|
SoundMonkey posted:I'm gonna sit here and wait for reasons why that isn't your photo contest entry (unless it's an old photo or something). January 20, 2013.
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2013 03:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 22:36 |
|
|
torgeaux posted:January 20, 2013. Then I see absolutely no reason why that shouldn't be in the contest  .
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2013 03:17
|
|
|
psylent posted:My current most viewed (around 9.5K) is a photo of me and the dude from the Arcade Fire. Not sure why it's viewed so much, but a lot of people seem to find it while trying to figure out how tall he is. I don't see it on the front page on /r/itookapicture. Edit: top of page 2. Upvoted it. However I do see swigger's indian headdress photo there.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2013 03:42
|
|
|
SoundMonkey posted:I'm gonna sit here and wait for reasons why that isn't your photo contest entry (unless it's an old photo or something). #2 - That's all I got. Here's another picture of Taco because HE'S THE MOST ADORABLE KITTY IN THE UNIVERSE 
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2013 03:50
|
|
|
psylent posted:#1 - I've got all my favourite threads bookmarked and rarely wander into the forum index and had no idea there was a contest. ...there's a contest every month. There is literally always a contest running. This time the theme is cattes 
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2013 04:13
|
|
|
I don't usually enter them, I rarely get to shoot for fun these days so I don't bother entering the contests. Thanks for pointing it out. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2013 04:51
|
|
|
psylent posted:I rarely get to shoot for fun these days Or, at least, that's what they are to me. Also Taco is great. More pictures of Taco, please.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2013 06:13
|
|
|
Views: 936. Mission Accomplished?
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2013 15:32
|
|
|
my pictures must suck i'm only getting ~60-100 hits when i post them
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2013 00:42
|
|
|
psylent posted:My current most viewed (around 9.5K) is a photo of me and the dude from the Arcade Fire. Not sure why it's viewed so much, but a lot of people seem to find it while trying to figure out how tall he is. Fleetwood Cat.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2013 03:06
|
|
|
This guy build an incredibly awesome 35mm SLR from metal stock: http://www.collection-appareils.fr/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=37&t=8822&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&sid=88bea936d8726da6d04d5ee66e40cba4
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2013 18:26
|
|
|
a foolish pianist posted:This guy build an incredibly awesome 35mm SLR from metal stock: That is awesome, although I have to wonder how much it weighs.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2013 21:14
|
|
|
Mr. Despair posted:That is awesome, although I have to wonder how much it weighs. Enough to slow down the rear end in a top hat that tries to steal it from you when you're out shooting tourist locations. Also heavy enough to get you a manslaughter charge when you catch up and accidentally club him to death with it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2013 21:18
|
|
|
The guy also made a rangefinder.  It's all in French, but the photos tell enough of the story. The camera's finished, and there are shots taken with it at the end of the thread.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2013 07:05
|
|
|
ExecuDork posted:Also Taco is great. More pictures of Taco, please. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CGxp_hSsEYU
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2013 13:50
|
|
|
Anyone in these parts ever done some homemade lens fun? I was trolling around in a local surplus store the other day, and they had a pile of old lenses for sale.. not camera lenses, just the actual pieces of glass. Being a idiot, I thought to myself that they would be fun to shoot pictures through, so I dropped  on some.At any rate, I'm hung up on a decent way to get the lenses mounted on the camera. I got some extension tubes and step-up rings that I think I can hack to work, but it's going to involve glue and hacksaws, so I don't want to be chopping up decent gear. Anyone got any suggestions on a source for stuff like that? A bunch of 58mm rings would be ideal because that's the rough size of most of the lenses I bought.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2013 21:32
|
|
|
xzzy posted:Anyone in these parts ever done some homemade lens fun?
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2013 21:36
|
|
|
xzzy posted:Anyone got any suggestions on a source for stuff like that? A bunch of 58mm rings would be ideal because that's the rough size of most of the lenses I bought. I've actually done this. I just bought a whole bunch of body caps which were about $2.50 each and drilled them out.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2013 01:37
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2013 01:50
|
|
|
That's one angry bird.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2013 02:05
|
|
|
Haha what the gently caress
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2013 02:08
|
|
|
I've stopped bringing my camera to events, and don't even take my phone out of my pocket. I noticed I wasn't actually experiencing anything by trying to get the perfect shot, so I stopped trying. Helps that the "perfect shot" ain't gonna happen in the nosebleeds no matter how much effort I put into it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2013 04:15
|
|
|
Yea, I've been doing the same lately. I used to post on Instagram (not food though) some random shots but that got boring fast as well. It's funny when walking around with friends/etc and they say "hey man, you should take a photo of this!". I usually make something up about the light not being right (which is a valid argument 90% of the time).
