|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Camelot Portraits Photo News and Tips
|
Happy Mother's Day from Camelot Portraits!
http://www.camelotportaits.com
"Today's moments with family and friends, the hugs, the kisses, the tears, become tomorrow's memories."
|
|
|
|
|
|
http://farmecon.com/ethanolfacts.aspx
FarmEcon LLC
A source of information on global farming and food
systems
Ethanol Fact and Fiction
Or, How the RFA Distorts Facts
The U.S. ethanol industry would have us believe that fuel ethanol can
replace fossil fuels, significanlty reduce our dependence on imported oil, reduce greenhouse gas emissions and reduce the cost of gasoline. They also state that ethanol production does
not take away from food production and does not contribute significantly to food price inflation. None of these statements are true.
The Renewable Fuels Association (RFA, http://www.ethanolrfa.org/) is the self-proclaimed voice of the U.S. ethanol industry. The membership of
the association is made up entirely of companies who either produce ethanol or have an interest in high corn prices. The membership of the RFA has a strong vested interest in promoting ethanol
production and the government subsidies that make it more profitable. The motives of the RFA are to promote ethanol production, not the public interest.
Below are statements
from the RFA Web site and some facts that contradict those statements.
Statement #1, Objective of the RFA: "Promote federal, state and local government policies, programs and initiatives that encourage expanded ethanol use." (http://www.ethanolrfa.org/about/philosophy/)
What is wrong with this statement? The RFA only promotes policies that promote the interests of its U.S. ethanol producer members. The RFA has strongly supported the $0.54 tariff on
imported ethanol that acts a barrier to wider U.S. use of fuel ethanol. (http://www.ethanolrfa.org/objects/documents/1121/2007_rfa_legislative_priorities.pdf)
Bottom
line: The RFA supports wider use of ethanol only when it benefits its members. The RFA has does not want Americans to
have access to less expensive ethanol from Brazil.
Statement #2, Increasing U.S. Ethanol production does not increase food
prices: "Corn demand for ethanol has no noticeable impact on retail food prices. A central theme in the “food versus fuel”
myth is the false assertion that moderately higher corn prices, spurred by ethanol demand, are leading to higher retail food prices for consumers." (http://www.ethanolrfa.org/resource/facts/food/)
What is wrong with
this statement? Corn prices are not "moderately" higher, they have almost tripled over the last three
years. As a side effect of higher corn prices farmers planted more corn and reduced acreage of soybeans and rice. Now prices of those basic commodites have gone up too. Effects on retail food prices
are starting to show up. The Consumer Price Index for Food increased by about 2.5% per year in 2005 and 2006. The food inflation rate from September, 2006 to September, 2007 was 4.4%. This
increase coincides with a sharp increase in corn prices that is solely due to increased demand for ethanol production.
In fact, corn prices are almost triple their historic level in spite of a
record 2007 corn crop and declining amounts of corn used to produce the U.S. food supply. The increased cost of corn alone in 2007 is close to $20 billion. Food producers cannot absorb that cost
increase, food prices must rise.
In fact, the RFA Web site itself even claims that ethanol production raises
corn prices! Quote "By increasing the demand for corn, and thus raising corn prices...." (http://www.ethanolrfa.org/resource/facts/economy/).
Bottom
line: The RFA does not acknowledge the strategic importance of corn in the U.S. and world food supply, even in
the face of a near-doubling in the food price inflation rate.
Statement #3, We can produce ethanol without reducing food
supplies: "Ethanol production does not reduce the amount of food available for human consumption." ( http://www.ethanolrfa.org/resource/facts/agriculture/)
What is wrong with
this statement? Ethanol from grain is an extremely inefficient way to produce energy. To replace the U.S.
gasoline supply with E85 ethanol would require essentially the entire 2007 world grain crop. All of the world's corn , wheat, rice and other grains produced in 2007 can only satisfy the energy needs of U.S. automobiles. Never mind our trucks,
ships, trains, airliners and other transporation needs, or the energy needs of other countries.
As a direct result of more corn planted for ethanol, U.S. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The price of photographic prints today are, in many cases,
no more expensive than they were in the last 15 to 20 years.
