|
RangerScum posted:Maybe you just look like a creepy pervert and there's nothing you can do about it? Lol nice av, karloff. 
Father O'Blivion fucked around with this message at 09:05 on Oct 7, 2016 |
#
¿
Oct 7, 2016 08:53
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 3, 2024 08:51 |
|
|
rio posted:I don't plan on taking eclipse photos beyond a picture of my daughter and me looking at it for the sake of posterity. But I have still been reading about it and someone mentioned taking a photo of the non- eclipsed sun at f32 and 1/8000 exposure. He got a blown out photo of the sun but is thinking of trying it with the eclipse. With electronic shutter speed going higher, would it be possible to take such a small aperture, high speed photo without damaging a mirrorless camera? I would try it just to see but I don't want to fry my camera just out of curiosity. Stage a double-exposure.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 21, 2017 02:04
|
|
|
Sensitometery aside, the higher the ISO rating of the film the larger the physical size of the silver halide grains present in the emulsion. Larger crystals = greater chance of intercepting a photon and the entire crystal being reduced to metallic silver during development. This implies faster films will have a more pronounced grain structure compared to a film of lower ISO. There are also differences in the geometry of the halide crystals found in various films. 'T-grain' films like TMax and Ilford Delta tend to have crystals that are flatter and less clumpy than traditional emulsions which in turn affects qualitative aspects of the image. Very fast films like P3200 and Delta 3200 make use of this fact to maximize the cross section of the halides thereby maximizing speed (and graininess). In terms of exposure and using films at other than 'box speed', reading up on the Zone System is a good recommendation. Combined with proper development you can fine-tune the results to suit your needs.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 6, 2024 05:46
|
|
|
The textbook name for such an optical assembly is a telecompressor but 'speedbooster' makes for a much more effective brand name. The inverse is the much more commonly found teleconverter which is typically mounted behind the primary lens. Alternately, you can use a teleside converter on a camera without an interchangeable lens.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2024 18:25
|
|
|
Continuing with the nerdsplosion, here's an array of teleside converters I've picked up over the years. From right to left: WC-E24 & WC-E63 -- 0.66x & 0.63x wide angle converters originally designed for ancient Nikon Coolpix models. The small rear element limits their usefulness on 'real' cameras but can be attached or hand-held in front of any camera's lens with sufficiently small diameter for a wider FOV. Useful with a p&s or subminiature camera. VCL-DH0758 -- 0.7x wide converter with a more useful 58mm rear thread. You have to melt away or otherwise remove the rear standoff to attach stepdown rings. As is or a 58->52mm setup means you can attach it to modern lenses. I typically step down to 40.5mm so I can use it with my Minolta 110 SLR. TC-E3ED -- 3x teleconverter designed for ancient Coolpix models. Not as nice optically or as compact as a behind-the-lens converter but you don't incur any speed penalty. TC-E17ED -- 1.7x teleconverter with a 60mm rear thread. Similarly adaptable to modern lenses if you can bear an enormous chunk of glass hanging off the front of your camera. and then TC-14E iii -- A conventional behind-the-lens telecoverter for Nikon AF-S glass. A more compact and better optically but you lose 1 stop of light because you aren't enlarging the entrance pupil like in a teleside design. No. 4T -- This is a close-up lens, not a teleconverter, as it doesn't change FOV. These type of aux lenses will shift the range of distances at which a lens can achieve focus; it can be thought of as a 'teleside extension tube'. These are especially useful on cameras that are fixed focus. Now, back to your regularly scheduled deluge of eclipse photos.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2024 22:31
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 3, 2024 08:51 |
|
|
The human brain can have trouble with wider than normal compositions as the FOV and distortion can be unsettling. Normal and telephoto lenses naturally mimic aspects of human vision which make them more straightforward to use as a walk around lens. My advice would be to add constraints to your wide angle shots. Try forcing yourself to use an ultrawide (like a 20mm) only at it's closest focus distance and be more selective about subjects based on their ability to fill the frame at that distance. Often the hardest part of an ultrawide angle at infinity is dealing with the foreground without tilting the camera upwards and further exaggerating the distortion. Try getting clear of the foreground by shooting from a ridge, hilltop, or upstairs window.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 22, 2024 21:04
|
|