Not Your Everyday Banana

by Bart Arondson

submit your photo


Hall of Fame
View past winners from this year

Please participate in Meta
and help us grow.

888 reputation
59
bio website
location Conegliano, Italy
age 25
visits member for 3 years, 6 months
seen Jun 8 at 17:30

Jun
6
revised How was Claire Benoist's flower diptych picture shot?
added 246 characters in body
Jun
6
revised How was Claire Benoist's flower diptych picture shot?
example added
Jun
6
comment Why are my city night pics more blurred than I expect, and what can I do about it?
Your image looks very nice and sharp to me. It shows visible jpeg compression artifacts and a little purple-blue fringing near the (right) border, but it is perfectly sharp across the whole frame.
Jun
5
revised How was Claire Benoist's flower diptych picture shot?
added 111 characters in body
Jun
5
answered How was Claire Benoist's flower diptych picture shot?
Apr
27
comment Megapixel race unnecessary?
@jrista - I get the point you made about more pixels meaning demosaicing artifacts below detail level, that's very interesting. I just meant to say: while undesirable low accuracy in colors and edges is certainly caused by demoisaicing, some artifacts probably are a side effect of additional processing which (strictly speaking) is not part of demosaicing. p.s. "The purpose of demosaicing is not to make the image softer" I actually know that, thank you :-)
Apr
26
comment Megapixel race unnecessary?
@jrista - Thanks, I'll have a look into this. I can't but think demosaicing in its basic form is supposed just to make the image softer, as three pixel out of four in the final image have, in a way of speaking, color which is the average of the colors of surrounding pixel. This also accounts for low color accuracy on edges. Could more complex artifacts be generated by algorithms intended to enhance sharpness and color within the demoisaicing process?
Apr
25
comment Megapixel race unnecessary?
"Colour fringing, false detail, lack of colour detail or any other demosaicing artefacts then your problems would be solved if you had more megapixels." I always assumed colour fringing is produced by the lens, not the sensor: how would higher sensor resolution solve this? Wouldn't it make it "worse" instead, i.e. pushing the limits of lenses so artifacts and general optical defects are more visible?
Mar
24
comment What are the advantages and disadvantages of using auto ISO on a DSLR?
@Freed - it simply goes for higher ISO when it hits the minimum shutter speed you chose, in order to keep above that limit. If it reaches the highest ISO you set and still it thinks it's underexposing, it starts lowering the shutter speed. Different cameras may have different behaviours: Nikons do it that way, AFAIK.
Jan
20
awarded  Yearling
Nov
7
comment Why would I want to select an autofocus point?
@derobert - Your point is flawless, I'll keep this is mind. However, I found the infinity end of the focus scale to be actually further than anything one would like to shoot, also with lenses other than the peculiar lens mentioned above. With my Nikkor 18-70mm stars are blurry at the end of the focus scale, i.e. infinity gives perfect focus on the stars (if you accurately match the infinity symbol on the scale), but just twisting the focus ring to its end gets you further. I did not test this thoroughly, but it seems to me other lenses I own behave the same way.
Oct
17
awarded  Enthusiast
Sep
26
comment What's a decent lighting kit for getting started with portraits?
@Zds - The newer LP160 is as powerful as the SB-900 (the old LP120 had half the power, according to Lumopro). So yes, the main difference is TTL and, I dare say, build quality. However SBs cost nearly twice as much as TTL capable strobes from Sigma and Metz. Sophisticated controls? Sure. Higher build quality? Yes. Is it worth your money if you're an amateur or a beginner? You be the judge.
Sep
22
answered What's a decent lighting kit for getting started with portraits?
Sep
16
comment Where does the DSC file name prefix come from?
@mattdm - in my experience every image you make some in-camera adjustment to, not just from raw, is saved as a copy with "CSC" prefix.
Sep
15
comment Is the Canon 28mm f/2.8 sharp and good compared to the 18-55mm kit lens?
I totally agree, but strictly speaking this is not an answer.
Sep
14
revised Is the Canon 28mm f/2.8 sharp and good compared to the 18-55mm kit lens?
added 495 characters in body
Sep
14
revised Is the Canon 28mm f/2.8 sharp and good compared to the 18-55mm kit lens?
added 495 characters in body
Sep
14
comment Is the Canon 28mm f/2.8 sharp and good compared to the 18-55mm kit lens?
@drewbenn - you are right, it didn't occur to me; I think, however, one gets closer to the feeling of the "normal" focal length with some millimeters more than with some less. I experienced this with both the sigma 30mm and the nikon 35mm on my aps-c nikon DSLR (1.5x crop factor, yes, but we're talking 28mm here so it's quite the same); it's actually easy to see 30mm is a bit wide, different from a 50mm on full frame cameras, while 35mm is very similar in rendition of distances.
Sep
14
comment Is the Canon 28mm f/2.8 sharp and good compared to the 18-55mm kit lens?
@rfusca - What I said in my answer; I think it's a bit too wide for some things, but not really wide enough for others (dramatic perspectives, some landscape). Maybe it's only me :-)