Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Has There Been a Nuclear Incident in the Arctic?

thedrive.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 258 posts

Re: Has There Been a Nuclear Incident in the Arctic?

#191

Post by hyperliner »

hunta2097 wrote: post #156
pratyushag2 wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These are incredible pictures. What kind of camera did you use to click these?

Want to know how to piss off a photographer? "These are great pictures, you must have a great camera!" Caveat: You can take great pictures with a camera-phone but you can't take every type of shot. I think any DSLR with a good choice of glass (lenses) would be able to reproduce most of these shots. More expensive camera bodies are only slightly better in the optical sense but are MUCH better constructed. Framing, ape…

THIS ONE CAUGHT MY ATTENTION BUT FOR THE WRONG REASONS:

- Is the amount that is prolific? Or is it the photographers?

Someone please help me or I won't be able to go to sleep.

I would have said "Most photographers are prolific."

Re: Has There Been a Nuclear Incident in the Arctic?

#192

Post by chris_overseas »

tlow wrote: post #184
chris_overseas wrote: post #122

I travelled on a (non-nuclear) icebreaker out from Murmansk back in 2012. On the way out to the open ocean we passed several moored nuclear powered icebreakers and other vessels in various states of decay[0]. It was both fascinating and disturbing to see - many of these had not yet been decommissioned and it seemed to me that they were huge disasters waiting to happen. In Murmansk itself there is a nuclear icebreaker…

As many have noted, these are excellent photographs. I have limited knowledge and experience with photography. Do you worry about your work being stolen and sold? I'm thinking particularly of this story: https://petapixel.com/2016/07/27/photographer-suing-getty-im...

I used to, but not so much these days. I'm not really interested in commercialising my photography (it's a LOT of work and its hard to make a decent living from) and I generally don't mind people sharing them non-commercially. Commercial use is a different matter and I do keep a bit of an eye on it (https://pixsy.com/ is great for this), but in my experience it is rare for them to get used inappropriately without being asked permission first. I also don't put them online at high enough a resolution to be useful for printing which cuts down any offline abuse.

The story you linked is an interesting one, especially given how heavy handed Getty are when it comes to misuse of any of their images in the reverse situation. Personally I think what Getty have done here is completely unethical but given the public domain nature of the images in question they might be in the clear here.

Re: Has There Been a Nuclear Incident in the Arctic?

#193

Post by iamatworknow »

tlow wrote: post #184
chris_overseas wrote: post #122

I travelled on a (non-nuclear) icebreaker out from Murmansk back in 2012. On the way out to the open ocean we passed several moored nuclear powered icebreakers and other vessels in various states of decay[0]. It was both fascinating and disturbing to see - many of these had not yet been decommissioned and it seemed to me that they were huge disasters waiting to happen. In Murmansk itself there is a nuclear icebreaker…

As many have noted, these are excellent photographs. I have limited knowledge and experience with photography. Do you worry about your work being stolen and sold? I'm thinking particularly of this story: https://petapixel.com/2016/07/27/photographer-suing-getty-im...

I'm an amateur photographer and, unfortunately, you see this come up a lot in photography communities online, but you don't hear about most cases in the media. You'd be surprised how many businesses will just openly steal images from any website or social media platform and use them without notice, credit, or payment. Unfortunately watermarks are either easily cropped out or they ruin the picture (like by spanning the whole image with transparent text). There are some resources for the little guy like Pixsy[0] but reports of their efficacy are mixed.

The usual advice if you find your image being used without permission is to ask the offender nicely, send them an invoice, or get a lawyer involved, depending on how far you want to take it.

[0] https://pixsy.com/

Re: Has There Been a Nuclear Incident in the Arctic?

#194

Post by neom »

sjwright wrote: post #166
neom wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As someone who went to college for digital imaging technology I would say that's not strictly true, crop on a sensor actually has some advantages, for example if you have a 50 1.2 and you can't afford the 85 1.2 you can put the 50 on an APS-C, and in many instances that is cheaper than the second lens, none of the other points you made apply specifically to full frame cameras either. These are all shot on a MkII but…

A 50mm 1.2 lens on a Canon APS-C body has a full frame equivalent focal length of 80mm and a full frame equivalent aperture of f/1.9 — giving it the characteristics of a comparatively inexpensive lens. In other words, your $1300 lens on a crop body will have comparable performance of a $350 lens on the full frame body.

Go put a 50 1.2 L on a 300D and tell me it looks like the 85 1.4 on a 5D. In fact, I'm so confident you're incorrect I'd happily drive up to B&H and snap some raws to prove it.

Re: Has There Been a Nuclear Incident in the Arctic?

#195

Post by paulmd »

jdietrich wrote: post #178
alistairSH wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most photographers take a prolific amount of pictures Digital cameras are a wonderful thing! A good mirrorless could take most of these shots as well, though I suspect by the time you installed a lens long enough for the wildlife shots[1], it wouldn't be much lighter than the DSLR. 1 - I didn't check the EXIF data, but assume he was using at least 200mm, probably longer, for those shots.

>A good mirrorless could take most of these shots as well, though I suspect by the time you installed a lens long enough for the wildlife shots[1], it wouldn't be much lighter than the DSLR. That's one of the big advantages of Micro Four-Thirds - if you're willing to sacrifice a bit of sensor area, you get very bright and lightweight telephoto lenses.

Why stop there? With a Pentax Q, your standard 135mm telephoto becomes a 756mm-equivalent super-tele! Your 200mm becomes an 1120mm-equivalent! With just a 400mm you can take photos of the moon that will fill the whole frame[0]!

