Ever seen (or heard) what happens when you get cesium wet? Still have your hearing? Cesium explodes when submerged in water as it oxidizes with enough energy to pull the (very dense) oxygen out of the water. This leaves a bunch of free hydrogen, which mixes patly with the air, producing a secondary explosion, and partly with the water, producing acid. It's way more spectacular than a grain dust explosion. A few grams of cesium is enough to shred a 5 galon pail (as well as spraying any observers with slightly low PH water).
I was looking at an FTb yesterday (to use for astrophotography, it has a mechanical mirror lock-up, which the A series lacks). It didn't appear to have DoF preview.
I don't think it's a fair comparison either. The key thing here is we're trying to get good quality pictures and learn about photography, not pad the salesperson's wallet. Comparing a new $1000 dSLR with a decent used SLR is like comparing new kias with used porches. To get the same quality as (for example) a Canon A 1 (a ~1980 SLR which retails used for about $200) you'd need about a 25 megapixel camera. You could come close to this with a Canon EOS-1Ds Mark-II which does 16.7 Megapixel, and retails for about $8000. Add to that a 512MB compactflash card at $200.
So, how much does really good film & passable developing for it cost? Well a roll of 36 exposures of Fuji REALA (what I use) will cost you $8.48, and developing it at the drug store here (where I tell them not to do any corrections, so I know what I did wrong) costs $15.21. This works out to $23.69 per roll. This works out to 338 rolls of film before the used SLR is more expensive than the equivalent quality in a new dSLR. That's a roll of film a week for almost six and a half years.
By that time you'll probably want more than just the normal lens, and the good news here is you can pick up really nice FD mount primes for $30-50 and zooms for $50-200.
I've done my calculations for Canon cameras because that's what my SLR is, but it would work for all the major manufacturers that have both film and digital SLR lines.
I'm pretty sure the stop-down preview slider is available on all FD mount canons. It's basically a stick that pushes the tab on the back of the lens that tells the iris to stop down. As far as I know, it only works on manual exposure or aperature priority (my AE-1P doesn't have aperature priority).
I should have pointed out before that focusing at full aperature actually makes it easier to focus. You can see really clearly what's in and what's out of focus. The wide depth of field and lousy viewfinder of my DiMAGE 7 makes it really hard to manually focus (and the autofocus is so slow and frequently not working as to make me not want to use autofocus).
Get one with a meter in it at least, until you get experienced enough to figure out the exposure yourself. Otherwise what you may get is randomly over and underexposed pictures, and the photo lab will adjust them all to average anyways and you won't be able to tell what's wrong with them.
But on price, you could use a roll of film a week for about 4 years before a $200 used SLR, film, and developing costs more than a decent dSLR.
The lenses you probably want are: 50mm (normal), 28mm (wide angle), ~135mm prime (portraits), and ~70-200mm (zoom).
So far, it looks like they're saying that dSLRs always have shallow depth of field, which is less than helpful.
Iff you know how to use it, any Digital or Film SLR should have whatever depth of field you need, and should be really fast to dial in the right setting. On my Canon AE-1 Program (a 1980 film SLR) it takes me seconds to dial the shutter speed to one that will force the aperature to what I want. Shooting portraits, I use a fast shutter to force a shallow depth of field; shooting landscapes, I use a slow shutter to force a wide depth of field.
For better results, sometimes I use the simplified zone system with the built-in lightmeter.
My Minolta DiMAGE 7 (a digital cam midway between a compact and a dSLR) only has wide depth of field. This can be handy for some shots, but I find it annoying for others. Also the shutter and aperature are awkward to adjust manually, which makes the simplified zone system difficult to use. I greatly prefer the clarity (and NO LAG!) of my SLR viewfinder to the LCD and evf of my digital camera.
People into photography HAVE to use flash. If you don't use flash at night, everything is dark!
Night is one time when you really shouldn't use a flash. It's the fastest way to get a bad picture as it makes all the detail flattened and shadows harsh. You can get beautiful night photographs by using a tripod, slow (100iso) film or digital camera setting, and longer exposures.
Flash should only be used in daytime when the subject is backlit.