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2013 04:26
|
|
|
Martin Crane seems to be using a medium format slr (mamiya or bronica?) with a Polaroid back and possibly a scuba flash to take pictures of the race.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2013 09:57
|
|
|
Reichstag posted:Martin Crane seems to be using a medium format slr (mamiya or bronica?) with a Polaroid back and possibly a scuba flash to take pictures of the race. I remember watching a different episode of Frasier where Martin pulls out a Bronica SQ at some event like a wake or something, he doesn't muck around with snapshots.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2013 12:24
|
|
|
Spedman posted:I remember watching a different episode of Frasier where Martin pulls out a Bronica SQ at some event like a wake or something, he doesn't muck around with snapshots. That does look to be a Bronica, with a WLF, a flash mounted to an arm on the tripod socket, and possibly an instant/sheet film back.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2013 13:51
|
|
|
He uses it to keep his back muscles nice and strong.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2013 15:15
|
|
|
I wonder if it's just for show or if the actor actually takes photos, or is into photography in general.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2013 15:37
|
|
|
Not having seen that episode, I would guess they were making fun of him for using big and old camera's and nothing else.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2013 01:02
|
|
|
I was going to put this in the General Photo Questions thread, but it's a bit further out there so I'm putting it here. Fake-IR colour film came up in the Film thread - http://www.petapixel.com/2013/01/31/lomographys-new-lomochrome-purple-film-snaps-infrared-esque-photos/ It's not really film that's especially sensitive to IR wavelengths, it's just had its dyes swapped around a bit. But it got me thinking: would it be possible to reconfigure the sensitivity profile of a colour digital sensor to a range of IR wavelengths? This would (theoretically) produce false-colour images, in which "blue" would correspond to (say) near-IR and "red" to longer wavelengths. Actually assigning wavelengths to colours for the conversion from not-visible to visible would be arbitrary. Is this possible? Can CMOS or CCD (or whatever) sensors be tuned?
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2013 01:03
|
|
|
It wouldn't be the sensor that you would tune; it's the bayer filter that you'd have to replace with some other mosaic filter. If you knew the wavelength sensitivity curve of each layer of film and somehow had a means to produce and apply your own mosaic filter, then you could make a sensor that accurately reproduced any type of film. That would be ridiculously expensive. However, if all you want is a false color digital picture it can be done pretty easily. If you take out the IR filter in your camera and don't put in a visible light filter, then a majority of the IR data is captured in the red channel, but the visible spectrum is still there. Objects that very red are either red or reflect IR, everything else doesn't: So you can then take the blue and green channels and use them to make a gradient map.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2013 01:46
|
|
|
Could you make an expanded-spectrum Foveon sensor? Put an extra UV layer up top and an infrared layer below.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2013 02:03
|
|
|
I just wanted to say that I haven't been shooting much last year and not at all since the summer (long story) and in that time Apple still hasn't come out with a new version of Aperture. I give up. As soon as I get back to shooting again in about a month, I'm going to Lightroom.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2013 02:15
|
|
|
ExecuDork posted:But it got me thinking: would it be possible to reconfigure the sensitivity profile of a colour digital sensor to a range of IR wavelengths? This would (theoretically) produce false-colour images, in which "blue" would correspond to (say) near-IR and "red" to longer wavelengths. Actually assigning wavelengths to colours for the conversion from not-visible to visible would be arbitrary. Replacing the Bayer filter would require ridiculous manufacturing precision. The alternative is to get filters for the front of the lens that allow the appropriate wavelengths of infrared, shoot multiple exposures, and assign them to different channels. This would be far easier.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2013 04:15
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:Replacing the Bayer filter would require ridiculous manufacturing precision. Modifying the Bayer filter during production would be pretty trivial.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2013 04:26
|
|
|
SoundMonkey posted:Modifying the Bayer filter during production would be pretty trivial. I was assuming that “reconfiguring” was an aftermarket thing. Canon or Sony wouldn’t have much issue, but the “digital Aerochrome” niche is so small I can’t imagine them doing it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2013 05:26
