Adobe advertisement?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Tony Cooper, May 19, 2013.

  1. Tony Cooper

    Tony Cooper Guest

    I have, but don't use, Adobe Elements 9. My daughter - who does use
    the program - called today and asked how to do something in Elements.

    I opened Elements, and much to my surprise, up popped an ad from Adobe
    hoping to lure me into subscribing to Adobe Revel. One of the options
    is paying $5.99 a month for Revel Premium.

    As we know, Adobe will *never* embed ads in Adobe programs. How could
    this possibly happen?

    https://www.dropbox.com/s/7yoiudp3kcw14w3/Capture.JPG

    Now I know that some will say "Oh, that's just trying to sell you an
    Adobe product, and that's not an ad. For it to be an ad, they have to
    try to sell you something not provided by Adobe. Like a health club
    membership or lava lamp or a nose hair clipper."

    But, I disagree. If they are trying to induce me to buy something,
    it's an advertisement.

    To quote an old joke, "Now that we know what you are, let's discuss
    price".

    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando FL
     
    Tony Cooper, May 19, 2013
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Tony Cooper

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, Tony Cooper
    <> wrote:

    > I have, but don't use, Adobe Elements 9. My daughter - who does use
    > the program - called today and asked how to do something in Elements.
    >
    > I opened Elements, and much to my surprise, up popped an ad from Adobe
    > hoping to lure me into subscribing to Adobe Revel. One of the options
    > is paying $5.99 a month for Revel Premium.


    not listed in the screen shot below, it isn't.

    > As we know, Adobe will *never* embed ads in Adobe programs. How could
    > this possibly happen?


    i said embed ads in *paid* apps.

    didn't you get elements bundled with hardware, i.e., free?

    > https://www.dropbox.com/s/7yoiudp3kcw14w3/Capture.JPG
    >
    > Now I know that some will say "Oh, that's just trying to sell you an
    > Adobe product, and that's not an ad. For it to be an ad, they have to
    > try to sell you something not provided by Adobe. Like a health club
    > membership or lava lamp or a nose hair clipper."


    if you actually read the text, it is telling you photoshop.com is
    moving to a new home and they're going to be moving your photos there,
    starting last month.

    in other words, it's an informational banner giving you critical
    information. hardly what most people would call an ad.

    plus, they're not selling you anything anyway. revel is free.

    there is a paid tier, but they don't mention that. not a very good ad,
    is it?

    > But, I disagree. If they are trying to induce me to buy something,
    > it's an advertisement.


    except they're not trying to induce you into buying anything. they're
    simply telling you that your existing photoshop.com account is going to
    be moved to revel, whether you want it or not.
     
    nospam, May 19, 2013
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Tony Cooper

    Tony Cooper Guest

    On Sun, 19 May 2013 14:25:21 -0400, nospam <>
    wrote:

    >In article <>, Tony Cooper
    ><> wrote:
    >
    >> I have, but don't use, Adobe Elements 9. My daughter - who does use
    >> the program - called today and asked how to do something in Elements.
    >>
    >> I opened Elements, and much to my surprise, up popped an ad from Adobe
    >> hoping to lure me into subscribing to Adobe Revel. One of the options
    >> is paying $5.99 a month for Revel Premium.

    >
    >not listed in the screen shot below, it isn't.


    So the price must be listed in the actual ad for it to be an ad? Is
    that true of all ads? Take a look at B&H's ads in the back of
    photography magazines. Hundreds of items that are not priced in the
    ad. Quibble, quibble, quibble.

    >
    >> As we know, Adobe will *never* embed ads in Adobe programs. How could
    >> this possibly happen?

    >
    >i said embed ads in *paid* apps.
    >
    >didn't you get elements bundled with hardware, i.e., free?


