I'm doing long exposure terrestrial photography, not astrophotography. But I figure you folks would know best about such things. I have a Nikon Zf. And I'm wondering if there would be any noticeable noise-reduction benefit to adding a cooler? Example: Ulanzi CU01
I want to do exposures ranging from a few minutes to a half hour.
I have a Brother MFC-L5800DW that scales incorrectly. Using 8.5 x 11 paper, the printer scales the 11" direction about 1.3% too short. For example, I just created a raster image of a 2250 x 2400 pixel rectangle at 300 dpi. That translates to 7.5" x 8" (W x H). When I print it on the Brother, it comes out 7.5" x 7.9". This happens whether in the print layout I choose "100%" or "actual size." And it does show 7.5" x 8" for actual size.
I also tried selecting A4 paper size instead of Letter, and it's the same problem.
When I print it on my 8020 series HP, the image size is correct in both directions.
In crossing a field, suppose I find 100 billion watches on the ground. Upon inspection, I discover that every single watch is fundamentally flawed and fails to tell time correctly. Should I conclude that these fundamental flaws are the fault of watches? Or should I blame the watchmaker?
EDIT: In this scenario, the watchmaker designed and built every watch.
It's my understanding that Ford doesn't permit 3rd-party buyouts. So, how can I use the very low mileage (~6000 miles total over 3 years) on my current vehicle to negotiate a better deal on a new Ranger lease?
I'm simply looking for the deepest, most vibrant colored cord I can get. Any advice on where to look? I'm assuming synthetic fibers are going to be more vibrant, right?
Thanks!
I have a set of pre-dyed 100% cotton macrame cord. The colors are a bit muted. Would dying them again with a reactive dye (same color) increase the color depth and vibrancy?
I'm going to participate in an open studios event for the first time. I've never really shown my work before in any formal way. Due to the nature of my day job, I have some great options for the type of lighting I can use to display my work (abstract mixed media). I could use D50 lights, which are 5000K, have very high CRI, and are used for critical color matching. This is the type of light I use while working. Or I could use 4000K lights that are a little warmer. While not quite as good as the D50 for absolute accuracy, they still have excellent color rendition across the spectrum.
Considering most potential buyers are going to put this art in their homes, is it better to go with lighting that's a little warmer and more inviting, or lighting that is more analytical? Even though I use the D50's while I work, my gut tells me 4000K would be better. It feels clean but more homey.