Thought you photographers who also happen to do photography might like this. Comments, questions, concerns? Would you agree or disagree? Is Topher pretty much on point?
http://www.psiro.com/index.php/conti....html#comments
Thought you photographers who also happen to do photography might like this. Comments, questions, concerns? Would you agree or disagree? Is Topher pretty much on point?
http://www.psiro.com/index.php/conti....html#comments
I'd prefer a film slr over a digital, high speed fine grain film shot off a tripod with no flash what-so-ever! Point and shoot digital cameras are pretty much incapable of taking a quality photo in low light without a flash, the sensor is just too small and they've crammed too many megapixels into these little cameras that they are noisy as hell. 2nd choice would be a full frame digital with a very fast lens, constant 2.8 or larger aperture... Granted you're talking about a lot of money as no company makes the bodies in consumer grade.
Im not a fan of orbs. i dont buy into all the excitement over the capture of airborn particulate. Its dust! I went on a paranormal visit to the Lakeview cemetary in Patchogue with a group of enthusiasts. Well, it was December and it was flurrying like heck and dont you know one guys starts yelling about the "orb" he captured with his camera. It was a snow flake, dummy. Didnt matter, he didnt want to hear about it. I just dont get people.......
"Well being as there's no other place around the place, I reckon this must be the place, I reckon."
Especially when using a flash! Everything becomes an orb when the flash fires... The way a digital sensor records a picture can make orbs itself, I'd much prefer using standard film. Unfortunately, film is a pain to get good processing these days plus digital has the I need to know now factor that film does not. If you're going to use digital use a good camera that can shoot Tiffs or better yet, one of the RAW formats (Cannon Cr2, Nikon NEF, etc...) Jpg's themselves are full of artifacts especially when shooting at low light. Plus the camera is designed to sharpen and apply noise reduction to the jpg file which will add to the artifacts that jpg files are notorious for. Jpg files are much smaller than a Tiff or Raw file because the cameras software makes a guess at how the picture should look, processes it and then throws away the rest of the recorded info resulting in a much smaller file that is compressed. Jpg is also a lossy format which means once you edit that photo in your photo editing program of choice and save it, quality has already started to degrade. Tiff is like a chrome and Raw is like a negative, both of which will not lose any recorded data no matter how many times you edit and save them. I prefer raw because it gives you editing leeway as far as exposure a tiff needs to be spot on just like shooting kodachorme... (RIP kodachorme, lol...)Originally Posted by Curly
you know what really drives me insane other than "orbs".... camera strap. A Kansas team recently posted a picture up with all excitement, stating that where they took the picture, there was a hanging..... insisting it wasn't the strap because they tried to recreate the photo multiple times... >_<
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks