|
|
Post by mrfatso on Jul 28, 2015 22:16:12 GMT
Ai was trying to load a picture
|
|
|
|
Post by OziRiS on Jul 28, 2015 23:37:48 GMT
That's beautiful I really like the effect against the sky. Yeah, I just wish that lamp post hadn't been in the shot. Then it would have been perfect. |
|
|
|
Post by kharnynb on Aug 7, 2015 20:34:22 GMT
 Whenever i wonder why i live here, I only have to check this picture ;D Btw: seconding photobucket, about the one site that has a decent image copyright rule still left out there. |
|
|
|
Post by GTCGreg on Aug 7, 2015 21:19:25 GMT
A man's home is his castle. So you live there? Where is that?
|
|
|
|
Post by kharnynb on Aug 7, 2015 21:30:45 GMT
It's olavinlinna (st olaf's castle) in Savonlinna, our hometown.
It sort of represents the place well, big lakes, lot of nature and history, whenever I go fishing, that's where I have to first go by, just like all the old ships in times past(though i atleast don't have to pay passage rights).
|
|
|
|
Post by GTCGreg on Aug 7, 2015 21:51:57 GMT
It's olavinlinna (st olaf's castle) in Savonlinna, our hometown. It sort of represents the place well, big lakes, lot of nature and history, whenever I go fishing, that's where I have to first go by, just like all the old ships in times past(though i atleast don't have to pay passage rights). Well Saint Olaf had good taste. It's beautiful. I absolutely love castles. Especially ones on the water. |
|
|
|
Post by OziRiS on Aug 8, 2015 3:51:15 GMT
WOW!!! Whenever you see travel shows and the like about Finland, they always portray the country as cold and dark. I've never seen an image like that from up there!
That's beautiful!
|
|
|
|
Post by alabastersandman on Aug 15, 2015 3:48:02 GMT
One of my favorite "fluke pics", this is from a snow storm back in 2009. I had the flash on and it reflected off falling snowflakes to make this beautiful image.  You say this was a "fluke" photo, don't suppose you have exposure info? I haven't done a lot of night time photography but the images I took that actually were exposed long enough to pick up the stars was also long enough to show the Earths rotation as well. Any photo I have with stars showing up in it looks like your twisting into a wormhole or something. Nice image, it really gives the feeling of it being cold and well, snowy. |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Aug 15, 2015 6:59:56 GMT
I can supply some details of the EXIF data..... If that is OK with the poster. If this data is a problem, this post can/will be removed. MaxApertureValue - F 2.80 MeteringMode - Multi-segment Flash - Flash fired, auto mode, red-eye reduction mode FocalLength - 6.20 mm UserComment - [no user comment posted] ExposureMode - Auto White Balance - Auto DigitalZoomRatio - 1.00 x SceneCaptureType - Standard Digital zoom - None Contrast - Normal Saturation - Normal Sharpness - Normal ISO Value - Auto Metering mode - Evaluative Focus type - Auto AF point selected - Focal length - 6200 - 18600 mm (1000 mm) Flash activity - Flash details - Internal Focus mode 2 - Single White Balance - Auto Sequence number - 0 Flash bias - 0 EV Subject Distance - 455 Thumbnail: - Compression - 6 (JPG) XResolution - 180 YResolution - 180 ResolutionUnit - Inch JpegIFOffset - 5108 JpegIFByteCount - 3503 All of this information was collected by use of Irfanview digital image viewer that can collect the EXIF data shipped with any image. I have a section in my digital image manipulator that can strip EXIF data from any image I post, and as the EXIF data collected by my camera supplies not just model but model number, including the actual model number of my own camera, I strip that data from any published image. How to do that. When saving the file in PhotoPlus or PhotoShop, tick the box that changed "exif data" or "Meta data" to [none] In fact, read this page from Photography Life site that includes a much better explanation of how and why. photographylife.com/how-to-delete-exif-dataSide note, My own reasons to continually strip metadata were from a photography site I used that had some serious net-nannies that would question everything and criticise my methods.... Didnt matter how good the photo was, you would always get the one who would say "If you had just moved the F-stop one place right". Stripping the EXIF data forced them to evaluate the actual photo rather than the metadata FIRST.... The fact I have edited the metadata to include a message "You should be looking at the photo not in here" , ...That annoyed them..... |
|
|
|
Post by alabastersandman on Aug 15, 2015 8:06:54 GMT