    No, it is a paid-for product. I can supply an image of the box. This
    is a purchased version of Elements 9. I haven't had a bundled version
    for several years. I think that was Elements 5 or 6 (but I'm not
    sure). That went when I purchased a new computer.
    >
    >> https://www.dropbox.com/s/7yoiudp3kcw14w3/Capture.JPG
    >>
    >> Now I know that some will say "Oh, that's just trying to sell you an
    >> Adobe product, and that's not an ad. For it to be an ad, they have to
    >> try to sell you something not provided by Adobe. Like a health club
    >> membership or lava lamp or a nose hair clipper."

    >
    >if you actually read the text, it is telling you photoshop.com is
    >moving to a new home and they're going to be moving your photos there,
    >starting last month.
    >
    >in other words, it's an informational banner giving you critical
    >information. hardly what most people would call an ad.


    If this same information was published in a magazine, would it be an
    ad? Naturally, it wouldn't be exactly the same since we can't have
    links that open in a magazine ad.

    >plus, they're not selling you anything anyway. revel is free.


    A limited version is free, but the better version costs money. Is
    this your criteria for something to be an ad? So if Adobe places an
    ad in their program for, say, a free version of an anti-virus program
    that is not branded Adobe, but that program has a better version that
    is charged for, then it's not an ad?
    >
    >there is a paid tier, but they don't mention that. not a very good ad,
    >is it?
    >
    >> But, I disagree. If they are trying to induce me to buy something,
    >> it's an advertisement.

    >
    >except they're not trying to induce you into buying anything. they're
    >simply telling you that your existing photoshop.com account is going to
    >be moved to revel, whether you want it or not.


    Well, today's newspaper is full of non-ads, then. Several automobile
    dealers are simply telling me that they have certain models of
    automobiles in stock. No prices are listed and there's nothing in
    their ads that say "Buy me".

    This is an ad. No matter how you quibble, it's an ad. It is placed
    there in order to induce me to do something, and that involves me
    buying something if I want the best way to do it. Adobe is doing what
    you say they won't do.

    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando FL
     
    Tony Cooper, May 20, 2013
    #3
  4. Tony Cooper

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, Tony Cooper
    <> wrote:

    > >> I have, but don't use, Adobe Elements 9. My daughter - who does use
    > >> the program - called today and asked how to do something in Elements.
    > >>
    > >> I opened Elements, and much to my surprise, up popped an ad from Adobe
    > >> hoping to lure me into subscribing to Adobe Revel. One of the options
    > >> is paying $5.99 a month for Revel Premium.

    > >
    > >not listed in the screen shot below, it isn't.

    >
    > So the price must be listed in the actual ad for it to be an ad? Is
    > that true of all ads? Take a look at B&H's ads in the back of
    > photography magazines. Hundreds of items that are not priced in the
    > ad. Quibble, quibble, quibble.


    i didn't say the price had to be listed.

    what i said was that only revel is listed, not the paid revel premium.

    for someone unfamiliar with the product, they'd never know there was a
    second tier, unless they clicked the more info button.

    > >> Now I know that some will say "Oh, that's just trying to sell you an
    > >> Adobe product, and that's not an ad. For it to be an ad, they have to
    > >> try to sell you something not provided by Adobe. Like a health club
    > >> membership or lava lamp or a nose hair clipper."

    > >
    > >if you actually read the text, it is telling you photoshop.com is
    > >moving to a new home and they're going to be moving your photos there,
    > >starting last month.
    > >
    > >in other words, it's an informational banner giving you critical
    > >information. hardly what most people would call an ad.

    >
    > If this same information was published in a magazine, would it be an
    > ad? Naturally, it wouldn't be exactly the same since we can't have
    > links that open in a magazine ad.


    i see it as informational, or a public service announcement.

    > >plus, they're not selling you anything anyway. revel is free.

    >
    > A limited version is free, but the better version costs money. Is
    > this your criteria for something to be an ad? So if Adobe places an
    > ad in their program for, say, a free version of an anti-virus program
    > that is not branded Adobe, but that program has a better version that
    > is charged for, then it's not an ad?


    that would be an ad but that isn't what they're doing.

    they're informing you that photoshop.com is going away and revel is
    replacing it. that's important info for someone who was using
    photoshop.com.

