Random Photos

[DennisN]

Interesting! I have noticed that swirl used to excess recently in Shogun. They use it in practically every shot!

I don't remember if you use a compact camera or system camera (modern system cameras can mount vintage lenses with adapters), but anyway, I'd like to share one of the very best videos* I've seen about vintage lenses:

Bargain vintage lenses in M42 mount - best value performers from wide angle to telephoto (Simon's utak)


* That video is partly responsible for my lens collection . And the youtuber is completely honest; I can personally vouch for many things he says in the video. And I've now got a couple of the lenses he describes (Industar 50-2, Helios 44, Meyer Optik Görlitz Oreston 50mm, Pentacon 135mm, and I don't regret it).

And I might as well mention two good videos about affordable modern system cameras:

1. 11 Mirrorless Cameras - From £50 to £500! (Zenography)
2. The CHEAPEST FULL Frame Mirrorless Cameras You Can Buy - Sony A7 and A7R (Zenography)
(and this video made me get a Sony A7R )

 

[DaveC426913]

"Can I interest you in some insurance?"

Thanks. But iguaaaaaaaana get my own.

(Taken on Sunday last, exactly here, as I was strolling to breakfast).

 

[DaveC426913]

I don't remember if you use a compact camera or system camera

Personally, I have a Canon G15.

Goes with me everywhere (including to the bottom of the sea). My philosophy is: the 'best' camera is the one you have with you.

 

[docnet]

Photos from my visit to a lucky schoolmate's midtown NYC apartment in the MiMA building . The same 400 square feet studio that rented for $3500/mo USD two years ago, now rents for around $5000/mo USD . And it's probably one of the cheapest units on the 51th floor. The housing market is maybe the most promising area of investment.

His Kitchen had the nicest appliances I've ever seen.

The Port Authority Bus Terminal under the window. It ruins the $5000/mo view.

He had been growing bell peppers and tomatoes to pickle. He only had to water it once every 1-2 months b because of the water reservoir inside. The plant pods can be a hit or miss because some of them don't grow very well.

 

[jtbell]

The Lake Erie port at Ashtabula, Ohio, which was mothballed by Norfolk Southern Railroad in 2016:

Larger version here.

This port transloaded iron ore and coal between Great Lakes freighters and trains to/from the Pittsburgh and Mahoning Valley (Youngstown etc.) steelmaking areas.

 

[DennisN]

Goes with me everywhere (including to the bottom of the sea). My philosophy is: the 'best' camera is the one you have with you.

A great philosophy!

 

[DennisN]

Personally, I have a Canon G15.

I've checked the specifications and read some reviews and it seems like a really good, capable compact camera. I used to have an Olympus compact (less advanced than yours) which I really liked, but sadly it stopped working one day.

Goes with me everywhere (including to the bottom of the sea).

I didn't understand this at first, but I guess you mean it's waterproof and can take shots under water? If you have any such shots it would be very fun to see!

I have thought about getting some cheap camera for underwater shooting, just to try it out to see if I like it.

 

[DaveC426913]

I've checked the specifications and read some reviews and it seems like a really good, capable compact camera.

I did a lot of research. My top priority was a fast startup to catch those spontaneous opportunities.

I didn't understand at first, but I guess you mean it's waterproof and can take shots under water?

I splurged on a 3rd party underwater housing. About $260.

If you have any such shots it would be very fun to see!

Happy to oblige! Here's just a tiny smattering. You can see em all at:

http://www.davesbrain.ca/adventures/index.html?filter=diving

(Sorry you'll have to click through some hammy vaykay photos, but I keep each album to under about 35 pics, so it shouldn't be a hardship).

Puffer the size of a bedroom pillow:

Green Moray:

Octopus, size of a canteloupe, 20 feet off the resort beach, in 6 feet of water.
(credit goes to my wife who - despite being a newbie and scaredy-cat at snorkeling - pointed out this critter to a disbelieving and consternated hubbie):

Getting a wet kiss at Stingray City (same scaredy-cat wife):

(before I got the u/w casing I had to sketch from memory...)

I have thought about getting some cheap camera for underwater shooting, just to try it out to see if I like it.

It's a blast.

 

[DennisN]

Happy to oblige! Here's just a tiny smattering. You can see em all at:

Very, very cool!

 

[pinball1970]

Happy St George/Shakespeare/England day.

 

[morrobay]

She kan doo the Twist

 

[DennisN]

I just saw a photo on facebook which impressed me, but in a certain way (minimalistic, but making the most out of "little"). It's in black and white, and there's not much going on in the photo (compared to e.g. a photo of nature or architecture), but it is so impactful, I think.