I can supply some details of the EXIF data..... If that is OK with the poster. If this data is a problem, this post can/will be removed. MaxApertureValue - F 2.80 MeteringMode - Multi-segment Flash - Flash fired, auto mode, red-eye reduction mode FocalLength - 6.20 mm UserComment - [no user comment posted] ExposureMode - Auto White Balance - Auto DigitalZoomRatio - 1.00 x SceneCaptureType - Standard Digital zoom - None Contrast - Normal Saturation - Normal Sharpness - Normal ISO Value - Auto Metering mode - Evaluative Focus type - Auto AF point selected - Focal length - 6200 - 18600 mm (1000 mm) Flash activity - Flash details - Internal Focus mode 2 - Single White Balance - Auto Sequence number - 0 Flash bias - 0 EV Subject Distance - 455 Thumbnail: - Compression - 6 (JPG) XResolution - 180 YResolution - 180 ResolutionUnit - Inch JpegIFOffset - 5108 JpegIFByteCount - 3503 All of this information was collected by use of Irfanview digital image viewer that can collect the EXIF data shipped with any image. I have a section in my digital image manipulator that can strip EXIF data from any image I post, and as the EXIF data collected by my camera supplies not just model but model number, including the actual model number of my own camera, I strip that data from any published image. How to do that. When saving the file in PhotoPlus or PhotoShop, tick the box that changed "exif data" or "Meta data" to [none] In fact, read this page from Photography Life site that includes a much better explanation of how and why. photographylife.com/how-to-delete-exif-dataSide note, My own reasons to continually strip metadata were from a photography site I used that had some serious net-nannies that would question everything and criticise my methods.... Didnt matter how good the photo was, you would always get the one who would say "If you had just moved the F-stop one place right". Stripping the EXIF data forced them to evaluate the actual photo rather than the metadata FIRST.... The fact I have edited the metadata to include a message "You should be looking at the photo not in here" , ...That annoyed them..... Everything but the shutter speed... There are good reasons to inquire, such as, wanting to re-create it. I might even want to change the exposure, but I would never suggest that you SHOULD have, that would be rude. Thanks for the info... and that about stripping info from photos, that is good advice not followed by many. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Aug 15, 2015 9:38:06 GMT
One of my favorite "fluke pics", this is from a snow storm back in 2009. I had the flash on and it reflected off falling snowflakes to make this beautiful image. You say this was a "fluke" photo, don't suppose you have exposure info? I haven't done a lot of night time photography but the images I took that actually were exposed long enough to pick up the stars was also long enough to show the Earths rotation as well. Any photo I have with stars showing up in it looks like your twisting into a wormhole or something. Nice image, it really gives the feeling of it being cold and well, snowy. those aren't stars, that's the flash reflecting off the snowflakes. Attachment Deleted |
|
|
|
Post by OziRiS on Aug 15, 2015 10:42:04 GMT
I can supply some details of the EXIF data..... If that is OK with the poster. If this data is a problem, this post can/will be removed. MaxApertureValue - F 2.80 MeteringMode - Multi-segment Flash - Flash fired, auto mode, red-eye reduction mode FocalLength - 6.20 mm UserComment - [no user comment posted] *REST CUT FOR BREVITY*Yeah, I don't understand half of the information in that exif data strip you just posted...  But just out of curiosity, since it was my pic, what data did you leave out? I know there's no directly identifiable information among it, since the picture was taken with a digital camera with no personal information stored on it, so I'm good with you posting it. I actually don't even remember if that was taken with my now defunct Nikon or my now lost Canon camera, but I'm guessing you can tell me? Just in case my memory is playing tricks on me and this wasn't taken with a digital camera but with my phone and there actually IS personally identifiable info in there, I'd appreciate it if you just write that here and PM me with the actual details instead. |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Aug 16, 2015 9:27:14 GMT
1/60 of a second... sorry, that was in amongst the "redacted" part, I didnt notice it was missing.
Either way, the Cannon in low light has a unique setting that is "evaluative" shutter speed, and will leave the shutter open until it has "enough" light to grab a picture.
