#F=60mm

[photoclic64]

Cœur d'une Fleur de la passion, Bayonne

Passiflora ensata, Amérique du sud

Jean-Marie SUHUBIETTE

[photoncatcher]

Nikon D610; 1/1000; F/4.5; ISO 100; 60mm

03/09/2024

[calochortus]

G9 Lumix 12-60mm f/3.5-5.6 by Paweł Świątek Via Flickr: 31.10.2021, Pszczyna

[nathantwong]

San Francisco skyline - 1996 by nathantw Via Flickr: The San Francisco Skyline in 1996.

[dphotoworld]

Новый макрообъектив Meike 60mm f/2.8 стоит всего 190 долларов

Meike анонсировала новый макрообъектив 60mm f/2... Читать дальше »

[karingottschalk]

Panasonic North America on the Lumix S5 II for Videographers. And Cinematographers For That Matter

Panasonic North America on the Lumix S5 II for Videographers. And Cinematographers For That Matter

[inyoureyes-415]

sorry if this has already been asked before, but what cameras do you use?

Hey yeah not a problem! I used to have my list as my pinned post

Digital camera:

📷 Olympus OM-D III

Digital lenses:

📸 Olympus M.Zuiko zoom 14-42mm f/3.5 (kit lens)

📸 Lumix G Vario 35-100mm f/4.0

📸 Lumix G Vario 12-60mm f/3.5

Film cameras:

📷 Konica Autoreflex T (1968-1970)

📷 Minolta XG 9 (1979)

Film lenses:

📸 Konica Hexanon AR 52mm f/1.8

📸 Minolta MD Rokkor-X 45mm f/2.0

📸 Tokina 80-200mm f/4.0

[seabeck]

FAQ + About (for mobile)

About me: My name is Milli (she/her), 25yrs. I love taking photos of nature and my Subaru. I’m a huge nerd about mushrooms, plants, and skulls. I’ve been hiking ever since I was a little kid and at this point I feel at home in the woods.

I have a flock of chickens, a boyfriend, a dog, and waaay too many house plants

Did you take all the photos on this blog?

Yep, every photo posted here was taken by yours truly unless otherwise noted (very rare).

What camera/lenses do you use? 

My crop sensor/work kit is:

Nikon D7100

10-20mm f/4.5-5.6G VR

Dolica ZX600B103 Tripod

My full frame kit is:

Nikon D850

Sigma 150-600mm f5.6-6.3 

50mm f/1.8 G

60mm f/2.8 ED Macro

Nikon 105mm f/2.8 VR G

17-35mm f2.8 

20mm 1.8 ED sold

Sigma 150-500mm f5.6-6.3  sold

Kenko extension tubes

Raynox 250

Vanguard Alta Pro 263AB (works for macro + everything else)

Filters and other gear:

Hoya circular polarizers + Stop down/up kit

Nikon camera backpack (discontinued)/TARION Camera Backpack

Instax Mini 90

Other cameras I’ve owned:

D50

D200

D3000

D7000

Here’s my lens wish list, some are on there for fun and some I actually want.

What camera gear would you recommend for a beginner?

Before you worry too much about getting the best gear, make sure you learn how to use it first. You could go out and buy the fanciest camera and lenses and still not take good photos because you don’t know how to use your camera or how to “see”. There’s also a saying, “you marry your lenses and date your bodies”. Invest in good lenses, preferably full frame compatible ones in case you ever decide to upgrade to full frame, and get a cheaper body to start. With that out of the way…

If you’re just starting out, I’d recommend getting a refurbished or used camera from the D7100+ line. They’ve come down in price as of late and are pretty solid cameras. Just make sure to check the shutter count.

I’d skip anything from the D3000 & D5000 lines. They’re not bad cameras but they do not have built in autofocus meaning they rely on the lens itself having autofocus. This isn’t horrible but it does limit what lenses you can use (and some of the lenses that won’t autofocus with those cameras are good AND cheap) and that can be confusing for a beginner.

As for a lens, a 50mm f/1.8, or 35mm f/1.8 is a great lens. Both lenses are inexpensive, have good quality glass, and can used for nearly everything. The 18-55mm lens that comes with cameras isn’t bad either. 