(regretfully not sourced in the facebook group, I otherwise like to provide sources to photos)

If I would try to express why I think it works so well, it would be (1) the look of the cat, the position of the cat (half indoors, half outdoors), the lighting of the cat which gives many shades of grey and the sides/angles of the window which are not horizontal nor vertical with respect to the photo itself.

I just love it.

 

[DennisN]

I just saw a photo on facebook which impressed me

Two more black and white photos of cats I like from a group on facebook:
(regretfully not sourced in the facebook group, I otherwise like to provide sources to photos)

 

[nsaspook]

Satan has a new SOUL.

 

[Andy Resnick]

Good opportunity today to use my macro:

 

[DennisN]

the lighting of the cat which gives many shades of grey

What the...?

A while ago I was about to go out in the courtyard to shoot some birds*, and just before I left I checked where my cats were, and I saw one of them sitting like this between the curtains, soaking up the sunlight:

...so I just had to convert it to black and white to see how it would turn out :

* The bird shoot was a complete fail. I was shooting with my Canon 70-300mm zoom lens...

"Get a Sony A6000", they said. "It's compact", they said. "You can put it in your pocket", they said.

...mounted via an adapter, which makes the autofocus painfully slow, and the small birds were too fast for me. All I got was one shot, and it was this one (yes, for real, I'm not joking ):

Bird from behind on a branch in April:

Out of focus, overexposed, crappy colors and a less than lovely view of the bird. Thank you, Mother Nature.

 

[DennisN]

Good opportunity today to use my macro:

Hehe, the depth of field in the photos is razor thin .

 

[morrobay]

The sun is about directly overhead this time of year at 12N latitude, 100E longitude

 

[DennisN]

Here's another cool photo I saw on facebook (regretfully without source), where the shadows look like piano keys:

 

[Rive]

Fiddling with new equipment: macro extender + 2X teleconverter + 70-300 => pretty much useless.

Moving target:

The only cooperative 'bug' in the garden:

Flowers are more or less fine ...

... but could have been done with far less effort.

It was fun anyway

 

[collinsmark]

Here's another cool photo I saw on facebook (regretfully without source), where the shadows look like piano keys:

View attachment 344270

I suspect the image isn't real. As in, I think it's most likely photoshopped or ray traced or maybe AI generated.

Here's my logic, in two parts:
(1) The vertical posts are vertically parallel. When illuminated by a very distant light source (like the sun) they should produce parallel shadows when projected onto a plane. In the image, the bridge and railing curve around to the left. But so do the shadows of the vertical posts! This shouldn't be possible when illuminated by the sun (or any very distant light source). It might be possible if everything was illuminated by a nearby spotlight or point source, but the even illumination of the scene makes this scenario seem unlikely.
(2) The shadows are peculiarly sharp -- sharper than what I would expect by sunlight. Again, maybe some sort of nearby, artificial point source of light is illuminating the scene, which might explain the sharp shadows. But that wouldn't explain the extremely even diffuse lighting seen in the shaded portions of the railing and shadows.

Something about all that just doesn't seem right.

 

[DennisN]

I suspect the image isn't real. As in, I think it's most likely photoshopped or ray traced or maybe AI generated.

It's funny you say so, because now I remember I got the feeling "something is not right" when I first looked at it. But I dismissed the initial feeling and did not analyze it as thoroughly as you did.

Edit:

You said "The shadows are peculiarly sharp -- sharper than what I would expect by sunlight.", and I think that was what made feel "something is not right".

 

[Borg]

Here's another cool photo I saw on facebook (regretfully without source), where the shadows look like piano keys:

View attachment 344270

I've been trying to find where that might be without luck. I have found a reference to it in 2017 which pre-dates the image generators of today. I also found a reddit thread where someone claims that it's a bridge to a tram on the University of Washington campus but no link. Perhaps @nsaspook knows about it?

 

[Rive]

I suspect the image isn't real. As in, I think it's most likely photoshopped or ray traced or maybe AI generated.

Maybe it's painted on the road and photographed around noon when the real shadow is just short?

Ps.: on second thought, it's likely real. The earliest I could trace it back is 2015, and from somebody who is supposedly working in Altamira, Caracas, Venezuela.

 

[Flyboy]

… I think it’s legit. The perception that the shadows remain perpendicular to the railings is just that, a perception. I think it’s more of an optical illusion, especially when in image format instead of in person.

As for the sharpness of the shadows… those also look pretty normal to me. Maybe it’s just the quality of the image, but I don’t see any unusually sharp edges to the shadows.

 

[collinsmark]

I've been trying to find where that might be without luck. I have found a reference to it in 2017 which pre-dates the image generators of today.

That might rule out AI. But Photoshop (or similar) and ray tracing have been around for decades.