    > >there is a paid tier, but they don't mention that. not a very good ad,
    > >is it?
    > >
    > >> But, I disagree. If they are trying to induce me to buy something,
    > >> it's an advertisement.

    > >
    > >except they're not trying to induce you into buying anything. they're
    > >simply telling you that your existing photoshop.com account is going to
    > >be moved to revel, whether you want it or not.

    >
    > Well, today's newspaper is full of non-ads, then. Several automobile
    > dealers are simply telling me that they have certain models of
    > automobiles in stock. No prices are listed and there's nothing in
    > their ads that say "Buy me".


    'buy me' is an invitation to buy.

    there is no buy me in your screenshot. there are only two buttons, one
    one how to get more info and the other on how to move to the new
    system.

    > This is an ad. No matter how you quibble, it's an ad. It is placed
    > there in order to induce me to do something, and that involves me
    > buying something if I want the best way to do it. Adobe is doing what
    > you say they won't do.


    nope. you don't have to buy anything. the 'best' way is the way that
    fits your needs, which could be the free level. for me, the free
    dropbox level is the best.

    of course, they'd love it if you gave the money but that's not required.

    anyway, call it an ad if you want. change what i said to adobe won't
    push ads in the apps to paying customers of creative cloud, and they
    won't. they're not going to piss off their pro customers, especially
    ones who are paying $600 per year.
     
    nospam, May 20, 2013
    #4
  5. Tony Cooper

    Tony Cooper Guest

    On Sun, 19 May 2013 22:10:25 -0400, nospam <>
    wrote:

    >the 'best' way is the way that fits your needs,


    Well, that's a reversal in your thinking. When the discussion was
    about film or digital, you insisted that digital is the "best way" and
    gave no allowance to people who feel film fits their needs.

    There may be hope for you.

    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando FL
     
    Tony Cooper, May 20, 2013
    #5
  6. Tony Cooper

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, Tony Cooper
    <> wrote:

    > >the 'best' way is the way that fits your needs,

    >
    > Well, that's a reversal in your thinking.


    that's *always* been my thinking.

    > When the discussion was
    > about film or digital, you insisted that digital is the "best way" and
    > gave no allowance to people who feel film fits their needs.


    wrong. i never said digital was the best way.

    what i said was that digital can do anything film can do, which is a
    true statement.
     
    nospam, May 20, 2013
    #6
  7. Tony Cooper

    Tony Cooper Guest

    On Mon, 20 May 2013 10:08:23 -0400, nospam <>
    wrote:

    >In article <>, Tony Cooper
    ><> wrote:
    >
    >> >the 'best' way is the way that fits your needs,

    >>
    >> Well, that's a reversal in your thinking.

    >
    >that's *always* been my thinking.
    >
    >> When the discussion was
    >> about film or digital, you insisted that digital is the "best way" and
    >> gave no allowance to people who feel film fits their needs.

    >
    >wrong. i never said digital was the best way.
    >
    >what i said was that digital can do anything film can do, which is a
    >true statement.


    You said:

    "it's obviously a choice, but it's because they don't understand
    digital technology and think film is better. anything they can do with
    film can be done better with digital (or the same if they like the
    look), and for less money too."

    If not "best", the "better" of the two.

    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando FL
     
    Tony Cooper, May 21, 2013
    #7
  8. On 5/21/2013 3:05 AM, rwalker wrote:
    > On Sun, 19 May 2013 12:59:01 -0400, Tony Cooper
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >> I have, but don't use, Adobe Elements 9. My daughter - who does use
    >> the program - called today and asked how to do something in Elements.
    >>
    >> I opened Elements, and much to my surprise, up popped an ad from Adobe
    >> hoping to lure me into subscribing to Adobe Revel. One of the options
    >> is paying $5.99 a month for Revel Premium.
    >>
    >> As we know, Adobe will *never* embed ads in Adobe programs. How could
    >> this possibly happen?
    >>
    >> https://www.dropbox.com/s/7yoiudp3kcw14w3/Capture.JPG
    >>
    >> Now I know that some will say "Oh, that's just trying to sell you an
    >> Adobe product, and that's not an ad. For it to be an ad, they have to
    >> try to sell you something not provided by Adobe. Like a health club
    >> membership or lava lamp or a nose hair clipper."
    >>
    >> But, I disagree. If they are trying to induce me to buy something,
    >> it's an advertisement.
    >>
    >> To quote an old joke, "Now that we know what you are, let's discuss
    >> price".

