Photo tips for Antarctica?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Kulvinder Singh Matharu, Nov 2, 2007.

  1. Kulvinder Singh Matharu

    Robert Coe Guest

    : On Mon, 05 Nov 2007 12:53:02 -0600, Doug McDonald <[email protected]_scs.uiuc.edu>
    : wrote:
    :
    : >I recommend "dry bags" as used by the river rafters. These
    : >are waterproof (don't "breathe"), are easy to carry
    : >(have handles), and are easier to open and shut than
    : >ziplocks.
    : >
    :
    : Uh, you mean "float bags" right?
    :
    : People might not find them when searching by the term "dry bags". :)

    Actually, they would. I just did. Never underestimate Google.

    Bob
     
    Robert Coe, Nov 10, 2007
    1. Advertisements

  2. Kulvinder Singh Matharu

    Robert Coe Guest

    : >Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
    : [etc., etc., back and forth]

    OK, folks, does anyone else agree that it's time for a sanity check?
    Thermodynamics is a subtle and tricky discipline. In college my mechanical
    engineering friends seemed to consider it among the tougher subjects they had
    to master. (Full disclosure: I was a math major and still know very little
    about thermodynamics.)

    For nearly a week we've been watching these two bash each other with technical
    arguments which most of us grasp dimly at best. I think it's time that both of
    them state their academic and professional credentials in this area, to give
    us at least some idea of whom to believe, since it's obvious that they can't
    both be right. (Maybe neither one of them is.)

    Come on, guys: why, exactly, should we believe either one of you?

    BTW, don't bother citing your non-technical experience and expertise. We know
    that one of you lives in the Arctic and that the other is a well-travelled
    professional (or semi-professional) photographer. But this argument is now
    about thermodynamics, not about wilderness survival or photography.

    Bob
     
    Robert Coe, Nov 10, 2007
    1. Advertisements

  3. There have been *many* reality checks provided for the
    various theories being tossed around. Theory is
    wonderful, but when it fails reality checks it is
    *necessarily* wrong.

    And to boot, your "sanity check"; well to put it mildly,
    is not sane.
    So explain to us how "academic and professional
    credentials" are what determines correctness about
    something that is only closely related at best?

    You know, in the 1840's Sir Franklin brought 150 men to
    the Arctic for a scientific expedition that was
    explicitly based on the best Western science in
    evidence. Food, clothing and weapons were chosen based
    on the best "academic and professional credentials". It
    happens that those choices were significantly different
    than choices made by people who lived in the Arctic.
    But that was okay, because those people were savages and
    primitive, with no credentials, or so it was said.

    Franklin's men were poisoned by their food and starved
    to death. With the best technology that great
    credentials could provide, they could not sustain
    themselves in an area where "primitive" people were
    being born, living happy lives, and dieing of old age.

    All of Sir Franklin's men died on that expedition. They
    died because they used the same sanity check you are
    proposing, and ignored the same reality checks that I
    have been offering.

    It is a story that has been repeated many times here,
    though rarely in the dramatic way that Franklin managed.
    But that is not what it is about at all! It is about
    photography in cold weather. That is not "wilderness
    survival". It is not thermodynamics either, nor is it
    cryogenics.

    Roger and I have described very different theory to
    explain what is significant. He says he understands
    the theory, I say I understand the theory, and we both
    cannot possibly be right.

    Your sanity check can't determine who is right, but the
    *many* reality checks that I posed all along the way do.
    Academic and professional credentials do not prove
    anyone is applying the theory correctly. Only a reality
    check demonstrates that.

    The reality check results are simple: My theory passed
    and Roger's failed.

    That does *not* prove that my theory is right! But it
    does say that Roger necessarily is wrong.

    Here's another reality check:

    http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson/misc/8474.jpg
     
    Floyd L. Davidson, Nov 10, 2007
  4. Kulvinder Singh Matharu

    Guest Guest

    Guest, Nov 10, 2007
  5. Kulvinder Singh Matharu

    acl Guest

    Well, you know what they say: Experts built the Titanic, amateurs the
    Ark.

