. |
|
Mar 10 |
comment |
Why does blue sky gets rendered as black in black and white film photos? On both cameras or just one of them? |
|
Mar 10 |
comment |
Why does blue sky gets rendered as black in black and white film photos? Stan, a spectral sensitivity plot for this film is available at ilfordphoto.com/Webfiles/20114271111491224.pdf. It is instructive to compare it to a daylight sky spectrum (e.g., en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Spectrum_of_blue_sky.png). In brief, this film has flat sensitivity from deep blue through red-orange and no sensitivity to reds. This photo indeed looks like it was shot with a Wratten 25 or 29, but apparently it wasn't filtered at all. |
|
Mar 10 |
comment |
Why does blue sky gets rendered as black in black and white film photos? Do you keep any UV or haze filters on either lens? |
|
Mar 8 |
comment |
How do I formulate an estimate for photographing a private school's 180+ K-5th graders and their 30+ faculty and staff? Thank you, Stan, for emphasizing that point. |
|
Mar 8 |
comment |
How do I formulate an estimate for photographing a private school's 180+ K-5th graders and their 30+ faculty and staff? Questions like "what should I charge for this" or "how much should this cost"--although the answers may interest photographers--are so localized in time and space that they don't fit our format well. I have voted to close. (I would have voted to close photo.stackexchange.com/questions/2255, too, but the replies are good: they focus on principles to use for estimating prices rather than providing the prices themselves. Maybe the present question could be reformulated to encourage similar kinds of objective, well-supported, general answers?) |
|
Mar 7 |
comment |
Is there a 'rule of thumb' that I can use to estimate depth of field while shooting? Ah, now I understand. What I think you meant to say is that the standard of blurriness depends on how the image will be viewed. No disagreement there. But that doesn't really affect the DoF you choose! The reason is that the standard of blurriness enters into consideration as the size of the circle of confusion relative to the image itself. That ratio does not change upon resizing. It does suggest that if you intend to severely crop the image, then you might aim for a smaller circle of confusion and thereby choose a (slightly) greater DoF at the time you are taking the photo. |
|
Mar 7 |
comment |
Is there a 'rule of thumb' that I can use to estimate depth of field while shooting? I'm sorry, how does DoF possibly change with output size? Resizing the image merely resizes it; if DoF appears to change at all, that is because something is affecting the appearance of the image itself, making it either fuzzier or sharper in various places. Yes, that sort of thing occurs to some extent as a result of resampling a digitized image, but that should be considered a (tiny) artifact of the process, not a real change in DoF. |