    >
    > I'm still using Elements 4! I guess I'll stick with it. I am finally
    > in a position where I was considering moving up to full blown
    > Photoshop, but I see now you can only SUBSCRIBE to it. Forget it, I'm
    > sticking with Elements 4 till it won't run any more.
    >

    I use Elements 11 and I don't see any ads. It does take some seconds to
    load and displays a panel with what I think are programmers' names while
    loading.

    --
    Jim Silverton (Potomac, MD)

    Extraneous "not." in Reply To.
     
    James Silverton, May 21, 2013
    #8
  9. Tony Cooper

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, rwalker
    <> wrote:

    > I'm still using Elements 4! I guess I'll stick with it. I am finally
    > in a position where I was considering moving up to full blown
    > Photoshop, but I see now you can only SUBSCRIBE to it. Forget it, I'm
    > sticking with Elements 4 till it won't run any more.


    wrong. photoshop cs6 is still sold and will continue to be sold.

    however, it will be the last version sold that way. you could upgrade
    to cs6 whenever you want or you could get photoshop elements 11, which
    is cheaper and does way more than what you have now.
     
    nospam, May 21, 2013
    #9
  10. Tony Cooper

    Whisky-dave Guest

    On Monday, May 20, 2013 3:08:23 PM UTC+1, nospam wrote:
    > In article <>, Tony Cooper
    >
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    > > >the 'best' way is the way that fits your needs,

    >
    > >

    >
    > > Well, that's a reversal in your thinking.

    >
    >
    >
    > that's *always* been my thinking.
    >
    >
    >
    > > When the discussion was

    >
    > > about film or digital, you insisted that digital is the "best way" and

    >
    > > gave no allowance to people who feel film fits their needs.

    >
    >
    >
    > wrong. i never said digital was the best way.
    >
    >
    >
    > what i said was that digital can do anything film can do, which is a
    >
    > true statement.


    And means little.
    I've heard star trails are much more difficult with digital than with film due to the build up of noise. Not that I've tried it with a digital camera found it reasonably easy with my old film camera.
    I still say it's easier to do IR with my practica L than my Canon G10 or perhaps you could tell me an easier way using digital becaus it's better that way.
     
    Whisky-dave, May 23, 2013
    #10
  11. Tony Cooper

    Sandman Guest

    In article <>,
    Whisky-dave <> wrote:

    > > what i said was that digital can do anything film can do, which is a
    > > true statement.

    >
    > And means little. I've heard star trails are much more difficult
    > with digital than with film due to the build up of noise.


    I can't see why noise would build up faster or more on digital than on
    film?

    > Not that I've tried it with a digital camera found it reasonably
    > easy with my old film camera. I still say it's easier to do IR with
    > my practica L than my Canon G10 or perhaps you could tell me an
    > easier way using digital becaus it's better that way.


    Well, it's probably easier with your older camera because it doesn't
    have a strong IR blocking filter. Modern digital cameras have a strong
    IR blocking filter. Older digital cameras does not (Nikon D70 is a
    favorite amongst IR photographers).

    Either way, IR suitability is not due to whether or not the camera is
    digital or not, it's due to the filter.



    --
    Sandman[.net]
     
    Sandman, May 23, 2013
    #11
  12. Tony Cooper

    Whisky-dave Guest

    On Thursday, May 23, 2013 2:08:04 PM UTC+1, Sandman wrote:
    > In article <>,
    >
    > Whisky-dave <> wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    > > > what i said was that digital can do anything film can do, which is a

    >
    > > > true statement.