If you want cutting edge of the GIMP in gentoo you'll have to compile it yourself. 2.2-preN isn't even in portage yet (with good reason, it requires freetype 2.1.7+, which breaks compatibility with code written for freetype 2.1.5- (changed a global include file name)).
I tried it, but it still didn't support 16b/channel, so I re-emerged gimp-2.0 and went back to useing cinepaint for my digital camera pictures.
How expensive is it to pre-load a hard-drive image over a LAN? A cent of electricity and 10 minutes of time on the shelf before packaging. It could be included in the final test stage of the factory (assuming they test).
Oh yeah? Well installing app-text/ghostscript-7.07.1-r7 (the only 7.07.1 after r1 with keyword "x86") tries to apply a patch it doesn't download. And r4+ is a pre-requisite of kghostview, which is a prerequisite of kde.
35mm Cinema film is much lower quality and faster (bigger grain) than the best 35mm still film. Shooting stills on 35mm you can afford better film (you don't need several meters/minute), and you can take exposures longer than 1/24s. Sure, the scans will only match the absolute clarity of the film, but on 35mm using Fuji REALA or Velia the quality is way way better than the best APS-C CCD (most DSLRs). If you use a medium format or larger camera, it blows the 35mm quality away. A 6x6 negative or slide can be scanned to about 8000x8000 pixels (64Mpix). Imax movies use high quality 70mm film, but they still have to use a high shutter speed (48 frames/second).
Set your camera to "raw" mode. Then decode the images with "dcraw -4", and edit them with CinePaint or Photoshop Pro. Poof, you have 12-16 bit/colour images (depending on your camera).
Slashdot Mirror
Oral Sex?
In N, X is always positive!
I would be really pissed off if the developer at the darkroom service I use decided to do any of that without specific instructions from me.
They do stand a chance of reaching a carrier battle group in the sea of Japan, though.
At least it's not goatse.
Ever seen (or heard) what happens when you get cesium wet? Still have your hearing? Cesium explodes when submerged in water as it oxidizes with enough energy to pull the (very dense) oxygen out of the water. This leaves a bunch of free hydrogen, which mixes patly with the air, producing a secondary explosion, and partly with the water, producing acid. It's way more spectacular than a grain dust explosion. A few grams of cesium is enough to shred a 5 galon pail (as well as spraying any observers with slightly low PH water).
I was looking at an FTb yesterday (to use for astrophotography, it has a mechanical mirror lock-up, which the A series lacks). It didn't appear to have DoF preview.
Burn things. Especially fun things like cesium.
I don't think it's a fair comparison either. The key thing here is we're trying to get good quality pictures and learn about photography, not pad the salesperson's wallet. Comparing a new $1000 dSLR with a decent used SLR is like comparing new kias with used porches. To get the same quality as (for example) a Canon A 1 (a ~1980 SLR which retails used for about $200) you'd need about a 25 megapixel camera. You could come close to this with a Canon EOS-1Ds Mark-II which does 16.7 Megapixel, and retails for about $8000. Add to that a 512MB compactflash card at $200.
So, how much does really good film & passable developing for it cost? Well a roll of 36 exposures of Fuji REALA (what I use) will cost you $8.48, and developing it at the drug store here (where I tell them not to do any corrections, so I know what I did wrong) costs $15.21. This works out to $23.69 per roll. This works out to 338 rolls of film before the used SLR is more expensive than the equivalent quality in a new dSLR. That's a roll of film a week for almost six and a half years.
By that time you'll probably want more than just the normal lens, and the good news here is you can pick up really nice FD mount primes for $30-50 and zooms for $50-200.
I've done my calculations for Canon cameras because that's what my SLR is, but it would work for all the major manufacturers that have both film and digital SLR lines.
I'm pretty sure the stop-down preview slider is available on all FD mount canons. It's basically a stick that pushes the tab on the back of the lens that tells the iris to stop down. As far as I know, it only works on manual exposure or aperature priority (my AE-1P doesn't have aperature priority).
