?

Log in

Shutterbugs 'R Us [entries|archive|friends|userinfo]
lensjunkie

[ website | Lensbox Studios ]
[ userinfo | livejournal userinfo ]
[ archive | journal archive ]

Around the World [Jul. 20th, 2007|12:22 pm]
lensjunkie

divpic


See more pictures (+14)

linkpost comment

Cat Planet [Jul. 19th, 2007|12:20 pm]
lensjunkie

divpic



See more pictures (+17)

linkpost comment

I finally got my Lightning shot back from Dad... [Oct. 7th, 2004|12:41 pm]
lensjunkie

medraught
Recently, at my Father's wedding, I managed to catch another lightning strike. I think it's a pretty good example of the explanation that lightning strikes upward as opposed to downward.

15 second exposure, F-stop 8.0, 200ASA equivalent. Handheld, balanced on a railing. Fuji Finepix S7000 at 8MP.

Thanks to my father for the use of his latest toy for this shot.

Oh, for those skeptics out there that think I'm a bit loony when I say lightning strikes upwards, read below for a more scientific explanation.



If IMGSpot is down, you can also view it here at Renderosity.

" Lightning happens when a cloud builds up a separation of charge. The bottom of the cloud (facing the earth) has a negative charge (extra electrons) while the top of the cloud expels positive charges up and out into the upper atmosphere. So the cloud has all this extra electrical energy on the side facing the earth, and eventually it dumps the energy down towards the earth, which tends to have a positive charge (for complex reasons) compared to the cloud's underbelly.

When the stroke begins, a series of little pulses of electricity come down from the cloud towards the earth at really high speeds (about 1/6 the speed of light!). These pulses are called steps, and the trail they pulse down along is called the step leader. (not ladder). The air gets ionized along the step leader and so this column of air becomes a good conductor of electricity. So when the step leader (which is so faint that it is practically invisible) hits the earth, a "conducting wire" of air is set up from the cloud to the earth.

Now charge can flow, but the first charges to move are the ones at the bottom of the wire (near the earth). So, the stroke (which is now visible) starts at the bottom (the earth) and runs UPWARDS from the ground! This return stroke produces the bright light and a lot of heat, which causes the air to expand suddenly, which causes a thunderclap. This sequence often repeats, with the charge going up and down the leader. "


Taken from Ask A Scientist
linkpost comment

Debate - Digital vs Analog [Feb. 26th, 2004|01:00 pm]
lensjunkie

medraught
Something that has probably been rehashed time and time again, but something I want to discuss nonetheless.

What are the pros and cons of digital vs analog... Some thoughts; feel free to add or expand on them:

Digital:

  • is initially more expensive, but for the average man on the street, saves a fortune in printing costs later on.

  • with a good set of rechargeable batteries, you can keep going for a long long time...

  • depending on the camera quality, a good substitute for standard print quality photographs.

  • allows for instant review

  • allows for deletion

  • allows for quick editing

  • more forgiving, cost wise, when it comes to being trigger happy

  • more portable

  • ideal for beginners and snapshot shutterbugs

  • is not always suited to low-light photography (depending on the camera and the compensation grain it introduces)

  • is hampered by slower reaction speeds unless you're using a top class camera

  • is often not TTL and thus viewfinder vs LCD conflicts occur

  • breeds lazy habits in photographers that click away without thought of composition and lighting (even I am guilty of this)

  • medium and large format kits are hideously expensive

  • have complex UI's and too many buttons to confuse a new user that has maybe switched from an older, simpler SLR or compact camera


Analog, on the other hand, the old workhorse of the photographic world, also has it's pros and cons:

  • film and development costs can be daunting to an unwary shutterbug

  • older SLR camera's are complex in their simplicity and sometimes feel very awkward and unwieldy

  • newer SLR's are expensive and dedicated lenses are very expensive

  • very few people have their own darkrooms anymore or know the processes needed to develop and print their own works

  • you have to wait till you get your films developed and printed to see your results

  • they require patience and understanding of techniques because it's pointless wasting an entire spool to get one good photo

  • they're faster than most digital cameras

  • they force you to compose scenes through the viewfinder and not an LCD, and TTL viewfinders give you a better idea of the scene anyway

  • compact camera's are a dime a dozen and fairly decent most of the time, requiring less technical knowledge of photography to achieve a relatively decent image

I use both. Digital compacts and analog compact and SLR. I do more experimental work in digital and portraiture and more traditional work with the analogs.

Ok, now it's your turn... Your thoughts are welcome.
link1 comment|post comment

(no subject) [Feb. 25th, 2004|11:42 pm]
lensjunkie

medraught
I created lensjunkie tonight for anyone that is interested in photography and all related topics. Feel free to join and to pass on to other people.

I'm not the world's greatest shutterbug but I'm learning as I go and willing to share with others. Also, always open to advice from others.
linkpost comment

navigation
[ viewing | most recent entries ]