I don’t shoot Canon/Sony/whatever else so I can’t give any advice there sorry!

How did you learn to take photos?

LOTS of practice, I first picked up a camera back in 2013. In high school and college I took photography classes but ultimately I didn’t really learn much from them, they started at too basic of a level.

I did learn a lot about photography from taking art classes however. They taught me framing, how to use shadows/light, and movement in a photo (where does your eye travel when you view an image/art piece). My mom is also a professional photojournalist so I picked up some knowledge from her and my grandfather who’s also a published photographer.

How can I take better photos?

Again, lots of practice. Learn what every setting and button on your camera does, try different shooting modes, take the same photo at several different apertures and shutter speeds to see what changes. You can learn a lot from reading articles too but the best way to learn, imo, is by doing. Don’t worry about getting the best gear and the best camera, learn how to take photos first.

Study other photographers photos, and even paintings, and see what you like. Pay attention to directional lines and where your eye travels. Learn how to use Photoshop/Lightroom (just pirate it). Take photos in different weather, lighting, and times of day. 

What programs do you use to edit? What presets/filters do you use?

I use Lightroom and Photoshop Classic along with custom presets that I’ve made for different situations (fog, snow, etc) to process most of my images and then I make minor tweaks. A lot of my presets started as VSCO presets and then I kept the things I liked and changed the things I didn’t.

What is your job?

I’m a real estate photographer specializing in short term rentals. I love it.

Are you related to Eddie Vedder?

Yep, we’re very distantly related. Something like 7th cousins twice removed but I’ve never met him.

Can you add a photo to your print shop?

Sure! Just tell me the name of the photo (or link it if possible, I reuse a lot of names) you want added and I’ll get it up there.

May I use one of your photos?

I’m 100% ok with people using my photos as a reference for drawing/painting, I’d even love to see the result. For anything else, just shoot me an ask beforehand and I’ll let you know. Please do not repost my photos on Tumblr or elsewhere without my permission.

[cctrain0722]

今年の冬を振り返る　～糠平湖・タウシュベツ編～

私にとって冬の一大イベント！糠平湖探索。 今年も許可を取り、ファットバイクでじっくり湖上ライドを楽しみました。

しかしながら今年は水位が上がりきらず、2月入る前にシーズン終了…切なさを感じながらも、約1年ぶりに対面する橋はもうボロボロ。

橋がすべて湖に沈みきらなかったためか、橋脚上に湖氷はなし。 その重みによる崩壊がなかったとは思いましたが、橋の下には崩れた礫が散乱していました。

また来年会う時には、この綺麗なアーチが無くなっているかもしれない…しかしそれも自然に還る姿。

今ある景色。目に焼き付けました。

一枚目【焦点距離】85mm【ISO】64【SS】1/1250【F値】/5.6 二段目左【焦点距離】60mm【ISO】125【SS】1/250【F値】/8 二段目右【焦点距離】40mm【ISO】64【SS】1/2000【F値】/2.8 四枚目【焦点距離】24mm【ISO】64【SS】1/4000【F値】/2.8 四段目左【焦点距離】40mm【ISO】125【SS】1/2500【F値】/5.6 四段目右【焦点距離】85mm【ISO】64【SS】1/6400【F値】/2.8 七枚目【焦点距離】24mm【ISO】64【SS】1/4000【F値】/2.8 八枚目【焦点距離】85mm【ISO】64【SS】1/1000【F値】/8

[qsycomplainsalot]

Excelsior-Thevenot type AF Grenade

Manufactured by F. Thevenot fils in France c.1914-15 for the French and Italian armed forces. 60mm caliber, 220mm height, 80gr explosive charge, 40-100m range, sheet steel and brass. The Excelsior grenade launcher is somewhat of an oddity, even among other ad-hoc French WW1 artillery, in that it could almost be compared to the single-use recoilless AT weapons used by modern armies, in design if not in purpose. Thevenot’s Excelsior grenade was originally a percussive stick design, meaning the impact of it landing caused it to explode. Unlike other percussive grenades, it used an impeller to measure some time of flight before arming itself, which made it safer for its user but also more likely to be a dud due to possible malfunction of this mechanism.