    This isn't particularly relevant but sounds nice :). But seriously,
    expertise in "thermodynamics" isn't really relevant here.
     
    acl, Nov 10, 2007
  6. If you had tried a few seconds earlier, you'd have seen
    nothing at all! And a few seconds later it was the right
    image.
     
    Floyd L. Davidson, Nov 10, 2007
  7. Kulvinder Singh Matharu

    Guest Guest

    i did see nothing at all in two browsers, so i downloaded it, and
    that's when i was able to determine what it was. it looks like a real
    jpg is there now.
     
    Guest, Nov 10, 2007
  8. My bad... I'll get it right yet...

    The best URL is actually,

    http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson/misc/
     
    Floyd L. Davidson, Nov 10, 2007
  9. Well, that's just silly. Some of the most stupid and ignorant people I have ever
    met in life had PhD or Dr next to their names. The diet book aisles are full of
    authors having PhD and Dr next to their names giving out advice that will
    shorten the lives of many and do absolutely nothing to help anyone lose weight.
    They write diet books to increase the girth of their own checkbooks. Just as
    Roger is trying to increase his own failing ego and justify why his DSLR can't
    compete with P&S cameras anymore. His stupidity and motives are quite obvious.
    He's the only one that can't see it.

    The absurdity of value by title is like saying whoever is president must be the
    smartest person in touch with what all the needs of the people in his country.
    For proof that titles never mean anything look at who is president of the USA.
    One of the most stupid people to have ever graced the public limelight. How
    about Arnold Schwarzenegger for Governor? Can you think of any others more
    absurd to hold public office?

    The only value that "titles" have ever held were to other title holders.

    "I always break the word expert in two -- into X, the unknown quantity; and
    spurt, a drip working under pressure." - Edwina Mountbatten


    p.s. I've followed this discussion just fine. I'm never baffled by bullshit,
    only dazzled with brilliance. Roger is a one of the most dim bullshitters I've
    ever witnessed on the net. King of the rotting-red-herring run-around.
     
    Arnie Ainesworth, Nov 10, 2007
  10. It threw me for a loop too when I first tried looking at
    it. Then I noticed it was downloading nearly 2Mb to get
    it! Opps. It's a 100K or so file...

    Whatever, I wrapped it with an index.html file so that
    it has a bit of commentary along with it.

    http://web.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson/misc

    Also note that I made sure the JPEG file has full EXIF
    data too. Just be aware that it took significant work
    with The GIMP to make that image worth looking at. It
    was shot with an 800mm lense on a foggy/misty day day,
    and while that is not a "great" image now, the original
    was so bland as to be less than worthless... :)

    But, it demonstrates a point fairly well. It was taken
    about 3/8 of a mile from my home. That guy spent most
    of the day out there, even though his PhD thesis had
    nothing to do with thermodynamics. Incidentally, he was
    just one of *many* people out jigging in the past few
    days, and not one of them has enough academic or
    professional credentials to keep warm!

    There is no need to theorize on what people might wear
    in these conditions when it is easy to describe exactly
    what they *do* wear. Easy from here, that is...
     
    Floyd L. Davidson, Nov 10, 2007
  11. Kulvinder Singh Matharu

    Guest Guest

    i was wondering about that too.
    that doesn't load because web.apaflo.com can't be found. i think you
    meant www.apaflo.com, which does load. :)
     
    Guest, Nov 11, 2007
  12. Of course PhDs were and remain critical in developing most of the world
    we live in today, including your P&S camera. Just like every field
    has a few poor performers, from PhD scientists to medical doctors,
    to most are highly competent. Unfortunately, you really lower
    the curve of this newsgroup. Your jealously and hate is
    beyond anything seen here since the group's creation.