    >
    > >

    >
    > > And means little. I've heard star trails are much more difficult

    >
    > > with digital than with film due to the build up of noise.

    >
    >
    >
    > I can't see why noise would build up faster or more on digital than on
    >
    > film?


    partly because film has reciporsity failure, which means it gets less sensitive with exsposure, while camera sensors do not. Which for most will make digital better but not for this purpose.
    Camera sensors will warm up with use, while film doesn't, well not in the same way, increasing this temerature adds noise which is why specislist digtial and film cameras are kept cold, very cold if possible.


    > > Not that I've tried it with a digital camera found it reasonably

    >
    > > easy with my old film camera. I still say it's easier to do IR with

    >
    > > my practica L than my Canon G10 or perhaps you could tell me an

    >
    > > easier way using digital becaus it's better that way.

    >
    >
    >
    > Well, it's probably easier with your older camera because it doesn't
    >
    > have a strong IR blocking filter. Modern digital cameras have a strong
    >
    > IR blocking filter.


    Why we cant; see IR any more than we can hear DC or 50KHz .

    >Older digital cameras does not (Nikon D70 is a
    >
    > favorite amongst IR photographers).



    > Either way, IR suitability is not due to whether or not the camera is
    >
    > digital or not, it's due to the filter.


    What about the filter ?
    Why filter out something we can't see ?
     
    Whisky-dave, May 23, 2013
    #12
  13. Tony Cooper

    Sandman Guest

    In article <>,
    Whisky-dave <> wrote:

    > > I can't see why noise would build up faster or more on digital than on
    > > film?

    >
    > partly because film has reciporsity failure, which means it gets less
    > sensitive with exsposure, while camera sensors do not. Which for most will
    > make digital better but not for this purpose.
    > Camera sensors will warm up with use, while film doesn't, well not in the
    > same way, increasing this temerature adds noise which is why specislist
    > digtial and film cameras are kept cold, very cold if possible.


    Sure, but this is a marginal effect, surely? I mean, it may be
    measurable, or theoretically proven, but do we have any way to make
    comparable samples? Say, an ISO100 film and a digital sensor set to
    ISO100 for a 10 minute exposure on a starry cloud free night, and then
    compare noise?

    I mean, if the theory is that heat encourages noise in the sensor, then
    the very fact that we are taking the photo at night would minimize that
    effect, no? Sure, there are places on earth where nighttime is as hot as
    daytime, but for the general case.

    > > Either way, IR suitability is not due to whether or not the camera is
    > > digital or not, it's due to the filter.

    >
    > What about the filter ?
    > Why filter out something we can't see ?


    Huh? No, it's the other way around. The IR filter you add to the lens
    filters everything BUT the IR light. So the only thing that reaches the
    film/sensor is IR light. For film cameras and older digital cameras,
    that would work just fine. The film/sensor registers only IR light, and
    some really interesting photographs can be made.

    On newer digital cameras, the manufacturer have added a strong IR
    *blocking* filter in front of the sensor, that blocks IR light to reach
    the sensor - meaning that if you add an IR filter in front of the lens,
    then no light will reach the sensor, because the IR filter blocks normal
    light and the IR block blocks IR light. :)

    You can then do an IR conversion of your camera, removing the IR block
    from in front of the sensor, then you can add an IR filter and shoot IR
    pictures as normal.



    --
    Sandman[.net]
     
    Sandman, May 23, 2013
    #13
  14. Tony Cooper

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, Eric Stevens
    <> wrote:

    > >
    > >The Adobe web site has done its best to obfuscate any direct path to
    > >purchasing a license to PS CS6 or an upgrade from CS5.
    > >They are doing all they can to lead CS users from the purchased license
    > >to the rented CC variety. To buy the CS5 to CS6 upgrade I had to call
    > >their 800 number and make arrangements. I was told that DVD versions of
    > >any of the CS Suite modules were no longer available via direct sale
    > >from Adobe, and that there would be no further deliveries to resellers,
    > >that inventory is expected to dwindle by atrition.
    > >

    > Amazon still has three copies of CS6 but, as usual, they will not ship
    > to my address. It looks as though if I want to go that way its CC or
    > nothing.


