Jemini wrote:
Sad, but at time we nature lovers have to hate some
They are a real pest here in Australia, overtaking our fragile native species. As much as I am a nature and bird lover, I feel that there is cause to eradicate or at least control non native species so as to protect our fragile native species future. These birds can live happily in their native country.
Today's shots from the blind. Had a new visitor, a Red Bellied Woodpecker. We have some Orioles that I was hoping would visit but I'll take this guy
The silent shutter of the Z6 really helps as I'm pretty close to these guys (very little cropping even with the Z6). I did miss a Downy Woodpecker while I was waiting for the camera to wake up from sleep but nothing you can do about that.
2 conflicting facts. The first fact the bird is the product of mother nature . the second fact it presents harm to echo system which mother nature heals and protect.
One time in the late 1800 up to maybe the 80s, this was a beloved and useful bird, but once man discovered the damage the bird is causing, it became a bad bird. The bird is still the same bird, but the knowledge changed.
just like the 2 words honest and criminal contradicts. If still does not make sense , consider it a bad joke.
2 conflicting facts. The first fact the bird is the product of mother nature . the second fact it presents harm to echo system which mother nature heals and protect.
One time in the late 1800 up to maybe the 80s, this was a beloved and useful bird, but once man discovered the damage the bird is causing, it became a bad bird. The bird is still the same bird, but the knowledge changed.
just like the 2 words honest and criminal contradicts. If still does not make sense , consider it a bad joke.
Ah, OK. All good. I see where you are coming from. Not so bad a joke, just we are different in our way of thinking and delivering the message, sort of like lost in translation if you know what I mean.
It is not the bird itself that is harmful or does the damage, but it is man that disrupts the balance in eco systems that have evolved over thousands of years. In this case, somebody thought he was clever and introduced a non native bird in an environment where it eventually became harmful.
Now who is to blame here? The bird? Obviously not, as it is merely as you rightfully say, a product of nature. Mankind is to blame, for blindly intervening in an ecosystem.
The examples of similar human "cleverness" are endless across the world. We have our own share of "pest-birds" in Western Europe, like the Asian/African Ring necked parakeet, that is on a steady rise here. Yes, some people develop a hatred of these loud birds. They forget that people imported these birds and sold them to be kept in cages in the 1970's. They were so loud that many quickly wanted to get rid of their new cage pet, and released them into the wide world. The rest is history.
Clever mankind, hmmm... never ceases to amaze me.
NissanPatrol wrote:
never mind
a bad joke
2 conflicting facts. The first fact the bird is the product of mother nature . the second fact it presents harm to echo system which mother nature heals and protect.
One time in the late 1800 up to maybe the 80s, this was a beloved and useful bird, but once man discovered the damage the bird is causing, it became a bad bird. The bird is still the same bird, but the knowledge changed.
just like the 2 words honest and criminal contradicts. If still does not make sense , consider it a bad joke.
ChrisMak wrote:
It is not the bird itself that is harmful or does the damage, but it is man that disrupts the balance in eco systems that have evolved over thousands of years. In this case, somebody thought he was clever and introduced a non native bird in an environment where it eventually became harmful.
Now who is to blame here? The bird? Obviously not, as it is merely as you rightfully say, a product of nature. Mankind is to blame, for blindly intervening in an ecosystem.
The examples of similar human "cleverness" are endless across the world. We have our own share of "pest-birds" in Western Europe, like the Asian/African Ring necked parakeet, that is on a steady rise here. Yes, some people develop a hatred of these loud birds. They forget that people imported these birds and sold them to be kept in cages in the 1970's. They were so loud that many quickly wanted to get rid of their new cage pet, and released them into the wide world. The rest is history.
Clever mankind, hmmm... never ceases to amaze me.
ChrisMak wrote:
It is not the bird itself that is harmful or does the damage, but it is man that disrupts the balance in eco systems that have evolved over thousands of years. In this case, somebody thought he was clever and introduced a non native bird in an environment where it eventually became harmful.
Now who is to blame here? The bird? Obviously not, as it is merely as you rightfully say, a product of nature. Mankind is to blame, for blindly intervening in an ecosystem.
The examples of similar human "cleverness" are endless across the world. We have our own share of "pest-birds" in Western Europe, like the Asian/African Ring necked parakeet, that is on a steady rise here. Yes, some people develop a hatred of these loud birds. They forget that people imported these birds and sold them to be kept in cages in the 1970's. They were so loud that many quickly wanted to get rid of their new cage pet, and released them into the wide world. The rest is history.
Clever mankind, hmmm... never ceases to amaze me.
Jemini wrote:
I believe we humans made the greatest damage to earth.
And nonautochthonous species do not represent the biggest problem. Do you know greenhouse gases and global warming, wet markets where wild animals are in contact, exchange bodily fluids and transmit zoonosis, etc. ??
I think crop should be calculated considering the overall pixel count, not only linear pixel count.
D500 native files have 5568 x 3712 = 20.67 Mpixels.
If you crop to 2000x1333 (thus maintaining the 3:2 ratio), you get 2.67 Mpix. You have thrown away (cropped) 20.67 - 2.67 = 18 Mpix, i.e. (18/20.67)x100 = 87% of pixels.
If you crop to 1333x1333 = 1.78 Mpix, crop is 91%.
Ripolini wrote:
I think crop should be calculated considering the overall pixel count, not only linear pixel count.
D500 native files have 5568 x 3712 = 20.67 Mpixels.
If you crop to 2000x1333 (thus maintaining the 3:2 ratio), you get 2.67 Mpix. You have thrown away (cropped) 20.67 - 2.67 = 18 Mpix, i.e. (18/20.67)x100 = 87% of pixels.
If you crop to 1333x1333 = 1.78 Mpix, crop is 91%.
