|
|
Post by the light works on Aug 16, 2015 15:47:33 GMT
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. ah, so you are referring to high magnification analysis revealing that it was not taken by a cell phone camera, because of the exact artefacts in the image, which are produced by a camera type system, and not by a cell phone camera type system. |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Aug 17, 2015 9:42:59 GMT
Its the type of artefact that gets created that make the difference.
|
|
|
|
Post by GTCGreg on Aug 17, 2015 13:27:49 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.) Since the topic came up, I checked my phone to see if it was adding location information to each picture. Sure enough, it was set to do so. It no longer is. |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Aug 18, 2015 9:03:49 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.) Since the topic came up, I checked my phone to see if it was adding location information to each picture. Sure enough, it was set to do so. It no longer is. We all learn something new every day. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Sept 19, 2015 20:26:33 GMT
again, more record keeping than art, but here is the progress my town has made in firefighting equipment. Attachment Deleted |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Sept 27, 2015 7:50:57 GMT
This is a pic for the site that built it, Oshkosh Corporation, of the Manchester Airport "Striker" fire tender...  similar After service livery added, just to show what they look like IRL  |
|
|
|
Post by alabastersandman on Sept 30, 2015 7:30:26 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..... Can't help but wonder if you added, the yellow or subtracted it? Something seems odd about it being "mostly" in B&W. The yellow just seems too localized to be naturally from the streetlight |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Sept 30, 2015 7:47:46 GMT
??..'splain please?... If you mean the original photo, it was mostly B/W from what I can see, the yellow was a street light on a lower part of a tree, from what I can see there. When photographing "at night" with a stark pure brilliant white flash, if you didnt filter the flash (I have some filter jellies for my flash...) you get mostly B/W reflections from white surfaces. By Flash "Jellies, I mean some like these...  They are coloured "Cellophane" type things that feel almost like jelly, hence the name, but can alter the light from a flash, to "Tint" a photo when your in a stark b/w environment or need a little something extra. You can get strange effects, some quite wonderful, some very different. Take a look at this...  |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Oct 1, 2015 4:11:59 GMT
a note: they are properly called "gels" because they used to be made from gelatin.
|
|
|
|
Post by OziRiS on Oct 3, 2015 21:52:28 GMT
A couple of weeks ago, Boy was home sick from school. Not wanting him to miss out on learning something, I decided to do a little home schooling. They were doing coordinate systems in math class at the time and I thought I'd take that out of the classroom context and into a real world context. I pulled out a military map of a large exercise area and the surrounding cities and started teaching him to find things from coordinates and to read out coordinates for specific things he found on the map. He had a lot of fun with that, so we agreed that when he got better, we'd take a trip to the area on the map and I'd let him navigate while I drove. We did that today. We picked out a starting point and a destination on the map before we left home and he planned the route. We timed our departure, so we'd get to our destination shortly before sunset, put Girlfriend and Bobby (the dog) in the car, went to the store to pick up some driving snacks and drinks and off we went. When we got to our designated starting point, we pulled out the map. I showed him how to use a compass to point it North and explained to him what kind of landmarks he should be looking for to make sure we were headed in the right direction (roads, intersections, power stations, churches and so on) and that unless he told me otherwise, I'd just stay on whatever road we were on. He had complete control over the route. "Just tell me when to turn and if you lose your bearings, tell me to pull over, so you can figure it out again," was the message from me and off we went again. Half an hour later, we pulled up to our destination. No wrong turns at all and we only pulled over once in a small town, so he could make sure we were on the right track. First try ever at navigating by map and he completely nailed every aspect of it. Finding both our starting point and destination on the map. Planning out a sensible route before leaving home. Facing the map North with the compass and getting his bearings, so he could start us off right. Telling me in good time when to turn and what landmarks to look for. Turning the map the right way whenever I made a turn. I even quizzed him every now and then on which general direction we were headed and he exhibited perfect understanding of North, South, East and West. Go ahead and color me proud!  As I mentioned, we timed our arrival to shortly before sunset. Why? Because this was on the West Coast and from where we ended up sitting to watch that sunset, there was nothing but open ocean between us and England. Both Boy and Girlfriend have of course seen a sunset before, but they've always seen it from the city, or possibly from a field or forest inland. There's just something special about watching it set over the open ocean, knowing that for the next 400 miles in the direction you're looking, there's nothing but water. It's just you, the sea and the sun and I got to share that with my two favorite people (and favorite animal) in the entire world, sitting on a blanket on a tall sand dune and just enjoying every second of it  Why am I telling you this story in this thread? Because, apart from this being the newest addition to my top 10 list of the best days ever in my life, this picture I took of the setting sun over the North Sea, shot from between two sand dunes, is now on my top 10 list of the best pictures I've ever taken:  |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Oct 3, 2015 23:00:39 GMT
only 400 miles?  |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Oct 4, 2015 5:47:32 GMT
I think TLW wants to know how far you can swim?...
Great picture ...
|
|
|
|
Post by OziRiS on Oct 4, 2015 10:18:55 GMT
only 400 miles? I thought you knew. There's abslolutely nothing big about where I live |
|
|
|
Post by OziRiS on Oct 4, 2015 10:22:49 GMT
I think TLW wants to know how far you can swim?... Great picture ... Thanks I was going back and forth between that one and this one:  I chose the latter as the best because this one has people on the beach in the lower left corner. Looking at it again, if I hadn't told you, would you have noticed they were people, or just have thought they were blades of grass? Maybe the only reason it annoys me is because I know it's people... |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Oct 4, 2015 13:23:18 GMT
I think TLW wants to know how far you can swim?... Great picture ... Thanks I was going back and forth between that one and this one: I chose the latter as the best because this one has people on the beach in the lower left corner. Looking at it again, if I hadn't told you, would you have noticed they were people, or just have thought they were blades of grass? Maybe the only reason it annoys me is because I know it's people... Get in there and enjoy what you have... Sometimes a Human Being is useful, whoever they are, just to add a little scale to the photo. I like both photo's, and to be honest, I wouldnt know about the humans in number 2 unless you has said. Dont over analyse it, its a damn good photo. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Oct 4, 2015 13:56:36 GMT
Personally I favor the second. I find the inconspicuous people less of a detraction than I find the wide open beach a key element.
|
|
|
|
Post by OziRiS on Oct 4, 2015 21:33:45 GMT
Good points from both of you. Thanks I think they each have their own charm and maybe the people in the second one only annoy me, because they annoyed me when I was there. They stepped into the shot just as I took it and didn't move away before the sunset was almost over and there was too little light for my phone camera to work with. Then again, maybe it was a good thing they came when they did. They stopped me from taking any more pictures, so I just sat back with Girlfriend and enjoyed it while Bobby and Boy were running up and down the sand dunes. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Oct 8, 2015 2:08:05 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Oct 8, 2015 7:34:34 GMT
Thats good fog Camouflage you have over the back end.... |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Oct 8, 2015 14:09:27 GMT
Thats good fog Camouflage you have over the back end.... fortunately, I had a crew available to help wash it. |
|
