daveh
Lifetime Member
Posts: 4,696
|
Post by daveh on Apr 10, 2012 18:32:48 GMT -5
Wayne, some list!
Kodaker, firstly, welcome. It seems you got a reasonable deal there.
|
|
daveh
Lifetime Member
Posts: 4,696
|
Post by daveh on Apr 10, 2012 13:28:17 GMT -5
|
|
daveh
Lifetime Member
Posts: 4,696
|
Post by daveh on Apr 9, 2012 18:00:30 GMT -5
A few more small birds. The local countryside rangers had a pond-dipping morning today, down at the Wirral Country Park. In the centre there is a bird hide. I only had the 18-200 lens attached, but the bird feeders are fairly close. bluetit: greenfinch chaffinch Taken just after midday: drizzle, cloudy, but not too dark. ISO 500-800, f 5.6-6.3, 1/250-1/320. Although set at 200mm focal length it is being reported as 179mm (which ties in with what I calculated when judged against against the Canon 70-200 lens).
|
|
daveh
Lifetime Member
Posts: 4,696
|
Post by daveh on Apr 9, 2012 16:37:06 GMT -5
Thanks for the identification. Some of the names I knew, other not. We've talked about the robin before - ours is quite different.
I don't think we have the mourning dove in Britain except as an occasional visitor. We do have the similar collared dove.
Dave.
|
|
daveh
Lifetime Member
Posts: 4,696
|
Post by daveh on Apr 9, 2012 16:12:13 GMT -5
Doug, I've mentioned before that my original digital camera, a Panasonic DMC-FZ1, had just 2 megapixels, but a good zoom lens and took very nice photos. Megapixels aren't everything.
Dave.
|
|
daveh
Lifetime Member
Posts: 4,696
|
Post by daveh on Apr 9, 2012 16:08:04 GMT -5
Did it take you that long to realise it was cold and it was snowing? I like the photo - any more in the series? Dave.
|
|
daveh
Lifetime Member
Posts: 4,696
|
Post by daveh on Apr 9, 2012 16:05:06 GMT -5
Mark,
I've never sold a camera. I have given a camera away and have mislaid a few. The same with lenses. I do regret giving a Cosinon 24mm in PK fit away.
Dave.
|
|
daveh
Lifetime Member
Posts: 4,696
|
Post by daveh on Apr 9, 2012 15:58:06 GMT -5
|
|
daveh
Lifetime Member
Posts: 4,696
|
Post by daveh on Apr 9, 2012 15:36:40 GMT -5
Dig Dawg asked on his great 'small birds' thread "what is a hoverfly". I suppose the short answer is that a hoverfly is a fly that hovers. In British gardens in the summer they are plentiful. They can be seen hovering for two or three seconds, then suddenly darting to a new position. I haven't looked up the exact scientific definition. Many have yellow and black stripes to warn off predators. When landed most have their wings open like an ordinary fly, though some do have closed wings. I have posted several photos of them over the last year or so, but here are some I haven't posted before: 1 & 2 are the most common in our garden, with either no banding on the thorax, or just light banding. 3. with its strong vertical thorax banding occasionally pops in. 5,6 & 7 also seem less frequent. Perhaps this year I shall try doing a head count and also try to properly identify them.
|
|
daveh
Lifetime Member
Posts: 4,696
|
Post by daveh on Apr 9, 2012 4:13:06 GMT -5
With reference to what you say in part 3 (small birds tend only to be still for a second or two), what is true of people is also true of birds. Some do seem more photogenic than others: some pose for the photo while others always turn their head or fly off just as the shutter is pressed.
By the way, do you know all the species you are photographing? I keep trying to learn and remember but other than the common and easy-to-recognise species I've never found it easy. I probably need to concentrate my efforts and time - but then there are hoverflies and suchlike to learn about as well. There are several hundred species or sub-species of hoverfly in the British Isles.
Thanks for posting.
|
|
daveh
Lifetime Member
Posts: 4,696
|
Post by daveh on Apr 9, 2012 3:51:31 GMT -5
My Canon has not had one clogged jet. I use a Swiss made ink that is a tenth of the cost of the Canon ink. Fading is as much, if not more, a problem of using cheap paper as it is the ink. I can definitely say that is true as I had two A3 prints at the rugby club in direct sun over a couple of years. One on cheap paper, the other on 'proper' stuff, but both with the same ink. The cheap paper had faded, the other was still okay. (How okay I don't know because they were in the one borderless frame.
