Light on the water
March 31, 2026
33
-
-
Wow, that looks great!
-
Yeah! Thanks for finding that. I'll google. There is a Finnish site that has a lot of used stuff. I'll take a look. I'd want one more for UVIF than for this.
-
Superb abstract. The B&W compliments the geometric patterns perfectly. Very nice tonalities and sharpness.
Thanks for sharing and participating,
barondla -
Exceptional color. These are great night shots. You nailed a difficult shooting situation. Can't even decide which I like better.
Thanks for sharing and participating,
barondla -
This is really good. Like it a lot. I'm trying to figure out if it's shot from high up looking down or if I'm just tricked to think it is.
-
-
Curves everywhere! First, I thought it was a bunch of wires like behind my stereo system. Too many perfectly round shapes for that. Then bicycle tires came to mind. Now I see a support that rules out tires. Some type of sculpture? Very intriguing image. Crackin' image.
Thanks for sharing and participating,
barondla -
I'm not sure which way it goes either.
Thanks for sharing,
barondla -
The more I look at it, the more confused I get... 😕
-
Ahhh! A closer look should reveal the ambiguity...
-
Thanks barondla.
From the first time I captured an image with the sunlight reflected from their wings, I was hooked on that "charged with electricity" appearance.
Yes, specifically going out for that type of shot would most likely result in failure. So it is take what presents on any given day. When I do see some reflections like that though (it's all about sun angle and location of dragon between sun and camera), I do then look for as many captures as I can because not many result in reflections across all wings - there's lots of variation.
-
It's like an advanced climbing frame for children in a nearby park. The pipes are pretty thick and the loops are big enough for brave adults to try to slide though them when they have maybe had a drink or two. Fun to watch both kids and adults.The kids are so good. They move like caterpillars. Through the loops, over the loops, swinging from the loops. It's pretty long and the best is when someone tries to go from one end to the other. I want to photograph kids playing in it, but, you know, photographing kids you don't know isn't advisable.
I have an old picture that shows it a little better.
Do you happen to know if lens info is found in several places in EXIF? My OM lets me create a list of manual lenses. I type the name of the lens in and then OM kindly inserts it when I choose a lens for IBIS. I sometimes add additional info by editing the EXIF later. But some sites and some programs don't show this info. DPR shows it. This site doesn't. Most programs show it, but for example Fast Raw Viewer doesn't. I think the only explanation is that the info is in two places and some programs/sites use one and others the other. But I can only find one! That there would be a list of approved lens names is too absurd...
-
Monkey bars on steroids! I would have loved those when I was a kid. They removed the monkey bars in some schools in this country because they didn't want the kids injuring themselves. I reckon they give kids more strength / co-ordination so that they are less likely to injure themselves...
Re EXIF: There are some EXIF viewers that show the whole table of fields / values, not just some subset. You might get a shock when you see how the data might be spread all over the place. And what some PP software does when you save a file.
My take is that the EXIF spec is all over the place and should be cleaned up - at least to remove the duplicate fields. Research says that it just kept getting extended to cover new data types and all the old stuff was left there for backwards compatibility.
That still doesn't explain why some PP software write values in different fields. E.g. DXO writes the lens name / maker info in different fields than it was originally. And some photo sites only look for it in the original fields. It took a lot of head scratching to work that one out...
-
It isn't because of processing software (in my case). I use DxO and thought it simply removed everything of interest, because no program can get anything useful from EXIF after DxO processing. But I use ExifPilot to extract EXIF from the raw file and inject it in the final JPG, so it should be what was originally there. That's why I think there is a second field I don't find and that cameras normally write to both and then software use on or the other. But that the data from OM's edited IBIS lens list only gets entered to one of the fields. Because the info is written to the field I know.
This forum also chews on EXIF because my browser plugin gets nothing from the picture with the swirls while it does at DPR. The second image where you see more of the contraption is also taken with a manual focus lens, but it has a chip, so even if it is in that list in the camera, the lens info is taken from the lens and not from my list. And it shows here.
-
I struggled with similar issues and gave up on browser plugins. In fact I gave up on even bothering about it because it is such a ludicrous mess between camera manufacturers, browsers, image hosting sites and PP software.
Keep looking or try another EXIF viewer. There are many more fields than I would want to view comfortably in a drop down list...