    <http://www.adobe.com/products/catalog/cs6._sl_id-contentfilter_sl_catal
    og_sl_software_sl_creativesuite6.html?start=10>
     
    nospam, May 23, 2013
    #14
  15. Tony Cooper

    nospam Guest

    In article <>,
    Whisky-dave <> wrote:

    > I've heard star trails are much more difficult with digital than with film
    > due to the build up of noise. Not that I've tried it with a digital camera
    > found it reasonably easy with my old film camera.


    astronomers love digital.

    > I still say it's easier to do IR with my practica L than my Canon G10 or
    > perhaps you could tell me an easier way using digital becaus it's better that way.


    you need something better than a g10.
     
    nospam, May 23, 2013
    #15
  16. Tony Cooper

    nospam Guest

    In article <>,
    Whisky-dave <> wrote:

    > >Older digital cameras does not (Nikon D70 is a
    > > favorite amongst IR photographers).

    >
    > > Either way, IR suitability is not due to whether or not the camera is
    > > digital or not, it's due to the filter.

    >
    > What about the filter ?
    > Why filter out something we can't see ?


    because digital sensors can see infrared.

    for normal photography you don't want infrared contamination.
     
    nospam, May 23, 2013
    #16
  17. Tony Cooper

    PeterN Guest

    On 5/23/2013 11:14 AM, nospam wrote:
    > In article <>,
    > Whisky-dave <> wrote:
    >
    >> I've heard star trails are much more difficult with digital than with film
    >> due to the build up of noise. Not that I've tried it with a digital camera
    >> found it reasonably easy with my old film camera.

    >
    > astronomers love digital.
    >
    >> I still say it's easier to do IR with my practica L than my Canon G10 or
    >> perhaps you could tell me an easier way using digital becaus it's better that way.

    >
    > you need something better than a g10.
    >


    I had my old Coolpix converted to IR. The IR filter was removd and the
    lens focus adjusted.
    <http://peternewman.smugmug.com/Photography/Landscapes/21271534_mw4B9R#!i=1730614889&k=WGpJLmN>

    --
    PeterN
     
    PeterN, May 23, 2013
    #17
  18. Tony Cooper

    PeterN Guest

    On 5/23/2013 11:06 AM, Sandman wrote:
    > In article <>,
    > Whisky-dave <> wrote:
    >
    >>> I can't see why noise would build up faster or more on digital than on
    >>> film?

    >>
    >> partly because film has reciporsity failure, which means it gets less
    >> sensitive with exsposure, while camera sensors do not. Which for most will
    >> make digital better but not for this purpose.
    >> Camera sensors will warm up with use, while film doesn't, well not in the
    >> same way, increasing this temerature adds noise which is why specislist
    >> digtial and film cameras are kept cold, very cold if possible.

    >
    > Sure, but this is a marginal effect, surely? I mean, it may be
    > measurable, or theoretically proven, but do we have any way to make
    > comparable samples? Say, an ISO100 film and a digital sensor set to
    > ISO100 for a 10 minute exposure on a starry cloud free night, and then
    > compare noise?
    >
    > I mean, if the theory is that heat encourages noise in the sensor, then
    > the very fact that we are taking the photo at night would minimize that
    > effect, no? Sure, there are places on earth where nighttime is as hot as
    > daytime, but for the general case.


    I freely admit that I don't understand the theory ofwhy, but ther has to
    be a reason cameras have a setting for long exposure NR.


    >
    >>> Either way, IR suitability is not due to whether or not the camera is
    >>> digital or not, it's due to the filter.

    >>
    >> What about the filter ?
    >> Why filter out something we can't see ?