Your Photographs represent your memories. In 10 to 20 years,
how valuable will your memories be to you?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Note of Interest:
Just because there are an increased number of megapixels on those small point and shoot cameras, does not mean that the quality of the photos will be any higher!
VERIFICATION:
Sensor Sizes in relation to photo quality:
Sensor Sizes
www.dpreview.com/learn/?/key=Sensor_Sizes
The Laws of Physics
Luminous-Landscape
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/sensor-design.shtml
Visible light is found in the wavelengths between a 400-750nm (.4 to .75 micron). Obviously, an individual pixel (photo site) can't be anywhere near this small and still record photons. Today's smaller digicams feature sensors down to about 2.2 microns in size, and as we all know can be quite noisy. At this small size they simply can't capture enough photons as compared with their inherent noise level. DSLRs offering 8-12 Megapixel on APS sized sensors seem, therefore, to have settled in the 5-6 micron level and offer an optimum combination of resolution, low noise and moderate cost.
In summary, if you try for ever higher resolution in a small chip – something's gotta give. The smaller the pixels, the lower the quality as compared to a similar sensor with larger pixels. Very small pixels (sub 5 micron) start to run into the laws of physics, where signal to noise ratio, and the simple ability to capture enough photons limits their ability to sustain significant improvements given known technologies.
Making Sense of Sizes
So now we have enough information to try and make some sense of the entire issue of relative sensor size, image quality, and costs. Put simply – bigger is better, and costs more. That's the core of any discussion about digital image sensors.
The statement that bigger is better has implications for the competitive marketplace. In the days of film no one argued with the fact that large format produced superior image quality to medium format, and that medium format offered higher image quality than 35mm, and so on down the food chain. (Issue of features, convenience, and size aside.)...
This example holds true in much the same way today with digital. When enlarging medium format film, the fact that it required only a 4X enlargement to 35mm's 8X to make a roughly similarly sized print ...
Like Falling off a Logarithm
Every photographer is familiar with the F stop scale, the ratio expressed logarithmically of a lens' focal length to aperture. Each stop represents a doubling or halving of the amount of light reaching the sensor or film.
... F/2.8 – F/4 – F/5.6 – F/8 – F/11 – F16 – F/22 – F/32 – F/45 ...
Similarly, going from a 6 Megapixel chip to a 11 Megapixel one doubles the number of pixels, and the F stop ratios are a convenient way of thinking about this. Is it any coincidence that standard F stop increments are very close to the Megapixel counts on chips? F/5.6 (6MP) to F/8 (8MP) is one stop – a doubling. F/11 (11MP) to f/16 (16MP) is another doubling.
But, as we all known from our personal experience, such an increase, a doubling of pixel count, doesn't produce a doubling of apparent resolution. Subjectively what is seen is that such a doubling produces a noticeable increase, but not a dramatic one. It isn't until one increases pixel count by about two "stops" that an obvious advantage is shown by the larger chip. This is seen when going from a 6MP to an 11MP camera, or from a 16MP back to a 33MP or 39MP model. Simply put, it takes a quadrupling of area to produce a meaningful visible difference between sensors, even when both are being reproduced at the limits of the reproduction technology (say, 300 PPI on a print).
As to what these differences may be, we are now in the realm where bar room and discussion forum brawls break out. Some claim not to be able to see any significant differences under these circumstances. If so, fine, simply carry on as before. No one is trying to twist your arm. But, I can see the difference, and so can many other photographers.
What it is that we're seeing is another matter. I describe it as micro-contrast; very fine tonal transitions that seems to get lost with smaller sizes. This could well be caused by the relative lack of strain on the camera's lens when lower magnifications are called for. It is also something that we've always seen when comparing larger formats to smaller ones in the film world. Few would argue that a contact print from 8X10" film, or a 2X blow-up from 4X5" film, shows appreciably higher image quality than 35mm, even when both are printed well within the resolution limits of their optical train and the printing paper itself.
Having more MP doesn't give you better shots
Ipernity Blog
http://www.ipernity.com/blog/robertoballerini/28881
Tuesday November 13, 2007 at 09:44AM
... Vegitill's post:
www.ipernity.com/blog/14831/28793
Take a look to the 6mpixel.org site.
