davidivad

it's just a finger. i am thinking that because it is a constant, then the number of imaginary waves will remain the same within the vacuum that particles reside in. think about it. the more space expands, the more space there is for the energy to present itself. you are right. it was a silly bet. there is so much theory behind what we are talking about. i was hoping to possibly snag you with the pioneer anomaly or specifics of the gravity probe b experiment. to note this is the most horrible misuse of the word constant that i have ever done.

i have imagined what world war 3 would result in. i look to the beauty and thriving natural scenery of the Chernobyl area. no real human traffic and a lot of disease resistant animals (had to include chemical warfare). mother nature thrives here in a land not fit for human population.

@CharonY thank you for the variety of camera selection as i am not completely current with all the latest cameras. 200-400 seems like a fair price. i will of course stick with my Nikons for lens interchangeability. that's my brush of taste. another suggestion i would make might be a magazine subscription to the likes of Shutterbug or such. you can take the "idea" with you in your bag. it's a great way to stay in the mix.

i was going to bring up the fact that nuclear warheads were emps too. i was basing my assertion of microwaves on the fact that police use directed microwave beams to interrupt car electronics systems and thus disable them for a stop. this is probably still in the testing phase right now. but it does make sense. you can melt metal in a microwave and you can interfere with radios. it is a continuous directed EMP.

there is definitely a discrepancy that cannot be accounted for when considering the theoretical quantities of zero point energy. however the casimir effect has been observed. i propose that the difference in the strength in earth's immediate gravitational field is less than that farther out as traveled by some of our probes. the question whether or not there have been any measurements or devices that depend upon our current calculations of this force. my bet is that the number of probability waves will remain constant and independent of a gravitational field because they are the same in a "vacuum" independent of the field (it is constant). in other words, i am betting my cards on the fact that it is a constant. if you win, then i will mail you a decent picture of my index finger (we all know it is just the tip of the iceberg). if i win this debate, you must do the same. fair? the only conditions of my bet are that your idea must either be proven by statistics or be the consequence of observed measurement.

you ain't making me give up my slrs! so it is established under public opinion that the best starter camera will be point and shoot. with a tripod and a good reference book i still want a good camera bag to put things in.

i think that America is also changing it's values to accommodate a changing world. what makes America what it is is diplomacy. to say we are superior in any way undermines the goals we have as a world leader. freedom is about choice not inferiority. why send such a message.

i think i bought my first slr for less than 200. my lenses were nothing special. if i remember correctly, i think i had about 500 in gear. that is minus the expense of toting around someone to blame. however in under two years i had acquired over ten thousand in stuff. i had even managed a few photo credits through the local paper and a couple of nondescript nature magazines. i eventually moved on to things like wedding shoots. sometimes it was hard to get a check cashed, but it did buy equipment.

may i ask what camera you are using? i would love to play around with one too. while i do not have one of them, i do have an old billows camera with an adjustable film plane. you can dang near look around a building right in the way of your shot.

just to note, i just broke the light speed barrier in my basement tomorrow. i knew einstein was right! wait a minute, i thought it was the other way around.

yea, i was distracted by a childish post in another section.

yep, my first darkroom was for black and white of course. the sink was made out of plywood and fiberglass. well, you do not have to start out with an slr anymore for a fairly good picture. the set up i mentioned was from that of an slr. i like the lens quality. it can be hard to find a one shot lens in this case. also, the flash can be removed due to red eye removal today. for simplicity and the sake of modern day convenience, let's stick to point and shoot cameras for a cheap basic set. the only problem i have with this is that you have so little control beyond a snapshot. you get what you pay for. twin lens heh. do you still have it?

you would have better luck with microwaves. don't cook yourself.

content aside, you do not need to make an algorithem for this it is included with the software. just resize the picture in question (porn always looks better the smaller the picture gets).

mike; might i suggest you try a statistical approach to first identify the patterns you are seeing and then verify the statistical results. in the end quantum physics is based upon statistics. yet we cannot prove what we see.

for me starting out, i had the filters (color, basic polarized, diffraction). however they were more of what a basic set of starting gear was at the time. what i would like to know is what you guys consider an essential set. i started out with a 35mm fm2 (old nikon), a pack of basic filters, a short focal length lens, a zoom lens, lens cloth, a flash unit that was a distance from the lens, lots of batteries, film or media, a decent bag (i am sure i am forgetting something here), and someone to blame when i dropped the camera. one thing i would add for beginners is how to hold the camera. i put my elbow in and brace it against my chest while i support the bottom of the camera with my palm. my index finger and thumb are there to adjust the lens. this will be different with a non-slr camera as you want both arms tucked in for support. if the camera has a strap, then use it. thank you studiot, i appreciate the links.