    Roger
     
    Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark), Nov 11, 2007
  13. Kulvinder Singh Matharu

    Robert Coe Guest

    :
    : : >>
    : >>This entire thread just turned into a killfile entry ... what a joke.
    : >
    : > Unfortunately, I think you are precisely correct.
    : >
    : > --
    : > Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
    : > Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)
    :
    :
    : AND I really wanted peoples opinions on the lens I was looking at :-(

    I think you may safely conclude that the principal contributors to this thread
    know little or nothing about the lens you're interested in. And after all the
    vacuous bluff and pigheaded bluster, would you believe them if they said they
    did?

    Bob
     
    Robert Coe, Nov 11, 2007
  14. Kulvinder Singh Matharu

    acl Guest


    Not that I agree or disagree with your assessment, but, since you
    yourself said that you've watched them "bash each other with technical
    arguments which most of us grasp dimly at best", ie, you don't
    understand what they say, what exactly do you base this opinion on?

    Not to be argumentative, but...
     
    acl, Nov 11, 2007
  15. Kulvinder Singh Matharu

    Robert Coe Guest

    Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
    : >> Any change in activity changes that gradient and that makes
    : >> it a challenge to manage.
    : >
    : > Says Roger, armchair expert on Northern Environments.
    :
    : You've launched multiple insults, but you are really ignoring
    : facts. Call me an armchair expert if you want but I
    : work with far colder temperatures than the coldest temperatures
    : that your ever heard of on earth, and I do it most weeks
    : every year. My thesis was:
    : Spectroscopic studies of water and water/regolith mixtures
    : on planetary surfaces at low temperatures: Ph.D. Thesis,
    : Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1980.
    : Translating that, I studied compounds at temperatures ranging
    : from -260 F to 70 F, including the effects of water,
    : and radiative transfer.
    : Today I studied water clathrates from -321 to -98 F.
    : I've worked in cold conditions in various work environments,
    : from standing working at a telescope (10 hours of no activity)
    : in -10 to -20 F, hiking in mountains in similar temperatures
    : and high wind conditions. That plus designing equipment to
    : work in cold temperatures down to -452 F.

    I'll be damned! One of the combatants actually answered my question. (The
    other one sneeringly hinted that I'm insane, but I'll not take offense. To
    paraphrase the late Adlai Stevenson, I can wait for my answer until Hell ...
    er ... freezes.) And I have to say that he does appear qualified to comment on
    the physics of this little argument. I actually worked at MIT for a while
    (more than a few years before Dr Clark was there, but who's counting?), and I
    live in the Boston area, so I have a soft spot for the 'Tute. I say this round
    goes to Roger. ;^)

    Bob
     
    Robert Coe, Nov 12, 2007
  16. Kulvinder Singh Matharu

    Robert Coe Guest

    :
    : > And after all the
    : > vacuous bluff and pigheaded bluster, would you believe them if they said they
    : > did?
    :
    :
    : Not that I agree or disagree with your assessment, but, since you
    : yourself said that you've watched them "bash each other with technical
    : arguments which most of us grasp dimly at best", ie, you don't
    : understand what they say, what exactly do you base this opinion on?
    :
    : Not to be argumentative, but...

    Note that I didn't pretend to know which one of them is right. (I'm not crazy,
    no matter what Floyd says.) But they can't both be right. It's obvious that at
    least one of them is bluffing.

    And now that they both say they've bowed out of this pissing contest, what are
    the odds that they can resist the temptation to jump back in? ;^)

    Bob
     
    Robert Coe, Nov 12, 2007
  17. Nobody "hinted" that you are insane. And I *do* take
    offense at such dishonesty.

    You proposed something you claimed was a "sanity check",
    and I pointed out that the _proposal_ was not sane.
    Don't call it a sanity check if you don't want its
    sanity rated!
    There are no rounds, Robert. It is also hilarious to
    see anyone suggest that a PhD thesis such as the one
    Roger Clark did make him anything close to an expert on
    *living* in an Arctic environment. Near as I can tell,
    Roger has never spent a week in an Arctic environment,
    and probably wouldn't be able to either stay warm or
    keep a truck running without help (that any 12 year old
    kid here could provide) if he were dropped off here
    tomorrow. That does not reflect anything other than not
    having experience in the Arctic, which is obviously a
    condition common to most people alive today. I'm
    astounded that he or you would take such offense at
    being so described.

