vinke wrote:
specifically, those shooting digital for National Geographic:
RAW or Jpeg?
Carefully or "Spray and Pray"?
Many of the articles include about 20 or so images. No doubt, a photographer will probably shoot more like 500 - 2,000 images per story. Maybe more.
If I had to guess then I would say "Jpeg" and more "spray and pray", but I thought I'd ask to see if anyone knows more definatively.
I used to love this magazine as a kid and I've recently re-discovered it (online and print ) for it's wonderful photography. I'm not too wild about their sky's-falling, globe-is-warming, man-is-the-problem-for-everything message, but I can largely ignore it to see the interesting pictures.
tomham wrote:
I've been teaching Enviromental Science at the college level for the past month now, and I quickly learned that I don't know most of the answers. In fact, it seems that noboody knows any of the answers to the more complicated questions. It's those that think they know that get into all of the arguments.
My good friend shoots for NG, and I spent several hours talking with another person that shoots for NG. The other person jokes that NG sends photographers out, and then a story is created based upon the pictures. My friend has given me many pointers on what NG expects of its shooters: "fix it in photoshop" is not permitted; JPEG is shot and sent directly to NG without modification - they do it right the first time; photographers are usually sent out in groups, but have enough lead time to learn the subject that they shoot; he says that the best of them are constantly looking at aperture and ISO so they know how their shot will look when they come upon a scene. He uses an Expodiscseveral times a day to be sure of correct colors.
I know - too long, but I have learned a lot and my shooting has gotten a whole lot better by following his advice....Show more →
thing is JPG shooting limits dynamic range and detail so even if you nail the settings it is still not at all what you could get out of RAW so using jpg only seems kinda dumb to me. And ultimately someting has to make the tone curves and do the debayering etc from what the sensor actually captures so the camera's locked choiced or your own in RAW, neither is more pure than the other.... It is one thing to not allow clone tool and that sort of stuff and another to ban RAW.... not saying they have not, but that is dumb IMO.
Johnny Bravo wrote:
They are questionable theories, in many cases, not 'undeniable realities'. I've spent a tremendous amount of time in the field, and I've seen changes--but the sky is not falling, and half of what passes for 'science' these days is little more than sensational hype. Sad, but true. (I've seen more changes in the lowering of the standards in science and journalism than environmental degradation of late--now that is an undeniable reality)
not too questionable in many cases
old-growth forests over much of the world have been pretty well devastated. WHt do the Great Smoky Mountains have, about 180,000 acres of OG and that is considered THE ginat chunk of OG in the eastern US and the Adirondacks maybe 250,000-500,000 and after that there are a few 3,000-10,000 bits and then it is mostly little scraps here and there. Most of the great western forests in the US have been cut down as well. Europe even moreso. etc.
when was the last time you saw a black rhino on the serengeti?
what percentage of coastal rainforest is left in South America? (close to zero? yeah)
Johnny Bravo wrote:
The vast majority of scientists in the world are focused on two things: Getting a name for themselves, and getting grant money. (beats the crap out of gainful employment).
As such, they very much engage in herd mentality, and form their opinions based upon the affirmative head-nodding of thier peers and the bestowers of grants. Since the bestowers of grants happen to be resoundingly anti business and private enterprise (not surprising, since their idea of 'survival of the fittest' is to handicap the fittest) the independent critical thought needed is elimiated for a liberal political world view and the 'madness of crowds' becomes the concensus of science these days. And pity the poor scientist, academician or journalist who goes against the tide.
Now, there are exceptions to any generality, but the existence of an exception does not disprove the generality. There just aren't enough scientists with integrity these days---- and journalism? What a joke.
field biologists and ecologists aren't usually caught up in the way you are thinking for one and it's almost impossible to make a giant name of oneself so it is not exactly a major goal, there are no Nobel prizes for field biology.
Mostly it is people who care a lot and like being outdoors and struggle to get some food in their mouth and in some cases end up having to say leave africa because they can't afford to even stay there to work at the very organization they set up.
if you trust no one go look at satellite maps, look over historical logging records and go ground source forests yourself and it is easy to see what the stories are.
if you can find 40,000 magically hidden black rhinos or tons of Sumatran rhinos running about please do so....
go for a walk and notice how many snares are set and how much wildlife is lost in bushmeat trade
I don't mean to distract from this thread, but the OP mentioned global warming and set a tone for anti-science blabbering.
Ecology does not equate to eco-fundamentalism. Eco-fundamentalist scientists are not the generality. Most ecology research in the Pacific Northwest is funded by power companies, logging companies, and govt. agencies often headed by ex-industry. The head of the major ecology unit where I am is a flaming republican. Most ecologists may be liberal, but during the last 8 years, their bosses and the agencies that mediated their results, were not.
There is plenty of evidence that science results that threaten business or existing policy are sometimes suppressed. Sometimes science results are overstated or later proven wrong. Bad science gets proven wrong. Bad business just wrecked the global economy. Which is worth ranting about?
Kisutch wrote:
I don't mean to distract from this thread, but the OP mentioned global warming and set a tone for anti-science blabbering.
Ecology does not equate to eco-fundamentalism. Eco-fundamentalist scientists are not the generality. Most ecology research in the Pacific Northwest is funded by power companies, logging companies, and govt. agencies often headed by ex-industry. The head of the major ecology unit where I am is a flaming republican. Most ecologists may be liberal, but during the last 8 years, their bosses and the agencies that mediated their results, were not.
There is plenty of evidence that science results that threaten business or existing policy are sometimes suppressed. Sometimes science results are overstated or later proven wrong. Bad science gets proven wrong. Bad business just wrecked the global economy. Which is worth ranting about?
Maybe the sky isn't falling, does that give us the right to continue doing things that knowingly harm our environment?