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:The alternative is to get filters for the front of the lens that allow the appropriate wavelengths of infrared, shoot multiple exposures, and assign them to different channels. This would be far easier. Assuming two things: filters of sufficient narrow-band exist / are possible for within different parts of the IR spectrum, and that existing or easy-enough-to-manufacture sensors can react to light in the IR range - longer wavelengths means less energy per photon, and I'm sure there's a lower limit for reasonable exposure times using existing technology. Does reciprocity failure apply here, or is that completely irrelevant? I am not so good at physics. My original idea was based on the thought, perhaps erroneous, that individual units of a standard digital sensor can be set to respond to a different wavelength of light than the adjacent unit. Instead of unit 1 responding to "green" (520nm) and unit 2 to "red" (620nm), have unit 1 respond to 700nm and unit 2 to 800nm. I could easily believe that I am wildly mistaken about how digital sensors actually work. Was Aerochrome film made of dyes that responded to different parts of the IR spectrum? EDIT: could any of this be accomplished by removing the IR filter on the sensor and a firmware update? EDIT 2: OK, I just skimmed the wikipedia entry for Bayer Filter and I'm now pretty certain the way to accomplish this would be to replace the Bayer filter in a DSLR, as has already been suggested. Expensive and difficult, sure, but is it even possible to swap out RGB (or RGBG or GRGB) for something that does (say) 700nm/800nm/900nm? ExecuDork fucked around with this message at 06:10 on Feb 1, 2013 |
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2013 06:04
|
|
|
Just take a dremel to the sensor. http://stargazerslounge.com/topic/166334-debayering-a-dslrs-bayer-matrix/
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2013 06:26
|
|
|
ExecuDork posted:Assuming two things: filters of sufficient narrow-band exist / are possible for within different parts of the IR spectrum, and that existing or easy-enough-to-manufacture sensors can react to light in the IR range - longer wavelengths means less energy per photon, and I'm sure there's a lower limit for reasonable exposure times using existing technology. Does reciprocity failure apply here, or is that completely irrelevant? I am not so good at physics. Filters of sufficiently narrow bands do exist, but I couldn’t tell you how much they’d cost in the sizes required. Existing sensors most certainly do react to light in the IR range. The Bayer colour microfilters conveniently do pass IR, and fairly evenly at that. Even if they didn’t, the filters can be removed. MaxMax charges a $1300–$3000 premium for such cameras. Here are some graphs. Reciprocity failure is not normally considered to be a factor with digital cameras. If it does exist, whatever is causing it is a phenomenon unique to digital sensors. Film has its own chemical reasons for reciprocity failure that don’t apply to digital sensors. ExecuDork posted:My original idea was based on the thought, perhaps erroneous, that individual units of a standard digital sensor can be set to respond to a different wavelength of light than the adjacent unit. Instead of unit 1 responding to "green" (520nm) and unit 2 to "red" (620nm), have unit 1 respond to 700nm and unit 2 to 800nm. It could be done. The only problem is extreme difficulty and expense. You’re not going to achieve it with a firmware update. As for Aeorchomre: it was sensitive to infrared up to 900 nm, but it was also sensitive to visible light and even ultraviolet. Typically, a yellow filter was used to avoid UV and blue light dominating. The last page of this PDF has the sensitivity curves. The cyan layer was the only one with significant infrared sensitivity, curiously enough. Platystemon fucked around with this message at 06:50 on Feb 1, 2013 |
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2013 06:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 22:36 |
|
|
Thanks for the replies! Very informative. A friend of mine took off the IR filter on the sensor of one of his older DSLRs - he's a professional wedding photographer, and when he upgraded most of his gear a couple of years ago the former "spare" body became "very spare" and he decided to have a go at IR photography. It worked very well, he told me the IR filter on the sensor was not too difficult to remove (I don't know which camera, but certainly a Canon, and something that was new in about 2005 or so). Then he went out shooting trees and such with an IR-pass filter on the lens. I've seen IR-pass filters for sale with different wavelength ratings - some say 750nm, others 900nm (or similar numbers). I'm guessing one could use a set of these filters and some masking techniques in post-processing to generate the effect I'm thinking about. The filters I've seen have been cheap, no-name Chinese ebay things, so the image quality would probably suck, but it could be fun. All of this is completely academic until I own a DSLR I'm willing to hack into (or take a Dremel to, interesting link there). edit: me spel gud
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2013 07:31
|
|