Printable View
Man made chem-trails my friend.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lestat
My friends were returning from a holiday recently.....and filmed this if anyone's interested.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BT-lalA-gfk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bSSWn...eature=related
http://img704.imageshack.us/img704/1272/53618900.jpg
Nikon D5000
1/800
f/5.3
4.8
Wasn't able to visit this place since my Motherboard died on me 10 days ago, since then using a crappy notebook.
I hope all of you doing great. will get back to comments later on.
no HDR
Canon 500D @ 33mm f11 Hitech 0.9 Hard + 0.6soft
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4108/...1c169d54_b.jpg
lol! :rofl: :rofl:Quote:
Originally Posted by THOMO
beautiful ANP, always loving your shots.
ANP - King of XS photos. I wonder why you dont do that for living.. you are exceptionaly good.
Thanks my friend :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Lestat
Thanks bro :), well I didn't consider this that much, cause I already have something to earn from, and can use photography to ease of my mind later on :D.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mescalamba
You mean to say contrails. Chemtrails, although I guess technically correct since water is a chemical, are just a conspiracy theory that has no hard evidence behind it. Contrails are formed USUALLY around 30,000ft by jet engines due to the rapid crystallization of the water molecules at this altitude. They are known to occur lower or higher depending on temperature, pressure, etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by THOMO
there is no plane on this earthrhat can make xontrails that large and thick.
check youtube there are ones that are clearly contrails and then others that are... not.
Sent from my HTC EVO using Sprints craptastic network.
Thats a lovely macro Metric.
damn jokester... loving the night sky shots.
what about using filters to show the different light emissions in the sky ? or is the camera filtered to never show those no matter what filter or technique you use. like the IR cut filter over the sensor.
One question, would the sensor get damaged of a direct sunlight in the middle of the day, or this kind?
On Flicker
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4152/...2c9226c3_b.jpg
Nice shot Sam.
Me, in Church.
http://i970.photobucket.com/albums/a...g?t=1284592131
@Sam_oslo: yes it will when the Sun still up ( btwen 5-7pm?) but it is ok during the Sun is setting same as SunRise and that's why they have polarize filter which cost bit of money :)
I think I stitched this together with 6-9 pictures on my D3000 @ Mather Point
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4039/...2f1209aa_b.jpg
Thx, yeah it's getting there :). You got a good shot on that top too.Quote:
Originally Posted by Weevil
I see, it is good to clear it up. That's what I suspected too.Quote:
Originally Posted by hale88
A shot on my pets wife. ;)
On Flickr
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4145/...b546529a_b.jpg
More hoverflies :)
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/2028/POTN/Macro/_MG_7945.jpg
holy crap metric.... is that the 100mm macro... jesus i want one so bad... i just cant afford to give up a whole paycheck for a lens right now.
i am trying to work on some sales bonuses,, and then yeah... i'll have that friggin lens.
and Sam,,, i will whole heartedly disagree with Hale and question where he gets his information although its not an uncommon method of thought!... direct sunlight like the shot you took is NOT going to damage your sensor.... its just not going to happen. not not not... never never never -- ok ok ok i know,, never say never.
truth is.. its a 1 in a billion chance that you would damage a sensor and it would be from a previously flawed or damaged sensor or cut filter over the sensor.
sun shots only take a fraction of a second unless you are using high ND filters to give longer exposures. and never long enough to do any damage.
in fact, if that was the case we would NEVER get beautiful sunrise/sunset pictures like what you posted because EVERY SINGLE camera in the world with a digital sensor would have damage done to it.
not even IR modded cameras are hurt by influx of extra unfiltered infrared light.
the problem isnt the light, its the radiation, to which your camera would die from old age before sun radiation would damage it.
per a flicker discussion - to which i 100000% agree
i guess in the end, we never take DIRECT sun shots, we always point off to the side a little and focus on the sun, so that no direct super awesome iris melting sun beams are shot thru the lens into the camera sensor.Quote:
Unless you are in the habit of directing streams of very high energy light or particles, like lasers or x-rays, at your camera's sensor, almost nothing you can do will physically damage the sensor.
dont worry about it dude, go about your sunrise/sunset pictures and just enjoy the beauty.
http://img196.imageshack.us/img196/3318/900x560.jpg
Nikon D5000
1/4000
f/3.5
3.6
RAW - got low visibility in mine range.
beautiful shot xXlAinXx,
my :banana::banana::banana::banana::banana: kitty Ricky
http://broveakphotography.zapto.org/...3135352e4a5047
Canon T2i
Sigma 30mm F/1.4
hahhahah maybe I am wrong...I found out that if you shot at fast shutter speed, it will be ok but prolong exposure is not good though because it will damage the CMOS sensor? anyway protect your eyes is the must thing to do + Lestat: I know the picture Sam sure is fine because the Sun is setting pretty low + He shot it pretty far way so It won't be a big deal