Maybe man isn't the sole cause of current global changes, do we still conduct business as usual?
As far as we know, man is the only creature that has ever existed on the face of the earth that uses a rational mind versus brute force to maintain survival. A rational mind can easily deduce that if we continue to act in a manner that harms our environment, that it will eventually reach a point that can no longer sustain us and we will cease to exist. Therefore I think it prudent that we as the only rational thinkers on the planet start treating our environment in a way that ensures the continuation of our species in perpetuity. Living in harmony with the environment isn't some treehugginyogurtslurpingclovecigarettesmokinvwvandrivinleftwingpinkocommy idealism. It just makes good sense(to me anyhow). To live any other way is simply......irrational
"In wildness is the preservation of the world" Thoreau
vinke wrote:
you mean "things" like breathing (exhaling c02), fishing, farming, eating, driving, building and manufacturing?
stuff like that?
Let me be more specific by giving you an example of what I mean that might help you understand what I'm saying just a little bit.
I live by the one of the largest estuaries in the world, the Chesapeake Bay. The Bay is in declining health due to a myriad of contributing polluters including me. The balance has been tipped and unless massive and drastic changes are made, the Bay will lose. This isn't theory, it is fact based on science and long term studies. So what can I do on a personal level. Here is
some of the "things" I'm talking about.
Minimize runoff
- stone driveway instead of paved
- native plant lawn that requires much less watering
- use organic lawn and garden products that don't have harmful pollutants
Food
- buy local organic products that support local farmers and boost the economy
- grow some of my own food
Most importantly, try to live deliberately and encourage others to do the same. I'm not perfect by any stretch, but I am trying to be more conscious of my actions and how it affects the environment and others. I hope that helps.
"- native plant lawn that requires much less watering"
i might be interested in doing this. is there a "how to" tutorial on the web regarding native plant yards? do you have any information to pass on concerning this?
i'd want to know how you go about getting rid of the grass first. I've got plent of grass in my front yard.
Chesapeake Bay also provides a great example of how short term regulation on business can produce long term gains that benefit business. The striped bass were tanking, scientists said cut back on fishing, the striped bass came back, and now the fishery is more valuable.
If science hadn't said man's use of DDT was bad for bird eggs--this had to sound sensational at the time--you guys wouldn't have a lot to do with those $6k lenses.
The vast majority of scientists in the world are focused on two things: Getting a name for themselves, and getting grant money. (beats the crap out of gainful employment).
As such, they very much engage in herd mentality, and form their opinions based upon the affirmative head-nodding of thier peers and the bestowers of grants. Since the bestowers of grants happen to be resoundingly anti business and private enterprise (not surprising, since their idea of 'survival of the fittest' is to handicap the fittest) the independent critical thought needed is elimiated for a liberal political world view and the 'madness of crowds' becomes the concensus of science these days. And pity the poor scientist, academician or journalist who goes against the tide.
Now, there are exceptions to any generality, but the existence of an exception does not disprove the generality. There just aren't enough scientists with integrity these days---- and journalism? What a joke.
Do you have references for your assertions? I'm very curious because this is not at all consistent with my experience.
vinke wrote: "- native plant lawn that requires much less watering"
i might be interested in doing this. is there a "how to" tutorial on the web regarding native plant yards? do you have any information to pass on concerning this?
i'd want to know how you go about getting rid of the grass first. I've got plent of grass in my front yard.
There is indeed. Try nativeplant.org
I got all my info from a neighbor who did it last year. It looks great albeit a bit different than a conventional lawn. We're starting with our front lawn which is small and is shaded. I'm using a combination of stone, rocks, native ferns, ivy and swamp grass which thrive in shade and dampness. The best way to get rid of the grass I've found is to till it under doing small sections at a time. Trying to do a whole yard at once is pretty daunting. Thanks for your interest!! It's a neat concept. The biproduct for wildlife photographers is native lawns attract a lot more birds than conventional lawns do.
Kisutch wrote:
Chesapeake Bay also provides a great example of how short term regulation on business can produce long term gains that benefit business. The striped bass were tanking, scientists said cut back on fishing, the striped bass came back, and now the fishery is more valuable.
If science hadn't said man's use of DDT was bad for bird eggs--this had to sound sensational at the time--you guys wouldn't have a lot to do with those $6k lenses.
Indeed. Most people around here consider fishing for striped bass a privilege now, not a right. We appreciate it a lot more. The commercial striped bass industry is a lot smaller but most of the boat captains have switched their operations to charter boat businesses. The state stepped in to help retrain them. A similar program is being considered now for commercial crabbers since the catch limit is making it hard for these guys to make a living. These are great examples of citizens, scientists, environmentalists, and government working together to create a win win.
And the effects of the DDT ban are now being seen in spades. We have a thriving local raptor population, Bald Eagles abound, and we now have a Wild Turkey season because the recovery effort has been so successful.
vinke wrote:
you mean "things" like breathing (exhaling c02), fishing, farming, eating, driving, building and manufacturing?
stuff like that?
It's a tricky one. However, we do have a place on the earth. As such, every time we do something (i.e. fish) we are not necessarily causing "harm". We are certainly interacting with and altering the world in some way.
We do start to run into problems when we see the rest of life around us steeply declining in both total population sizes, diversity and quality. Are we really "superior" as a species if we cannot thrive without the dismantling of ecological systems? Perhaps that is more of an ideological question. It does however have quite practical implications... Eventually, when the systems we rely on cannot support us any longer we will be the ones heading towards decline.
Yeah, native lawns/gardens are a great idea. Why not? We all have stunning plants living around us. The best part is all of the insects and eventually birds you can attract.
I can see the appeal of having some lawn, however, sometimes it all seems a bit silly to me