The Excelsior was called the P2 in French service, for percussive, and also the “ballerina” for its fabric skirt. This was supposed to make sure the grenade would fly impeller first, so it would arm itself properly.

Because the French army is not known to let any stockpiled ordnance go to waste, the hand grenade was redesigned into a rifle grenade, and more interestingly into a light mortar. Both these designs increased the projectile’s range which in turn made sure its arming device based on air-time would work reliably. The lightweight launcher was built out of sheet steel, painted blue for explosive and red for incendiary ordnance. It carried a single Excelsior grenade, now with a rounded brass shell and a steel finned body.

For firing, the soldier would kneel and set the bottom of the mortar firmly into the ground. The launcher’s cap would be removed as well as the firing system’s cover, exposing the hammer and propellant cartridges. Because of the layout of the weapon but mostly because this is a French weapon, the cartridges were Gevelot&Gaupillat 24mm pinfire brass-and-cardboard designs.

The hammer was cocked by being turned to either side to strike the chosen cartridge, with the left one ranged for 40m and the right for 100m at a 45° angle. The device was aimed at the correct angle using the simple alidade on its side. Before firing, the safety pin of the grenade was removed to unlock the impeller.

Although the Excelsior-Thevenot type AF launcher is recorded to have been used as a trench mortar, offering continuous light artillery support to infantry, but the instruction label on it clearly states that spent launchers were to be brought back to an ordnance depot, indicating a single-use system. It is not clear why this discrepancy exists.

[deebeeus]

1959 Fender Princeton amplifier macro.

Nikon D600 & 60mm macro lens. f/36, 1/60th, ISO1600.

[yz]

Lotus flower with morning dew.

Shot with Panasonic G85 and 12-60mm f/3.5-5.6 lens.

[photoncatcher]

Half Moon

Canon SX200IS; 1/100; F/5.4; ISO 80; 60mm

25/12/2011

[theworstofallpossibleworlds]

Can you please ask Brian what camera, lens and film he uses to shoot the eclipse?

This is a characteristically late response, but I'd love to get into it. I got into film photography by picking my dad's childhood brownie hawkeye off of a shelf and ever since then i've stayed pretty cheap with the hobby. I got a really good deal on a Kiev-80 a couple years ago. For those who don't know, its a 50 year old soviet camera made as an imitation of a Hasselblad (the camera we took to the moon). It's a medium format camera, so focal lengths work a little different than they do in 35mm

Medium format cameras like this take pictures that are 60mm by 60mm. Your typical 35mm camera takes 36mm by 24mm frames, so the added film sixe here means generally everything has to get bigger. The lenses i've gotten for this camera all have massive cases and can be carried with their own separate strap. The lens used for the eclipse is just... so big. oh my god. it's a mess. It's a Tair-33, with a minimum f stop of 4.5 and a focal length of 300mm (equivalent to 165mm on 35)

This model of the lens has very fun, characteristic stripes, the aperture control is all the way at the front, and easy to use. Focusing, however is slow, as the weight of everything creates quite a bit of friction. You can get one of these for about $80 bucks. Now 300mm here is not a great magnifier, so I also got a (faulty) accessory to extend the focus, bringing the lens to 600mm (330mm equivalent in 35). It also makes this camera, all put together, into The Largest Object of All Time.

squash and butter for scale

To see the difference between 300mm and 600mm, check out these photos of the regular, non-eclipsed sun at both lengths

You're probably wondering why these pictures look so weird. these lenses are don't have very effective coatings. you wouldn't believe the processes that go into coating your glasses, your camera lenses, your phone lenses. The easiest kind of picture to take is one where your subject is lit by a souce that is behind the photographer. things get complicated with backlight, creating ghosting and glare as seen above. the light bounces between the glass elements (and the dark filter used to photograph the sun is also glass, complicating it further). taking a direct photo of a light (especially the fucking SUN) leads to some pretty crazy unpredictable variables.

My camera has recently taken on a new malady too, where at low speeds, the shutter (which in this camera is a huge metal curtain sticks at the edge without totally closing. It causes these stripes at the edge of the picture. This can be frustrating if i forget, but I like having the issue. If i want a picture to look normal, to plan it out, to totally control it, I have a digital camera for that. I got into this film stuff for the eccentricities.