On the other hand - with a smaller sensor you get worse low-light performance, increased noise, poorer resolution, a greater difficulty with diffraction limit degrading your resolution[1], and decreased ability to isolate a subject. In technical terms, bigger sensors are where it's at.

It's certainly true that smaller sensors let you get more reach out of a piece of glass - but it's always funny that M4/3 is raised as the "ideal" format for doing this somehow, as if APS-C is not already smaller than full frame, or that there do not exist even smaller sensors which can give you even more reach.

Mirrorless bodies like the NEX system that let you cram big sensors into a small body size are definitely one of the more interesting developments recently. Especially the Fuji/Hasselblad collaboration that puts a digital medium-format sensor into a MILC body. The Fuji X-series are very interesting and well-designed cameras and I can't wait to see what they come up with next.

When I go on vacation I take an Olympus XA and a Fuji GS 645 folding camera for a nice combination of fields-of-view in a compact size. But at this point I'm really ogling the Fuji X-series...

[0] I've done this, uncropped photo with slightly missed focus: http://i.imgur.com/oFpu8JE.jpg

[1] Small sensors like M4/3 need to produce enough resolution to saturate their sensor at an extremely wide aperture, roughly by f/4 or so for a 16 mp sensor: http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/diffraction-photo...

Re: Has There Been a Nuclear Incident in the Arctic?

#196

Post by iamatworknow »

neom wrote: post #158
Tepix wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The role of the camera is generally overrated, however there are certain characteristics that you only get with expensive full frame cameras such as the Canon EOS 5D Mark III he appears to be using: * very low noise * very shallow DOF * long bursts of rapid images * weather proofing (including cold) * improved dynamic range * high resolution (lets you crop the part you are interested in and retain good quality) There…

As someone who went to college for digital imaging technology I would say that's not strictly true, crop on a sensor actually has some advantages, for example if you have a 50 1.2 and you can't afford the 85 1.2 you can put the 50 on an APS-C, and in many instances that is cheaper than the second lens, none of the other points you made apply specifically to full frame cameras either. These are all shot on a MkII but…

The focal length equivalency factor is partly why I stick with APS-C DSLRs. Plus, my Nikon D500 and its 20 FPS, 200 shot RAW buffer is something you can't find in any full frame camera (yet).

In any situation where I feel like I would benefit from a larger sensor I shoot film instead (either 35mm or 120 and get better colors and tones than any DSLR, in my opinion).

Re: Has There Been a Nuclear Incident in the Arctic?

#197

Post by JumpCrisscross »

Animats wrote: post #17
tradersam wrote: post #3

Somewhat related, the WC-135 Constant Phoenix is one cool looking plane.

That's because it's mostly wing. It dates from the Dash-80 era of slim, pure jets and low-bypass engines. Today's high-bypass engines are big shrouded fans with a jet engine at the center to spin them. Fuel economy is much better, but the engines look bloated.

> pure jets and low-bypass engines

Any reason a low-bypass engine might be preferred for an atmospheric-sensing platform like this one?

Re: Has There Been a Nuclear Incident in the Arctic?

#198

Post by tlow »

chris_overseas wrote: post #192
tlow wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As many have noted, these are excellent photographs. I have limited knowledge and experience with photography. Do you worry about your work being stolen and sold? I'm thinking particularly of this story: https://petapixel.com/2016/07/27/photographer-suing-getty-im...

I used to, but not so much these days. I'm not really interested in commercialising my photography (it's a LOT of work and its hard to make a decent living from) and I generally don't mind people sharing them non-commercially. Commercial use is a different matter and I do keep a bit of an eye on it ( https://pixsy.com/ is great for this), but in my experience it is rare for them to get used inappropriately without be…

Thank you for your answer and the beautiful photographs.

Re: Has There Been a Nuclear Incident in the Arctic?

#199

Post by lobster_johnson »

topbanana wrote: post #153
csomar wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How much does it cost for such a trip?

$25,000 US

Apparently this is from Wikipedia [1]:

Each participant pays up to US $25,000 for a cruise lasting three weeks. The Fiftieth Anniversary of Victory contains an accommodation deck customised for tourists.

But it looks like the information is outdated.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/50_Let_Pobedy

Re: Has There Been a Nuclear Incident in the Arctic?

#200

Post by jdietrich »

paulmd wrote: post #195
jdietrich wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>A good mirrorless could take most of these shots as well, though I suspect by the time you installed a lens long enough for the wildlife shots[1], it wouldn't be much lighter than the DSLR. That's one of the big advantages of Micro Four-Thirds - if you're willing to sacrifice a bit of sensor area, you get very bright and lightweight telephoto lenses.

Why stop there? With a Pentax Q, your standard 135mm telephoto becomes a 756mm-equivalent super-tele! Your 200mm becomes an 1120mm-equivalent! With just a 400mm you can take photos of the moon that will fill the whole frame[0]! On the other hand - with a smaller sensor you get worse low-light performance, increased noise, poorer resolution, a greater difficulty with diffraction limit degrading your resolution[1], and…

It's a question of balancing the tradeoffs of sensor size. For most photographers, the sweet spot is somewhere between APS-C and full frame. M4/3 isn't the ideal format, but it's a useful format.

The Olympus E-M1 MkII is fairly competitive with APS-C sensors, but you get significantly more reach. For most photographers, that extra reach is neither here nor there. The extra depth of field of a smaller sensor is more hindrance than help in a lot of cases. If you're a wildlife photographer who normally shoots with very long lenses, it's a compelling advantage.

Post reply on HN