Final colour is another thing. One problem, of course, is setting up the computer screen to show the colours accurately in the first place. I do think screens have got better as time has gone on, but it is still interesting to compare colours from one screen to the next. The second thing on colour is to compare different papers. From the same printer with the same inks papers do vary in their final appearance. Photoshop and the Canon 9000 have the ability to set ICC profiles. Thirdly, even with other things being equal, it will depend on the colour space of the original file, and whether the photo-processing software fully handles it or converts it to the standard RGB (and how well it converts it.)
It seems to me it's a minefield. I'm not sure if improved colour matching (and it does seem to have improved) is just luck or whether the manufacturers have tightened up their tolerances.
Finally cost: certainly for 6x4 and 7x5 prints it is significantly cheaper to take 100+ at a time down to the local shop, producing its optical prints on proper photographic paper, than it is to use good inkjet paper and the proper Canon inks and print at home.
|
|
daveh
Lifetime Member
Posts: 4,696
|
Post by daveh on Apr 8, 2012 1:25:47 GMT -5
Metric sizes: we, being Europe, are on metric sizes for everything except road distances. I still translate into proper units. Somehow 6x4 sounds better than 15x10, or 150x100 (we should use the mm rather than the cm) - and 10x8 sounds better than whatever it is on the metric system.
Printers: every new model seems to introduce a new 'safety feature' to make it harder to use third party inks. I do wonder if the manufacturers sold everything at a sensible price whether they wouldn't make just as much in the long run.
Wayne, as you say the printers are sold with half-ink cartridges. The laser printer I bought for about £110 has four toners. Full price for each and the tioal cost is almost £200. In effect the printer is being sold for a tenner.
As regards your 'out of date ink': I had an Epson with 'continuous ink supply'. When the head starting failing I bought a newer model - carefully researching so that the CISS would still fit. It fitted physically, but not, as it were, mentally. It just wouldn't operate at all with it. Nor would it take the cheap cartridges that were being sold at that time. (I think it was a case that the 'cheap' manufacturers needed to upgrade their chips to be recognisable on the newer printer. The net result was that I gave up on Epson and bought a Canon A3+ (model 9000) which is better in most respects. I suspect the original purchase price isn't discounted as much, but it's certainly easy to get cheaper inks.
My nephew has/had an A2 (or was it even as big as A0?) plotter-printer, but then he is a professional photographer.
I suppose this illustrates the difference between analogue and digital. With analogue enlargements you just needed more distance between the enlarger and the easel. A cheap system would do the job. With digital each next size up needs further investment.
The best thing we did at home was to install a wireless printer/scanner. It saves having to connect a lead every time we want to use it, and, as long as the computer is within 'earshot' it'll print from anywhere. All the house is covered, and some of the garden too.
|
|
daveh
Lifetime Member
Posts: 4,696
|
Post by daveh on Apr 8, 2012 0:45:54 GMT -5
The trouble with small birds is that they are........well.......they are small and they tend to fly off if you get too close, unlike many insects which seem happy to let you take that macro photograph.
I haven't, as it stands, really got the magnification power to take them other than on the feeders, about twelve feet away. My lenses only go up to 300mm (480 on the Canon). I did buy (cheap) a 500mm mirror lens. While that 'makes things closer' it is quite soft and the Canon lens cropped gives better results.
The answer might be a remote control. There is one for the Canon from Hong Kong which, if the camera is on live view, allows you to see on the remote screen what's in shot.
The Bigma as an every day lens? (I think perhaps on one of the other two threads.) The thought occurred to me to carry two round and do a little weight training when there's nothing to photograph! ;D
It certainly is a nice lens though. I want one.
|
|
daveh
Lifetime Member
Posts: 4,696
|
Post by daveh on Apr 7, 2012 11:56:45 GMT -5
Mickey,
Yes it certainly depends who is doing the listening how many accents or dialects (or whatever) there are. There was a professor of linguistics who could differentiate between people from different areas of a town or city. Few on Merseyside say 'book'. Some say 'buke' while others say 'buck'. I think the truth is that there is almost as many variations as there are people.
Dave.
|
|
daveh
Lifetime Member
Posts: 4,696
|
Post by daveh on Apr 7, 2012 11:48:12 GMT -5
Hye,
It's often the luck of the draw. One would reasonably have expected Sony to have kept going with their printer. I suppose though they did lose out with their Betamax to the other companies and VHS in spite of Betamax probably being better. (Of course there was also Philips and V2000 (if I have the name right).)
We have got a couple HP of inkjet 6x4: an early one, which still works fine and a later one which developed a problem (I'm now not quite sure what it was) which made it unreliable. The Canon is much better quality anyway, so in a sense the breakdown was a good thing.
Dave.
|
|