A more correct statement of this post title would be: having more MP doesn't give you better shots if the sensor size remains the same!
To have a more precise digitalization of a scene, having more pixels isn't sufficient; you have to have a corresponding increase of the sensor size or a better quality of the sensor sensibility; without those conditions, you will only capture more thermal noise: this is what I can understand from their site and what I can subscribe.
http://www.ipernity.com/blog/robertoballerini/28881
Puff! (disappeared) pro replies:
The problem seems to be mainly on compact P&S cameras; in the DSLR world they're increasing the size of sensors; the latest sensors have a surface greater than a 35 mm film.
Don Andre pro says:
You're right about noise, but there's also diffraction that is important to know about.
Diffraction occurs when a wave passes a small gap. The wave will magically expand behind that gap, reaching places that had no direct line to the center of the wave. (see this picture for example:
Wave Diffraction
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Wave_Diffraction_4Lambda_Slit.png
or take a look at this video:
Wave Diffraction Video
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4570787435193654614
As light is also just a wave this also happens in photography, the gap there is also there and called aperture. The smaller this aperture gets the more the light will expand anew at the position of the aperture reaching much more places on the sensor. Usually this concentrates around the centre of the pixel it would normally hit creating what is called an airy disk. The smaller the aperture gets the larger these disks become and obviously the closer the pixel density the more overlapping you'll experience.
Naturally the overlapping of the airy disks leads to a drop of sharpness and resolution. Typical DSLRs currently are diffraction limited at about f/11, after which sharpness drops. At f/16 for example you'd have more in focus, but it will be less sharp than at f/11. Now don't search for f/16 in a compact camera, you wouldn't find it! Because of their small sensors and their small pixel gaps, these cameras never go beyond f/8 really and as the article says some are limited by f/5.6 already. That's also why resolution doesn't always increase if you just add more pixels.
Sensor Size Comments
http://www.ipernity.com/blog/14433/28881/comment/826576#comment826576
Yahoo Answers on 12MP point and shoot:
http://in.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080124034141AAflgrR
3) There are other reasons not to get a 12MP imager though--including noise and interference between closely-packed photosites so that a 12MP camera actually delivers a worse image than a lower MP camera on a point and shoot sensor of the same physical size. So, as you increase megapixels, at a certain point, you get diminishing returns.
4) On an SLR with a huge sensor (height x width), the difference between 7MP and 12MP is big--with a lot more apparent resolution. On a point and shoot, with their smaller sensors, the 7MP camera may actually deliver the better image.
For most reasonable print sizes, most people don't need more than 5 or 6 megapixels, even on a point and shoot.
|
|
|
|
|
|
These movies were created using Camelot Portrait's latest bookmark: Camelot Portraits Bookmark Kaleidoscope Movie
Camelot Portraits Newest Bookmark to Movie
From Bookmark 2 Movie
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
Collection of dresses by Alfred Sung ~ ~
http://www.dessy.com/bridesmaid-dresses/alfredsung/
"The Alfred Sung collection offers separates, and dresses bridesmaid styles. Each dress is designed to provide contemporary style options while keeping your budget in mind."
These colors are arranged in a complimentary manner, so that viewing the bridesmaids all together is reminiscent of the colors in nature. If you cannot find your exact colors for all of your bridesmaids dresses, this is one wonderful idea!
This idea is a great time-saver too.
This site includes Wedding Planning Guide: Bridesmaids Etiquette, Wedding Dress Trends, and Invitation Guide; Wedding Dress Styles; the entire Color Family; choices of: Length of Dress, Type of Neckline, Silhouette, Sleeve Length, and Fabric. Included also are Bridesmaid Style Guide; Bridesmaid Dress Trends; "HOW WILL YOU ASK?" Bridesmaids Cards for the time you ask your special lady friends to be your bridesmaid; also, Accessories for: The Bride, bridesmaids, Groom, and his Best Man; and Flower Girl Dress Styles. There is a search function to assist your locating a 'DESSY GROUP' Retailer near you.
