Random Photos

[Flyboy]

Got my first rolls of film through my Nikon F, and they just sent me the developed and scanned photos...

I think I can say with certainty that it works great. Still need to get a better feel for the loading process, as I bungled that at least once and lost a few frames worth of exposures, but otherwise it's working flawlessly.

 

[jtbell]

Got my first rolls of film through my Nikon F

Slide (transparency) or negative film?

I think the last time I used either was about 20 years ago.

Added: According to the storage binders from my closet, and the scans on my archive hard disks, the last slides were in 1994, and the last negatives were in 2002. I bought my first digital camera in January 2003.

 

[Flyboy]

Slide (transparency) or negative film?

I think the last time I used either was about 20 years ago.

Added: According to the storage binders from my closet, and the scans on my archive hard disks, the last slides were in 1994, and the last negatives were in 2002. I bought my first digital camera in January 2003.

Negative film. Fujifilm 200 speed, to be precise.

 

[jtbell]

Negative film. Fujifilm 200 speed, to be precise.

What resolution were the scans? IIRC my Nikon film scanner produces about 3000x2000 pixels from a 35mm frame, enough to show the grain in my negative film, which was usually Kodak 100 or 200 for outdoor shots. Indoors I used 800 or even 1600 which of course had bigger grain.

 

[Flyboy]

What resolution were the scans? IIRC my Nikon film scanner produces about 3000x2000 pixels from a 35mm frame, enough to show the grain in my negative film, which was usually Kodak 100 or 200 for outdoor shots. Indoors I used 800 or even 1600 which of course had bigger grain.

I didn’t scan them myself, they were provided by the lab that did the development. But the images were quite sizable, somewhere in the size you mentioned.

 

[morrobay]

Joan Jett on the bay. Google search a song agreed. Between the bay and Lam Pho seafood market in Naklua.

 

[morrobay]

 

[jtbell]

More from my Florida trip in December. I did something only a railfan would do: a day-trip from Orlando to Miami on the Brightline train service that began in September 2023. I rode the first segment between Fort Lauderdale and West Palm Beach shortly after it opened in January 2018. This trip took 3.5 hours each way, with about 2.5 hours in Miami.

The Orlando station is at the airport, integrated with one of the airline terminals. I stayed at a hotel near the airport. I took a city bus to the airport (about a five-minute ride) so I wouldn't have to pay for parking, about $20 for a whole day IIRC. Not surprisingly, the station feels a lot like an airline lounge.

Instead of overlooking the runways, the large windows overlook the tracks.

The tracks start out heading straight east through swamps to Cocoa, near Cape Canaveral. This section was newly built.

From Cocoa, trains use the Florida East Coast Railway tracks to Miami. They pass through or near the centers of the towns along the line (although with no stations until WPB), with occasional crossings of river inlets.

Just south of the Fort Lauderdale station, I crossed the New River, where I walked many times while visiting my parents there during the 1970s-2000s.

And I passed the Fort Lauderdale airport, which I've used a few times, although I usually drove down there.

 

[DennisN]

Some spring shots from today...

Growing...

Colorful spring leaves:

More spring leaves:

Spring daffodil:

Unknown plants (at least to me) coming up:

Stinking hellebore:

(Gear: Sony A7R + Helios 44M7 58mm + CPL filter)

 

[nsaspook]

Snake in a jar?

The snake is a Habu.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habushu

 

[dwarde]

The proverbial shortcut through the pass.

 

[Tom.G]

But it sure beats rappelling down some of the surrounding landscape!

 

[symbolipoint]

I really had trouble adjusting the image. Here! Fence Lizard. Note how the coloration of the piece of wood so closely matches the lizard.

Recorded image with Google Photos(actually starting with the Camera app on the mobile device), and downloaded to computer. I then opened the image in whatever the application that Windows by default provides and struggled trying to put the borders closer and magnify. I really have poor skill with what I hoped would be easy-to-do-cropping.

 

[nsaspook]

Getting the pots ready for spring planting.

 

[gmax137]

Closer crop, using Paint

 

[symbolipoint]

The adjsustment which @gmax137 used motivated me to try something like it.

Took different photograph a few seconds different from the other one, and downldd to computer. Opened the file in MS Paint. Made a size change to resize, 115% or 15% increase for vertical and horizontal. Then made a reagion selection for "cropping", opened a "new" empty file of MS Paint and pasted what I had just made into this "new" empty file. Then saved with a new file name. Here is that fence lizard again.

something is not working. I see three dimmed buttons below composition field.

Image is in the post but way toooo small.

 

[jtbell]

Spring is here, and so is the pine pollen.

Looks like we had a visitor, probably a cat, on top of the car.

 

[Borg]

Looks like we had a visitor, probably a cat, on top of the car.

Just call him the Pollenator.

 

[jtbell]

Some other local sources of pollen:

 

[gmax137]

The adjsustment which @gmax137 used motivated me to try something like it.

Took different photograph a few seconds different from the other one, and downldd to computer. Opened the file in MS Paint. Made a size change to resize, 115% or 15% increase for vertical and horizontal. Then made a reagion selection for "cropping", opened a "new" empty file of MS Paint and pasted what I had just made into this "new" empty file. Then saved with a new file name. Here is that fence lizard again.
View attachment 359095
something is not working. I see three dimmed buttons below composition field.

Image is in the post but way toooo small.

I'm no expert but a couple of things:
Instead of copy/paste, I just "Save As" my changed image and give it a new filename. Paint will ask what file type you want to save as, for this I pick jpeg.