    >
    > Huh? No, it's the other way around. The IR filter you add to the lens
    > filters everything BUT the IR light. So the only thing that reaches the
    > film/sensor is IR light. For film cameras and older digital cameras,
    > that would work just fine. The film/sensor registers only IR light, and
    > some really interesting photographs can be made.
    >
    > On newer digital cameras, the manufacturer have added a strong IR
    > *blocking* filter in front of the sensor, that blocks IR light to reach
    > the sensor - meaning that if you add an IR filter in front of the lens,
    > then no light will reach the sensor, because the IR filter blocks normal
    > light and the IR block blocks IR light. :)
    >
    > You can then do an IR conversion of your camera, removing the IR block
    > from in front of the sensor, then you can add an IR filter and shoot IR
    > pictures as normal.
    >
    >
    >

    Did that at it works well for me. You also need to have the focus
    adjusted, as IR focus is <> regular focus.

    --
    PeterN
     
    PeterN, May 23, 2013
    #18
  19. Tony Cooper

    Sandman Guest

    In article <519e5f26$0$10769$-secrets.com>,
    PeterN <> wrote:

    > > I mean, if the theory is that heat encourages noise in the sensor, then
    > > the very fact that we are taking the photo at night would minimize that
    > > effect, no? Sure, there are places on earth where nighttime is as hot as
    > > daytime, but for the general case.

    >
    > I freely admit that I don't understand the theory ofwhy, but ther has to
    > be a reason cameras have a setting for long exposure NR.


    The idea seems to come from the book "Digital SLR Astrophotography" by
    Michael Covington, but he doesn't talk about how he determined the
    amount of noise different temperatures, and states that DSLR's are
    "noticeably" less noisy during winter than in the summer.

    He also states that he hasn't tested new cameras, and the book was
    published in 2007.

    > > You can then do an IR conversion of your camera, removing the IR block
    > > from in front of the sensor, then you can add an IR filter and shoot IR
    > > pictures as normal.

    >
    > Did that at it works well for me. You also need to have the focus
    > adjusted, as IR focus is <> regular focus.


    Indeed - or convert a camera with LiveView so you can see the current
    focus directly on the sensor. That way, you can add a IR block filter
    and use the camera as normal as well as an IR camera.



    --
    Sandman[.net]
     
    Sandman, May 23, 2013
    #19
  20. Tony Cooper

    Sandman Guest

    In article <519e5e4c$0$10832$-secrets.com>,
    PeterN <> wrote:

    > On 5/23/2013 11:14 AM, nospam wrote:
    > > In article <>,
    > > Whisky-dave <> wrote:
    > >
    > >> I've heard star trails are much more difficult with digital than with film
    > >> due to the build up of noise. Not that I've tried it with a digital camera
    > >> found it reasonably easy with my old film camera.

    > >
    > > astronomers love digital.
    > >
    > >> I still say it's easier to do IR with my practica L than my Canon G10 or
    > >> perhaps you could tell me an easier way using digital becaus it's better
    > >> that way.

    > >
    > > you need something better than a g10.
    > >

    >
    > I had my old Coolpix converted to IR. The IR filter was removd and the
    > lens focus adjusted.
    > <http://peternewman.smugmug.com/Photography/Landscapes/21271534_mw4B9R#!i=1730
    > 614889&k=WGpJLmN>


    Very good!


    --
    Sandman[.net]
     
    Sandman, May 23, 2013
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Arun
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    935
  2. Ivan Ostres

    BGP conditional advertisement

    Ivan Ostres, Aug 2, 2004, in forum: Cisco
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    5,034
    Ivan Ostres
    Aug 9, 2004
  3. Lars L. Christensen

    Advertisement of a default route

    Lars L. Christensen, Jan 27, 2005, in forum: Cisco
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    6,937
    Ivan Ostreš
    Jan 31, 2005
  4. Garry
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    896
    Cisco Fan
    Mar 21, 2005
  5. Replies:
    0
    Views:
    574
Loading...

Share This Page