great find Studiot. this incorporates form with function without a doubt. of course i have some medical background. to me it is a acquired taste of fusion between art and science. coffee for the soul.

i definitely see where this approach may be useful. it definitely approaches the concept of induced hallucinations. it also addresses the issue with expectations. just for a little comedy, I too experimented with white noise. what eventually happened with me was that i began to "realize" voices within the static. i then decided that i needed clear distinct voices that i could easily pick out without having "compensation issues." problems arose in an attempt to isolate my makeshift studio from external sources. it got to the point where i had made a parabolic listening tool to isolate the sounds and eliminate them. here in lies the dilemma for me. i would feel more comfortable with the idea of using an eeg device to locate when you are experiencing a hallucination and, with the use of interactive software, training the patient to control the response. this creates an event that is judged by a "clean" source. in other words, it isolates your response from you. i must say that your forum edicate and adherence is awesome. i could learn a thing or two from you. there is current eeg technology that connects to your computer and lets you build your own app. for a hefty increase in price.

yes, when i first started taking pictures, i would simply go out and and shoot through nine or ten rolls of film at a time. this had a two fold purpose. first, it got me used to the camera and the basic concepts like aperture, shutter speed, the speed of the film (i learned by using manual mode), why a light meter is important- there was a lot of science behind the scene to learn. there is definite validity in shooting something several different ways. you can do a lot of things with Photoshop. for those who are tight on finances i would suggest "the gimp". it has a learning curve but is also a very powerful tool that just so happens to cater my need to open source ( beside the topic). Photoshop can be quite an expense for a student. as far as the rule of thirds, i think that this not only teaches technique but also establishes a historical background, so i suggest we maintain it's original name for integrity. in the end, if it helps to view it this way, there is nothing wrong with that. i would refer to another older thing that has historical value but can also be applied to modern concepts. the is the idea of grain. the courseness of a picture can do a lot of things for you. while grain has faded into history with film, the concept still has value. tripods are very important for me. i like to use slow shutter speeds and movement is not an option. it is also nice when you need to set up multiple cameras for that timely shot. you can now remotely operate your camera which i am still in the habit of forgetting while planning a shoot. edit: my justification for the rule of thirds is this. what is quantum mechanics without Feynman.

@sam i guess that what i am trying to convey to you is that while argument is a vital tool for the progression of science, it is pointless to argue if you cannot reach a consensus. this is my contribution to you. you still win though. and there is nothing you can do about it. at that level, i will discontinue answering this thread. good luck.

@ hypervalent_iodine i will try to be more literal with my devices. he does not realize that you do not have to argue to have effective communication but you do need to be able to argue your point which is my motivation. i will quit.

i always enjoy your contributions. you bring an excellent balance with you. i too use depth of field as it is a crucial element to focusing attention. i love nikon (i have accumulated many lenses and even break out with my old fm2 so it is useful) and i have minimal lighting gear just for those cases where i need a little fill as well as my "studio" gear. do you have any favorite practices for lighting or do you prefer natural lighting?

thank you Ajb. i appreciate the input.

yea, while they are paintings one would think that should be the case. this is a rule for beginners. i have often placed an non-descript object directly in the middle to see if i can get away with it. it works occasionally. the rule of thirds is a technique meant to foster technique. i also think that most of celebrity shots are usually glorified mug shots. they are famous so you can get away with it. i sincerely hope this helps someone compose a better picture because that is what it really boils down to.

I want to get some new ideas for concepts that relate to photography. I will start with two of my favorite techniques. My favorite and most important rule is the rule of thirds. If you want to make a picture interesting, then you want it to follow this rule. NEVER place the main subject directly in the center of the frame. If you are shooting portraits, then you will, at best, end up with a pretty mugshot. Imagine a tic-tac-toe that evenly divides your frame. The goal is to try to stay out of the center block. You can organize the viewer's attention by guiding him or her around the frame. This can help you tell a story by managing their attention in sequence. Another favorite of mine is natural framing. This is done by using an object or objects to "wrap" the frame of the picture. I have been known to use a tree in the foreground, or such, where the roots are at the bottom third of the frame, the trunk follows one side, and a limb hits the top third of the frame. There as many variations on framing as there are clouds in the sky. this topic is intended to create a small body of knowledge that is accessible to all, so please feel free to contribute.