I also found a reddit thread where someone claims that it's a bridge to a tram on the University of Washington campus but no link. Perhaps @nsaspook knows about it?

It may be a real bridge, but with the shadows in the image manipulated in a Photoshop (or Photoshop-like) program, such that the actual shadows were replaced (via "Clone Stamp" and "Free Transform" tools) such that they wrap around the railing in ways that they do not in real-life.

Maybe it's painted on the road and photographed around noon when the real shadow is just short?

I never considered the shadows being "painted," But if paint is involved, where are the actual shadows?! It still doesn't make sense.

The perception that the shadows remain perpendicular to the railings is just that, a perception. I think it’s more of an optical illusion, especially when in image format instead of in person.

Assuming the rails are perpendicular to each other, then the shadows should also be perpendicular to each other. This assumes a very far away light source and the shadows lie on a flat plane, which both appear to be.

And if it's not a flat plane, but curved in some sort of non-obvious way, there would be evidence of this in the ambient brightness. None of this appears to be the case.

You could argue that the entire architecture is designed for the effect to be seen by one and only one particular location (where the camera is) and only at one particular time of day and one particular day of the year. That seems quite overboard to me (from a modern, architectural sense).

As for the sharpness of the shadows… those also look pretty normal to me. Maybe it’s just the quality of the image, but I don’t see any unusually sharp edges to the shadows.

There's no falloff in sharpness of the shadows in the image. In a real situation, the shadows would be sharper to the left side, when the shadows are nearer the base of the railing, and then get fuzzier as the distance to the railing increases. There is no such sharpness falloff in the image: The shadows are uniformly sharp. That shouldn't happen in real life.

======================
Edit: See my post #1885, a few posts down from here. I've changed my mind on a few things.

 

[Ibix]

I don't think it's at University of Washington. There's a curved bridge to the tram stop, but the railings don't have flanges.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/orKbMRvXL9xxj3t29

 

[Borg]

I don't think it's at University of Washington. There's a curved bridge to the tram stop, but the railings don't have flanges.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/orKbMRvXL9xxj3t29

That's blocked for me. Could you post that using Google Maps?

EDIT: Never mind. This might be the one that you found.
https://www.google.com/maps/@47.6504971,-122.3044686,183m/data=!3m1!1e3!5m1!1e2?hl=en&entry=ttu

https://www.google.com/maps/@47.6505452,-122.3042556,3a,29.9y,243.46h,80.1t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sUUydywDsTiDO6KNe_jtAHg!2e0!6shttps://streetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com/v1/thumbnail?panoid=UUydywDsTiDO6KNe_jtAHg&cb_client=maps_sv.share&w=900&h=600&yaw=243.4581244016238&pitch=9.899509157328282&thumbfov=90!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e2?hl=en&coh=205410&entry=ttu

It's similar in some ways but very different in others. I could see someone on Reddit claiming they were the same though.

 

[Ibix]

That's blocked for me. Could you post that using Google Maps?

Odd - it works for me and opens here. If that doesn't work, search for the Husky Stadium in Seattle. It's a pedestrian bridge on the west side of it, crossing Montlake Boulevard NE just south of NE Pacific Place.

Edit: I see you found it while I was mucking around with URLs.

 

[collinsmark]

OK., I concede that maybe the non-parallel shadow property is an illusion resulting from the pixel aliasing in the upper parts of the image. If you enlarge the image, the shadows become aliased after around the second, structural rail. This aliasing might make it appear that the shadows are not parallel with themselves, but in fact are. So maybe it is a real picture. It's hard to tell for sure though without a higher resolution version of the image.

But I now question some of my original suspicions. I'm presently inclined to give the picture the benefit of the doubt.

==========
Here's a link to a version of the image that can be enlarged a little. Click on the image (you may need to click twice) to see a full-sized version of it.


You can see that aliasing in the shadows on the upper right portion of the picture. It is this aliasing that makes the shadows appear to wrap around with the curvature of the railing, when in fact the shadows may actually be parallel (just aliased). So yeah, this might be a real picture. Sorry for the confusion.

 

[Borg]

Yeah, this shadow business is going to drive us batty.

 

[Ibix]

There is actually a bridge in Kendal known as the Batman Bridge due to the shapes in the railings. BBC News article (and I've actually seen this one in person).

 

[DennisN]

Selfie in a glass ball:

I've seen photos where people have been using glass balls for effects, so I got me one of those on Amazon for fun.

The city through a glass ball:

 

[jack action]

The only colors used in the following image are blue, white, and black. There is no red. You can zoom in to appreciate the illusion.

 

[Ibix]

Interestingly, you don't need to zoom in. You can see the "red" is black and white just by focussing tightly on that region. Apparently your eye can see the correct colours perfectly well - it just chooses not to inform you...