|
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Aug 16, 2015 9:42:59 GMT
Check your PM box, I did send you the complete list from the EXIF It was taken with a Cannon, and unless they started putting ipple-docks on the D7, I dont think Cannon make anything remotely like a phone.... do they?.... As for how, yes, I had to download the picture to my own hard drive, it makes it a lot quicker, but after that, I open Irfanview from here www.irfanview.com/Grab the extras, the plug-ins, the are free and worth having. Once you open that, go along the toolbar at the top until you get the option to view data, then view EXIF data. EXIF data, unless stripped, is sent with ALL photographs. If you cant find the EXIF data, the photographer has stripped it as I have mentioned in previous posts... Its set to transmit by default. And no, I dont know why. I see no reason to give away such data for free, especially when it gives you the registration mark of the actual camera in some instances.... It was supposed to be a way of digitally marking the photo to stop theft. Except.... It can be manipulated. (I wont ever give the exacts, on open board, because that would mean the lurker trolls on here can do that.) But basically I can get in and alter the EXIF data. So instead of you owning that photo, I could enter and earlier time stamp, enter my own camera details, and then claim I was the original owner?... Every single one of my own published photos has a digital watermark. I wont say how its done, because I dont exactly know, however, if you know where to look, and "zoom in" on some digital work, you may find what is best described as a Micro-dot. In that you may find with further zooming, a registration mark put there by the original owner. It cant be easily seen by most Image manipulators. It may not be the only one. It may add about 100kb to the file size, but unless you know the original file size, you wont spot it that way either. How would I find it again to prove its mine?... Remember that EXID data. On the original, I have a user REMark in the EXIF that is a bunch of coordinates to look and a short description of where, like "the eye of the dog" By the way, your Phone should not be able to create the artefacts seen in the photo, that of the light "reflections" off snowflakes from your camera flash. You can try, and maybe they have invented a phone that can do that by now, but I didnt think so?... |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Aug 16, 2015 14:19:36 GMT
so since I resize all my photos before I publish them online - does that also leave off the EXID data? (it also gives me a good way to prove a photo is mine if it really becomes an issue - as I still have the full res raw image on file.)
I would think the phone could also catch the reflections off of snowflakes, because that IS a picture of snowflakes illuminated by the flash.
|
|
|
|
Post by GTCGreg on Aug 16, 2015 14:32:06 GMT
I have taken a number of snowfall pictures with my iPhone 4s that have come out that way. So yes, I would say a phone camera can certainly take that picture.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Aug 16, 2015 14:40:42 GMT
I have taken a number of snowfall pictures with my iPhone 4s that have come out that way. So yes, I would say a phone camera can certainly take that picture. exactly, those aren't artefacts, those are images of snowflakes. what would take an advanced camera would be to ignore the snowflakes. |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Aug 16, 2015 15:19:19 GMT
so since I resize all my photos before I publish them online - does that also leave off the EXID data? (it also gives me a good way to prove a photo is mine if it really becomes an issue - as I still have the full res raw image on file.) I would think the phone could also catch the reflections off of snowflakes, because that IS a picture of snowflakes illuminated by the flash. No, the EXIF data will remain, and, dependant on what you use to resize, the whole of the original may also be still there as well. Leaving the ability to Un-Crop the image and see what you have left off. The EXIF data will also tell me what you have used to create the new file, as in Photo-ship, Lightroom Photo-plus, etc, which may simply be the file type to full details of last time it was edited, how much colour correction you have used.... So if you use a tome balance to lighten up a dark image, I can restore the photo to what you started with. However.... If you actively choose to "Ignore exif data" when you export the file, which you can set as "Remember this for future use" in some programs, they image manipulator will then strip the EXIF for you... |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Aug 16, 2015 15:29:05 GMT
I have taken a number of snowfall pictures with my iPhone 4s that have come out that way. So yes, I would say a phone camera can certainly take that picture. exactly, those aren't artefacts, those are images of snowflakes. what would take an advanced camera would be to ignore the snowflakes. They ARE snowflakes, but under intense zoom, there are artefacts. On reading this, this is starting to sound a little critical of what is quite a good image, and I have no intention of that, its just using that image to illustrate... In point-and-shoot, to make a complete image in either strong or low light, the sensor may not get all the information, so, there is some "guestimate" by analysing the surrounding pixels to get some of the other pixels. That is what is known as an artefact. Especially in low all black surroundings. If you zoom in on that image, you may see what I mean. On some of the bigger white dots, zoom in, and you start to see a [x] shaped black cross Zoom in a little more, the blobs start to get red purple orange blue "Halos" around them. Some of that may be due to light refraction. Some has a lot to do with the camera. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Aug 16, 2015 15:44:48 GMT
so since I resize all my photos before I publish them online - does that also leave off the EXID data? (it also gives me a good way to prove a photo is mine if it really becomes an issue - as I still have the full res raw image on file.) I would think the phone could also catch the reflections off of snowflakes, because that IS a picture of snowflakes illuminated by the flash. No, the EXIF data will remain, and, dependant on what you use to resize, the whole of the original may also be still there as well. Leaving the ability to Un-Crop the image and see what you have left off. The EXIF data will also tell me what you have used to create the new file, as in Photo-ship, Lightroom Photo-plus, etc, which may simply be the file type to full details of last time it was edited, how much colour correction you have used.... So if you use a tome balance to lighten up a dark image, I can restore the photo to what you started with. However.... If you actively choose to "Ignore exif data" when you export the file, which you can set as "Remember this for future use" in some programs, they image manipulator will then strip the EXIF for you... since the resize process I use also reduces the file size considerably, I would think you could not undo the resize on the ones I upload here. (as in reducing from 2.9MB to 112 K) |
|
