Jump to content

Russell Watkins

Verified
  • Content Count

    526
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Russell Watkins

  1. Meanwhile, that litre bottle of whisky that weighs a couple of kg and would deliver a nasty blow in the wrong hands can be bought in Duty Free and taken on board. It's joined up twattery.
  2. A couple of dancers at a street party: . . . . . . Effects pedals and a guitarist's foot: . . . . . .
  3. What's his final output going to be though? 12MP shortest edge in 3:2 format is ~2800 px. At 300dpi that's 9.3 inches.
  4. Why does he need 16MP? In a controlled shooting environment, he'd likely get away with far less.
  5. Easy. He should tell Wikimedia that he encouraged the macaque to press the shutter. So it was work made for hire. The macaque received a banana in payment.
  6. Uploaded in August (taken at a London Street Fayre a few weeks back): . .
  7. By the way everyone, it is easy-peasy to do the form as Graham suggests. Took me 5 minutes to set up an account and fill in the form.
  8. Sometimes I do, sometimes I don't. I really like vignetting so I have to rein myself in otherwise I overdo it.
  9. Here's the rub, Paul. Define "lowering standards". I have seen some absolutely stunning iPhoneography*. Stunning. How many times do we hear that it's not the kit but the photographer? *Other cameraphone brand neologisms are probably available.
  10. But the physics of it are that the focal length, as measured on an optical bench, is 18-55mm. The image circle doesn't enter into it. Turn it around. Put a 24-70mm "full frame" lens or that 50mm Medium Format Hassy on an APS-C sensor. What are their focal lengths now? Another way to think about it is to use the 24-70mm on a full frame but crop the image to the field of view of an APS-C sensor. It now looks like a 36-105mm field of view but the focal length hasn't changed. You've just (arbitrarily) cropped your image to look like it was shot with a longer focal length. Remember. This is all arbitrary (sorry for repeating myself). The "35mm equivalent" descriptor arises because of familiarity with that format. If no-one ever used the 35mm or full frame format and instead used nothing but 120 format film until APS-C came along, we'd be applying a different crop factor. And the only reason we have full frame now is so that all of our lenses designed for our old 35mm fillum cameras work on a 1-to-1 basis. These are all accidents of history.
  11. Ed, as a Australian living in Upper Bavaria i have tried to yodel, unfortunately for others there was a lot of noise that did not pass the local Bavarian yodeling QC . Paul. Too soft?
  12. Ah yes, having read your post again Allan, you seem to have things back to front. Every lens I've ever seen on any camera - including small sensor compacts - is marked with actual focal length. It's only the marketing bumph that then gives the 35mm equivalent (which as I said above is arbitrary but familiar).
  13. It's arbitrary and born out of familiarity. By way of comparison, a focal length of 50mm is considered wide angle on a medium format camera yet surprisingly, you don't see "35mm equivalent" focal lengths quoted for, say, a Hassy. It's also worth saying that as a result of this arbitrariness, this "35 equivalent" thing is responsible for all of the wibble you see about DOF with a given aperture.
  14. And another thought... John, can you post a 100% crop of the same area but without any NR applied? I think the already applied NR is also contributing to the "unusual texture".
  15. Me neither. I think it looks "unusually textured" because you have a combination of defocus due to the limits of the depth of field and degradation due to optical aberrations at the periphery of the lens overlaid on wavy reflective water. Part of me wonders how it would look if you'd used a polarizing/polarising filter. I'd be happily submitting this (with a small crop) if everything else was satisfactory at 100%. It's a nice shot.
  16. Just had my longest wait ever - 6 days for a batch of 32. I was getting a bit twitchy...
  17. The correct pronunciation is "abba-wrist-with" although some say, "abba-rust-with". In both cases, the final "-th" is pronounced more like it is in "pith" than it is in "with". KM is an inspiration.
  18. Nice - and surprising - to be included again. Every month seems to be a really tough call but you've done a grand job, Tom.
  19. My third and final image, and keeping with the rail meme... . .
  20. Nice blog entry Ed. The word "like" is a word I have come to "dislike" because of its over use. Walk around town here and every couple of teenage girls you pass, all you hear is the word "like". Every generation has its "word". Anyone remember the word "gear" from the 60's? Made popular in England by the Beatles I believe. It was like, "Ghia", like. Used in much the same way as "awesome" is now.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.