I always thought the resizing option is how to change the file size. I use it to reduce the file size, for posting to PF or any other on-screen version I make it maybe 30 or 25%, this greatly reduces the file size without affecting the screen level of detail. Did you make it 115 percent or 15%? I'm not sure what making it more than 100 percent really does.

I looked at your latest image file, in "Properties" it shows 2.16 KB; this is very low and I think that's why the image looks tiny. I don't know why your image is just the upper left corner of a bigger "blank" space. That seems weird to me. Is it a "print screen" image, maybe?

 

[symbolipoint]

Quote of gmax137

Did you make it 115 percent or 15%? I'm not sure what making it more than 100 percent really does.

I looked at your latest image file, in "Properties" it shows 2.16 KB; this is very low and I think that's why the image looks tiny. I don't know why your image is just the upper left corner of a bigger "blank" space. That seems weird to me. Is it a "print screen" image, maybe?

100% means no size change. I chose to put as 115%, meaning size increase by 15%. I expected but did not obtain a increase in visible size that I hoped for . I need to learn to use a different tool.

I never use "Print Screen". I had used it a few times, more than a decade ago but no more.

I KNOW I put some few images into posts on PF a few times and had very little trouble. I feel like trying again just for the technical exercise.

 

[morrobay]

This is the upscale enclave between Pattaya bay and Naklua bay: Wong Amat

 

[DennisN]

Experimentation time...

Yesterday I tried something I hadn't tried before; shooting close-ups with long tele lenses.
(an article here about it: Shooting Telephoto Macros (OM System))

I did it just for fun to see how it would go, and that's one of the most fun things about the photography hobby; there are so many different ways to take photos.

I shot with a 400 mm lens, and that's a bit ridiculous, but if you are experimenting why not do something weird?

My initial thought was that the subjects would become very isolated due to a low depth of field and very blurry backgrounds, and that turned out to be true. But there are practical and ergonomical downsides using such a large and "powerful" lens, but more about that after the photos.

All in all it was fun to try, the backgrounds usually easily got very blurry and it was quite a different experience shooting this way.

(Gear for all photos: Sony A6000 + Tokina 400mm f/5.6)

Downsides:

400 mm lenses tend to be heavy, and the one I used weighs almost 1 kg, so it's not very easy, practical nor fun shooting handheld , so I used a tripod. And the minimum focus distance for this lens is 400 mm 400 cm, that is, 4 meters (!), so I had to be at least 4 meters away from the subject . I think this type of photography is usually done with lenses with focal lengths between ca 100-135 mm, lenses which tend to be smaller than 400 mm lenses.

 

[jtbell]

I did take some pictures in Miami, but I had only about 2.5 hours between trains from and to Orlando, so I mostly walked around inside and just outside the MiamiCentral station development. Yes, they run the words together. Thatseemstobethethingnowadays.

When I was here about 7 years ago, It was still under construction: two tall blocks of apartments with the station and shops at the base.

The Brightline station is similar in style to the one in Orlando, but larger.

You scan the QR code on your ticket (either paper or on your phone) to enter the waiting lounge.

Beanbags for the kids:

There's even an art gallery.

 

[jrmichler]

A pileated woodpecker has been chopping on this dead tree all winter. Since the tree is 65 feet from our picture window, we have had a good view. Only about 1/4 of the tree is shown, the rest has just as many holes. What you see on the ground is a thick layer of wood chips. For those not familiar with pileated woodpeckers, they are about the size of a crow and sound like some kid with a hatchet is going crazy near the house.

 

[Andy Resnick]

Experimentation time...

Yesterday I tried something I hadn't tried before; shooting close-ups with long tele lenses.
(an article here about it: Shooting Telephoto Macros (OM System))

I try that occasionally, just to remind myself of the optical effect. I'll put a Nikon M2 extension tube on the back of my 400/2.8 (or even better, on the back of the 400/2.8 + 2x tele!) which changes the focus range from 2 meters -> inf to 2 meters -> 2 meters + a couple of centimeters. The images are slightly different than shooting without the M2, but not radically so... I'll post some results here (if I remember to).

 

[DennisN]

400/2.8 + 2x tele!

Thanks for the idea, I have to try that! (that is, tele lens + teleconverter).

 

[Andy Resnick]

Here's some comparison shots I took a few weeks ago, when the first flowers popped up. I'm comparing my 55mm Micro Nikkor w/ M2 and 400/2.8 Nikkor (w/ M2), both set to close focus and both stopped down quite a bit (IIRC, 55mm @ f/11 and 400mm @ f/16), otherwise the depth of focus is sub-mm. First, the 55mm (whole frame and 1:1 crop)

and the 400mm:

While the whole-frame 400mm definitely has a certain 'macro appearance', I could probably achieve that same effect much more easily by using a different lens (say, 105/1.4 Nikkor).

There is a 200/4 Micro Nikkor I've had my eye on, but I'm insufficiently motivated to actually look for a good used one since I don't really need it for anything. If someone offered me one for $10, tho.... :)

 

[Andy Resnick]

Thanks for the idea, I have to try that! (that is, tele lens + teleconverter).

For me, the combination is essential for astrophotography. I've seen people stack 2x and 1.6x teleconverters to extend the focal length to 9600mm or so:

https://cameraville.co/blog/teleconverter-stacking-9600mm-five-2x-extenders

but honestly, it's a little silly (never mind the f/# decreases proportionally). And the optical axis eventually starts to sag due to gravity...

 

[DennisN]

I've seen people stack 2x and 1.6x teleconverters to extend the focal length to 9600mm or so:

https://cameraville.co/blog/teleconverter-stacking-9600mm-five-2x-extenders

Haha, really funny!