    I will say that claiming to have expertise on Arctic
    environments based on the qualifications that Roger
    cites is a *ridiculous* on its face.
     
    Floyd L. Davidson, Nov 12, 2007
  18. Kulvinder Singh Matharu

    Robert Coe Guest

    : >I'll be damned! One of the combatants actually answered my question. (The
    : >other one sneeringly hinted that I'm insane, but I'll not take offense. To
    :
    : Nobody "hinted" that you are insane. And I *do* take
    : offense at such dishonesty.

    As they say in legalese, "Res ipsae loquitur."

    : You proposed something you claimed was a "sanity check",
    : and I pointed out that the _proposal_ was not sane.
    : Don't call it a sanity check if you don't want its
    : sanity rated!
    :
    : >paraphrase the late Adlai Stevenson, I can wait for my answer until Hell ...
    : >er ... freezes.) And I have to say that he does appear qualified to comment on
    : >the physics of this little argument. I actually worked at MIT for a while
    : >(more than a few years before Dr Clark was there, but who's counting?), and I
    : >live in the Boston area, so I have a soft spot for the 'Tute. I say this round
    : >goes to Roger. ;^)
    :
    : There are no rounds, Robert.

    Oh, sure there are. Otherwise you wouldn't be back in this fray a day or two
    after you said you were done with it. My guess is that we could keep you in
    this thread until Christmas if we had the time, energy, and interest to try to
    do so.

    : It is also hilarious to see anyone suggest that a PhD
    : thesis such as the one Roger Clark did make him anything
    : close to an expert on *living* in an Arctic environment.

    I don't believe I heard him claim to be one. What I did hear him claim to be
    is an expert in cryogenics who thinks that your technical explanation of the
    physical behavior of thermally insulating garments is bullshit. Whether he's
    right about that I'm not qualified to judge.

    : Near as I can tell,
    : Roger has never spent a week in an Arctic environment,
    : and probably wouldn't be able to either stay warm or
    : keep a truck running without help (that any 12 year old
    : kid here could provide) if he were dropped off here
    : tomorrow. That does not reflect anything other than not
    : having experience in the Arctic, which is obviously a
    : condition common to most people alive today. I'm
    : astounded that he or you would take such offense at
    : being so described.

    You aren't listening. I don't take offense. I don't care in the least how you
    describe me, Roger, my sanity, or the sanity of my call for you and Roger to
    state your academic and professional credentials for this war of words. And
    I'm certainly no Arctic survivor; the farthest north I've ever been is
    Trondheim, Norway. (It was January and as cold as a polar bear's ass, but it
    wasn't the Arctic.)

    I'm not sure I heard Roger take offense at that (i.e., being characterized as
    unqualified to survive in the Arctic) either. His beef, as I understand it, is
    with what he sees as your ignorance of the physics of coping with cold
    conditions and with your willingness to extrapolate from your allegedly flawed
    understanding in the advice you give to a potential Antarctic traveller.

    : I will say that claiming to have expertise on Arctic
    : environments based on the qualifications that Roger
    : cites is a *ridiculous* on its face.

    Well, he does appear to have a PhD in low-temperature physics and to be
    employed in that field. You, as far as I can determine, are an electrical
    engineer. (If that's a misconception, you're free to correct it.) Readers of
    this newsgroup can make of that what they will.

    Bob
     
    Robert Coe, Nov 12, 2007
  19. Then you probably should not be making so much noise.
     
    Floyd L. Davidson, Nov 12, 2007
  20. Kulvinder Singh Matharu

    acl Guest

    I honestly think that neither is wrong, in a sense. At least as far as
    actual practical advice is concerned. Now once the discussion drifted
    over into vapour pressures (incorrectly used) and temperature/moisture
    gradients, yes, one of the two appeared to be claiming different
    things in different posts, so can't be right.

    Anyway, threads such as this are usually amusing to follow but
    frustrating to take part in.
     
    acl, Nov 12, 2007
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

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

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.