For the regular sun photos, I think I was shooting on Ilford FP4, which i think i stand developed in rodinal. At the eclipse, I only got through one roll of film, becasue the cloud cover was brutal, but i took those pictures on Kodak Tri-x 400 (developed normally in D-76). I did it all in Black and white because, in general, b&w negatives are pretty generous with mistakes. All the guides i could fine for solar photography were understandably written with digital cameras in mind, so I couldn't be totally sure about my math (as the camera is totally manual) or even my eye safety (as I'm using a viewfinder; my vision seems fine a month later)

the actual iris on this lens is right up in front. Tightening the aperture, especially when the extender is attached, leads to a vignetting issue, turning your pictures into a circle

once totality hits, the light changes dramatically. you can stare straght at it without glasses and not have to worry about damaging your eyes for those short minutes. so i didn't even bother with film at that stage. I just pulled out my DSLR with a cheap 500mm Samyang mirror lens made for pentax. It's very compact and very, VERY shitty. Shallow focus, really dark, ugly out-of-focus elements, focuses past inifinity, i love it. only got a couple pictures that way, and then put the camera down and enjoyed the experience

[istandonsnowpiles]

Meandering Potomac

Captured in Full Spectrum, Loawa 60mm f/2.8

[four-birds-in-a-trenchcoat]

Okay so I've been thinking of this post here for a while now:

We all know this post is hilarious, but really how well would the Justice League handle the Cloudburst and the Arkham Knight's tank? Could they survive? Could they take out the tank? So as a little thought excersise I'd go through on a member by member basis and how well they'd handle it. Welcome to my unofficial dissertation.

(If you think I'm wrong or missing something I probably am but let me know, I'd love to hear other people's thoughts on this.)

SUPERMAN - MOST LIKELY

It's been consistent in most media that Superman is not affected by fear gas unless it's mixed with Kryptonite, however this is explicitly stated to be the most powerful version of Scarecrow's toxin, so for the sake of argument we'll say it will affect him, just slower than a human. Superman would have three practical options in that case: Use super breath to blow a path through the Cloudburst, hold his breath, or survey from above with X-ray vision to minimize contact with the gas.

WONDER WOMAN - VERY LIKELY

The Arkham Knight's Tank shouldn't be an issue to the Man of Steel; the shots would absolutely knock him back in a head-on approach but as soon as Superman makes it to the body of the tank it's all over.

Being an Amazon warrior and their princess, Diana's rigorous training has given her a strong mental fortitude, strong enough to at least once break through fear gas. (A/N: I haven't read much Wonder Woman and ultimately it's up to the writer but from my understanding this is what I've come to) Personally I think she's the most likely to last as long as Batman did in the cloud. If Wonder Woman can make it to the Batmobile (which seems to filter out the air from the Cloudburst) before the fear gas takes over her mind she'd be able to cross the first hurdle.

Based on the scenario I described, Wonder Woman could absolutely take out the Cloudburst tank using the Batmobile. But what about other methods, just for fun? In a one-on-one fight Wonder Woman could take out the tank, albeit just a bit slower than Superman. She likely wouldn't go for a head-on attack but could break through the shell of the tank with ease. Problem is this hypothetical only applies if you argue WW can handle the fear gas directly, which I do not think they would.

GREEN LANTERN (Hal, John, Guy, or Jessica) - SOLID CHANCE

If you don't think this Batman would trust Diana with the Batmobile, she still has the Invisible Jet but all things considered it wouldn't do much. The Cloudburst is so thick it disrupted even the Batmobile's sensors making any attempts to fire at the tank a literal shot in the dark. What's more is the jet doesn't have the precision anti-tank weaponry that the Batmobile has. According to Wikipedia the Invisible Jet (in Wonder Woman 1984) is based on a combination of the F-111 Aardvark and Panavia Tornado GR1, of the two the highest caliber of precision weapon is a 27mm revolver cannon, which comparably is a joke to the Batmobile's 60mm cannon needed to take out the heavy drones and tanks. Ultimately the jet would not be much help against the tank but it came to my mind so I had to discuss the potential of it.