SWATCHES & TRIMS
End the guesswork: order a swatch of any fabric from Dessy Group bridesmaid dresses to view in person. And complete your bridesmaid dresses with crystal brooches, buckles and ribbons from the Dessy Collection and After Six. All fabric is available by the 1/2 yard, with a maximum order of 2.5 yards per piece ordered. Swatches are minimum 6" X 6".
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Please Take A Moment To Ponder This Very Important Message
~ ~ ~ When you are conversing with your photographer what you may like for your photography style for your wedding, ask him or her to please show as many faces of the wedding couple, and the guests as possible.
As people age, especially parents, it is more important for them to see the faces of their young daughter, and young son as they enter the sacrament of matrimony. Even though some may think that showing the backs of the heads is the style, as the years pass, and you look upon these treasured wedding moments of your own son, and daughter, and all you see is the back of someone's head, it could be anybody's head. The faces of their growing son, and daughter is what they treasure the most. This can never be re-captured. Once the wedding event has taken place, it is quite difficult to try to re-capture it.
So, this is the message to for you all to ponder ~ ~ ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Covering a wedding...is about telling a story.
We have chosen to apply our experience to telling the wedding story simply because we love weddings.
And we love to weave your individual details into a captivating, memorable treasure.
For that added extra difference in your family wedding portraits,or informal reunion group portraits,
just call:
CAMELOT PORTRAITS!
http://www.camelotportraits.com/
|
|
|
|
|
|
Many Easter Blessings to you and yours! |
|
|
|
|
|
In the United
States
Irish colonists brought Saint Patrick's Day to
what is now the United States of America. The first civic and public celebration of Saint Patrick's Day in the 13 colonies took place in Boston, Massachusetts in 1737. During this first celebration
The Charitable Irish Society of Boston organized what was the first Saint Patrick's Day Parade in the colonies on 17 March 1737. The first celebration of Saint Patrick's Day in New York City was held
at the Crown and Thistle Tavern in 1756, and New York's first Saint Patrick's Day Parade was held on 17 March 1762 by Irish soldiers in the British Army. In 1780, General George Washington, who
commanded soldiers of Irish descent in the Continental Army, allowed his troops a holiday on 17 March. This event became known as The St. Patrick's Day Encampment of 1780. Today, Saint Patrick's Day
is widely celebrated in America by Irish and non-Irish alike.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Congratulations Giants 2008 Super Bowl Champs!
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Deliver Your Message by DiscountPhotoProducts.com It isn't electronic. It doesn't need batteries. It doesn't have any speech capabilities. But, it does deliver a message: You have just seen some sample photo buttons, and your idea can be one on the list! Photo Buttons, Photo Mirrors, and Shirts by Discount Photo Products are for all reasons, and for all seasons: Your favorite cause; Company Name/logo, dream, humor, joke, favorite person; favorite pet, song title, food, Bible passage, saint, or whatever good purpose you need to deliver your message, and most important to have it seen by all! Just visit Discount Photo Buttons at:
Thank You!
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Grand Opening of your Business, Business Staff Portraits, and Promotional Portraits
|
|
|
|
|
|
NEW TREND FOR CHRISTMAS WREATHS
... |
|
|
|
|
|
| http://www.thanksgivingworld.com/thanksgiving-proclamations/thanksgiving-1982.html Thanksgiving Day Proclamation 1982Date: September 27, 1982By: Ronald ReaganTwo hundred years ago, the
Congress of the United States issued a Thanksgiving Proclamation stating that it was "the indispensable duty of all nations" to offer both praise and supplication to God. Above all other nations of
the world, America has been especially blessed and should give special thanks. We have bountiful harvests, abundant freedoms, and a strong, compassionate people.I have always believed that this
anointed land was set apart in ... |
|
|
|
|
|
| Jan Hosp Design
For beautiful flowers
and creative designs
call:
Jan Hosp for questions or pricing:
Phone: 317-331-9394
email:jshosp1122@comcast.net... |
|
|
|
|
|
HAVE A SAFE HALLOWEEN THIS 2007 SEASON, AND BE COLORFUL!
... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
