File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
So, most cameras shoot in visible light. Some people choose to shoot in infrared, even fewer try UV, but why don't people try to shoot in lower or higher frequencies of electromagnetic radiation, like microwaves or x-rays? Is it even possible?
>> Martin !!ve2Q1ETWmJH
>>186921
Guessing not enough of the higher/lower frequency rays are admitted to make a decent photo.
>> Anonymous
>>186925

>emitted

fix'd
>> Anonymous
Also, this may sound like a stupid question, but what is so great about large or medium format, even full-frame over an APS censor? I understand you can't get wide-angle with a small sensor and obviously the prints aren't as large, but are those the only justifications in using a larger format?
>> Anonymous
A full-frame sensor has much less noise than an APS-C sensor and can handle lens diffraction a little bit better (~f/13 instead of ~f/8-f/11) thanks to the larger photosites. You also get less depth of field for a similar aperture setting, which can be good or bad depending on your intentions.

As far as noise goes, though, technology is making high ISO noise much better, as seen in the D300.
>> Depressed Cheesecake !wFh1Fw9wBU
The only advantage of APS sensors is cost, nothing else.

To be honest, I don't know why there isn't photography other than visible light, IR, UV and X-Ray (radiography). Maybe not enough strength or no instruments to visually record it?
>> Anonymous
>>186932
>large... format

Offers better resolution and tonality than anything else out there. Extremely limited depth of field; check out the work of Kim Kirkpatrick to see this used to the further extent. It's also usually the only format there's view cameras and sheet film for.

>medium format

Again, more resolution and better tonality. The difference is less marked with 36x24mm ("full frame") digital and medium format digital, but medium format film still offers those advantages strongly over 135 (35mm) film, so if you shoot film and need higher quality but can't/don't want to shoot large format, medium format is there. Also close to the only way to get native 1:1 or 6:7 aspect ratios. (You can get native 4:3, like with 6x4.5, on any consumer digicam or four-thirds SLR.)
>> Anonymous
>>186957
Do you really want to spend your time cropping every single image? And enjoy envisioning a 1.5x crop in your viewfinder every time.

The other advantages still stand.
>> Depressed Cheesecake !wFh1Fw9wBU
>>186966
I'd like to see that applied to common landscape scenes, magnified in intensity enough to be visualized.

>>186968
No. You have a point from a practical point of view, but if someone can afford lenses which offer good quality for a full frame censor, he or she should choose that. Hence, my original argument for APS - cost.
>> Anonymous
>>186972
These still stand:

>Lenses specifically desgined for it can be smaller and lighter.

>They offer more depth of field at larger, sharper apertures, which depending on one's style can be an advantage or a disadvantage.

>It offers a different set of focal lengths, which again depends on your style; I'm very happy using 42mm equivalent as my normal and prefer it strongly to 50mm.

They're different. Neither one is better. My ideal DSLR sensor would probably be a 1.5x crop, 6-8 megapixel sensor, with today's technology and no anti-aliasing filter. Would that be better than the 1Ds Mk. III's or D3's sensor? No, but that would be better for me, independent of cost.
>> Depressed Cheesecake !wFh1Fw9wBU
>>186975
>Lenses specifically desgined for it can be smaller and lighter.

Most exceptional, fast lenses are still heavy and expensive. You will not get the same performance out of a 85mm f/1.2 than you would out of an 85mm f/1.8.

>They offer more depth of field at larger, sharper apertures, which depending on one's style can be an advantage or a disadvantage.

If you use the same lens on a small-sensor camera and a full-frame camera and crop the full-frame image to give the same view as the digital image, the depth of field is IDENTICAL.

>It offers a different set of focal lengths
Once again, this is possible with a crop from a full-frame image. Since most full-frame cameras have a larger megapixel count, the full frame crop and image out of the cropped image are identical, if not better.

Once again, the only limiting factor is budget.
>> Anonymous
>>186978
Silver rebel and 85mm 1.2 ftw!
>> Depressed Cheesecake !wFh1Fw9wBU
>>186989
At the expense of feeding the trolls, what's the point in mocking me?
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
>>186993
trolling, there is no point to even posting on 4chan, let alone taking it seriously.
>> Depressed Cheesecake !wFh1Fw9wBU
>>187023
Probably, but just to clarify, I don't own an 85mm, it was on loan from a friend.
>> $19.99 !OSYhGye6hY
>>187037
How's the focal range on the crop? Is it an awkward length? I'm thinking of picking up the 85 1.8, can't really afford the 1.2.
>> Depressed Cheesecake !wFh1Fw9wBU
>>187040
It was uncomfortable for me. USM and very clear optics make it easy to use, but difficult to master. I missed the intimacy you get with a 50mm. Definitely might come back to it once I have more experience or a full frame back.
>> Anonymous
What type of cameras can take Infrared pictures? Any with a filter or does it have to have an infrared sensor?
>> Anonymous
Oh hey, wut? They do shoot in x-rays? It's called a fucking x-ray machine?
>> Anonymous
they probably arent done because they would not yield any interesting result because of the nature of those waves. for example if you tried with a frequency of wave that just went through most everything, youd get blank pictures. fucking awesome!
>> Anonymous
If I understand correctly, we cant quite shoot 'outside' with x-rays. I might be wrong, but your camera body would have to be completely leaded to block exposure on X-ray-sensible film. Not only that, but you'd also be forced to use leaded leaf shutters, etc.
>> Anonymous
>>187141
In general, a major bitch to make all this stuff.
>> WetShirt !n21TE7QU8U
>>187052
Technically any camera can.
For a digital SLR the easiest way is to buy an IR filter.
But you have to foocus before putting the filter on.
Also: it takes away every visible light you can see through TTL, so you need XBOXHUEG shutter speeds.
>> Anonymous
>>187091
Actually at carnivals and stuff people used to shoot x-ray photos of people for shits and giggles. This is before they knew how dangerous the radiation was.
>> Depressed Cheesecake !wFh1Fw9wBU
>>187163
Got any pictures of this?
>> Anonymous
>>187202

I don't know any on the internet, but there are in books. Did you know that they used to have them in shoe shops so you could see how well they fitted? Crazy stuff. Ask some of your older family members and they may remember if they lived in the right areas.
>> $19.99 !OSYhGye6hY
>>188771
Yeah, they used x-rays for alot of things before. Like curing certain diseases, when patients' skin burnt off they thought that it was unrelated to the effects of the x-ray machines. Pretty interesting stuff. Then technician's hands melted and shit so they kinda caught on.