THE FLASH - UNLIKELY

Green Lantern's weakness is Yellow due to being the color of fear (well actually it's because of a battle against Parallax but he is a physical manifestation of fear so...). Because of that it's unlikely that anything whichever Lantern constructs wouldn't even break through the cloudburst. I wasn't sure if there was ever an instance of a Lantern dealing with fear gas and somehow the ONLY instance I could find is Justice League: Doom where Hal was able to conquer the effects after learning it's an illusion. So if whichever Green Lantern would attempt to fight the Arkham Knight would need to be very experienced.

Assuming Green Lantern can enter the cloudburst without issue, the tank is a goddamn joke. They could create a high powered sniper rifle, their own batmobile, or literally a hand with a Tech Deck to grind the tank and smash it.

The Flash still needs to breathe when he runs so he can't just dash in and punch a hole in the tank. His best solution to clear the path would be to form a tornado around Gotham in order to dissipate the cloud, but that's a serious risk to everyone left in the city, not to mention the collateral damage of scattering the Cloudburst across the sky. So no, I don't think Flash could get past the fear gas.

MARTIAN MANHUNTER - UNLIKELY

If you negate the gas itself it wouldn't be too hard for the Flash to destroy the tank. Dash around it so fast it starts to break apart, run around the Earth a couple of times and punch its weak points, all things considered the tank is the easy part.

As a side effect of watching his entire race dying, J'ohn J'onnz's has a crippling fear of fire. That doesn't even require fear gas to create, just a bit of gas and a match. While we have no real reference on if Scarecrow's fear toxin affects Martians, but it can then this fight is over before it even began.

Like most members with actual powers, the Arkham Knight's tank is simple enough to take down. Being as strong as Superman not to mention invisibility he could walk right up to the tank and destroy it before the Knight even knows what happens.

AQUAMAN - UNLIKELY

This was interesting to think about because I didn't actually know if Aquaman even has to breathe above water, but from a bit of research yes he does in fact breathe oxygen on land. This means the Cloudburst would affect him on land. What's more, the final appearance of Scarecrow in Batman: Arkham Asylum has him threatening to drop the chemical into the water, poisoning Gotham, meaning to some extent fear gas can travel through water. HOWEVER, the version of the gas in Batman: Arkham Knight was already dispersed into the form of a cloud, making it a lot harder to disperse into water. So hypothetically, Aquaman could create a torrent running through Gotham's streets as a shield against the cloudburst, but he could not leave the water.

Aquaman is incredibly strong, but not as strong as Superman or Wonder Woman. Given the hypothetical of needing to stay in a constant stream of water, any direct shot from the cannon would knock him loose and he'll have to face the fear gas. Putting this together, Arthur Curry would have to be fast and precise aiming to the tank's weakest points while moving very fast lest he get shot. While I considered Aquaman just hucking a whale at the tank could probably work, the streets of Gotham are not built for that kind of attack and would cause tens of millions in property damage, not to mention possible unnecessary casualties.

------

This covers the founding members of the Justice League, but for fun I'll point out a few more members worth thinking about.

------

CYBORG - While I don't think it's possible for him to make it through the Cloudburst, I would be remised if I don't acknowledge that he could hack the Batmobile in order to take out the tank.

PLASTIC MAN - I think Plastic Man might be the only member with a natural immunity to anything Scarecrow throws at him due to his entire biology being changed to plastic. That said, he poses no chance against the tank.

RED TORNADO - Since he's a robot, fear gas does nothing to Red Tornado. However the Cloudburst is powerful enough to damage electronics. Whether or not the weather will affect him would be up to the writer, but that fact might not even matter due to just being able to blow it all away.

The tank would absolutely devastate Red Tornado in a one-on-one fight meaning he'd have to move really fast with direct strikes to the weak points in order to defeat it.

DOCTOR FATE - This isn't even a contest he could just teleport the Arkham Knight and his tank to Hell.

------

In doing this thought experiment I have come to realize that the plot of BMAK would be incredibly boring with any other hero because they'd decimate the Knight's militia in ten minutes. Furthermore, Batman is one of the only League members with enough willpower to brute-force fear gas, making him more or less the only one insane enough to take on this threat. So from all of this I think it is safe to say that he is in fact NOT stupid for not calling the Justice League. Thank you for coming to my TED Talk.