I should have pointed out before that focusing at full aperature actually makes it easier to focus. You can see really clearly what's in and what's out of focus. The wide depth of field and lousy viewfinder of my DiMAGE 7 makes it really hard to manually focus (and the autofocus is so slow and frequently not working as to make me not want to use autofocus).
Get one with a meter in it at least, until you get experienced enough to figure out the exposure yourself. Otherwise what you may get is randomly over and underexposed pictures, and the photo lab will adjust them all to average anyways and you won't be able to tell what's wrong with them.
But on price, you could use a roll of film a week for about 4 years before a $200 used SLR, film, and developing costs more than a decent dSLR.
The lenses you probably want are: 50mm (normal), 28mm (wide angle), ~135mm prime (portraits), and ~70-200mm (zoom).
People can stand still for 1/15th second no problem, but chances are you can't hold the camera still that long.
So far, it looks like they're saying that dSLRs always have shallow depth of field, which is less than helpful.
Iff you know how to use it, any Digital or Film SLR should have whatever depth of field you need, and should be really fast to dial in the right setting. On my Canon AE-1 Program (a 1980 film SLR) it takes me seconds to dial the shutter speed to one that will force the aperature to what I want. Shooting portraits, I use a fast shutter to force a shallow depth of field; shooting landscapes, I use a slow shutter to force a wide depth of field.
For better results, sometimes I use the simplified zone system with the built-in lightmeter.
My Minolta DiMAGE 7 (a digital cam midway between a compact and a dSLR) only has wide depth of field. This can be handy for some shots, but I find it annoying for others. Also the shutter and aperature are awkward to adjust manually, which makes the simplified zone system difficult to use. I greatly prefer the clarity (and NO LAG!) of my SLR viewfinder to the LCD and evf of my digital camera.
Night is one time when you really shouldn't use a flash. It's the fastest way to get a bad picture as it makes all the detail flattened and shadows harsh. You can get beautiful night photographs by using a tripod, slow (100iso) film or digital camera setting, and longer exposures.
Flash should only be used in daytime when the subject is backlit.
Sure, but a lot less funny.
How do you know the teens weren't just goofing off to show off for the camera? Hmmm?
Here's what you do:
Run a double-blind study by:
If you want cutting edge of the GIMP in gentoo you'll have to compile it yourself. 2.2-preN isn't even in portage yet (with good reason, it requires freetype 2.1.7+, which breaks compatibility with code written for freetype 2.1.5- (changed a global include file name)). I tried it, but it still didn't support 16b/channel, so I re-emerged gimp-2.0 and went back to useing cinepaint for my digital camera pictures.
How expensive is it to pre-load a hard-drive image over a LAN? A cent of electricity and 10 minutes of time on the shelf before packaging. It could be included in the final test stage of the factory (assuming they test).
And that would be cheaper for chinese people (who are buying with yuan) how?
Is $483US really cheap in the US? It's not cheap in Canada (unless a monitor is included).
Oh yeah? Well installing app-text/ghostscript-7.07.1-r7 (the only 7.07.1 after r1 with keyword "x86") tries to apply a patch it doesn't download. And r4+ is a pre-requisite of kghostview, which is a prerequisite of kde.
That's a newer version of GIMP than Gentoo (x86 linux stable)
That's the point of the OpenCD. The conversation is sopposed to go like this:
Average Joe Why should i use open-source? OS Advocate Here, I'll show you.35mm Cinema film is much lower quality and faster (bigger grain) than the best 35mm still film. Shooting stills on 35mm you can afford better film (you don't need several meters/minute), and you can take exposures longer than 1/24s. Sure, the scans will only match the absolute clarity of the film, but on 35mm using Fuji REALA or Velia the quality is way way better than the best APS-C CCD (most DSLRs). If you use a medium format or larger camera, it blows the 35mm quality away. A 6x6 negative or slide can be scanned to about 8000x8000 pixels (64Mpix). Imax movies use high quality 70mm film, but they still have to use a high shutter speed (48 frames/second).
Set your camera to "raw" mode. Then decode the images with "dcraw -4", and edit them with CinePaint or Photoshop Pro. Poof, you have 12-16 bit/colour images (depending on your camera).