The Visible Dust Arctic Butterfly 724 arrives in a leatherette zip case with a quick release attachment to strap it (presumably) onto your camera bag/rucksack. Inside that case is a soft touch (turquoise?) plastic box with 'Arctic Butterfly' engraved on the top and 'Visible Dust' engraved on the latch. Inside protected by a foam surround is the 'Arctic Butterfly' itself. It is made of the same soft feel plastic (not sure how else to describe it). Emblazoned on one side is the name and logo and on the other 'Super-charged Fibre (SCF). Man this is 'designer' sensor cleaning and with a price tag to match! . Everything looks just like it should for a really expensive and presumably 'the best' piece of kit. Impressed so far. Sadly it's downhill all the way from here on.
No batteries included, for that money you'd have thought they'd include a couple of little AAA batteries. Not impressed#1
Using it on a 5D; my very first attempt out of the box, untouched by any fingers resulted in smears over the sensor! Had it been returned and resold as new or was there some other reason that the brush was not uncontaminated?. Either way there was something on the brush that smeared the sensor. No it didn't touch the sides and no I didn't touch it with my fingers, I was very careful about that. It should either have a seal to show it is unused or instructions to clean before first use. Not impressed #2.
Their brush shape is not strong but straggly. Some filaments splay out awkwardly after spinning and make it way too easy to touch the sides. Even if only one little filament does this it could spread grease or oil. Not impressed #3
The brush is too insubstantial. They even sell a more substantial version as a separate attachment. So why not include the substantial version as integral. i.e. why make an inferior product knowingly (except to maximise profit at the expense of customer satisfaction). Not impressed #4
On returning the brush to the cap, the cap entrance and in fact the whole cap, is too narrow to avoid bending some of the bristles back on themselves, unless you are very careful. Bad design. Not impressed #5
The first one I received I returned immediately without even opening as half the brush was bent back on itself inside the transparent cap. (underlining my previous point). not impressed #6
My final opinion on this product: 'style over function' - the marketing and advertising hype could be interpreted to mean that this is a superior piece of kit. Not in terms of its ability to clean your sensor It isn't. There are better and much much cheaper alternatives out there. Save your money.
Tuesday 25 May 2010
Photographic Solutions Sensor swab and Eclipse
Photographic Solutions Sensor swab and Eclipse
The 59ml (2oz) bottle of Eclipse and packet of Sensor Swabs came in cardboard packages that didn't have the quantity or size on the outside. The actual bottle of Eclipse does have the size on, and I count 8 swabs in the swab box.[edit: according to photosolutions site there should be 12 per box - so check when you get it; as it's not sealed anyone can nick a couple and you won't be any the wiser until too late - as I just found out:()
First I'd like to say these products are reasonably priced and they do work;)
However you may need to repeat the process several times before you get the results you need, I used 6 of the 8 swabs before I got the results I wanted. This was no doubt due to inexperience though and I expect to need less attempts on my next try.
The instructions say to put one or two drops on the 'tip' of the swab, the diagram says two drops but their demo [URL="http://www.photosol.com/swabdemo.htm"]video says two to four drops. This is confusing as most reports of using this product also state that it works best with one or two drops at the very most.
A diagram to show what the 'tip' is would be helpful (does it mean leading edge, where it joins the handle, or one of each of the corners?) In the video it doesn't seem to be important exactly where it goes as long as it goes on the right end
How hard to apply the swab? I was being too gentle I believe to start with, I mean I was scared of scratching the sensor! Average pressure seems to be the thing, [URL="http://www.photosol.com/swabproduct.htm"]they recommend 'firm' pressure - just enough to be sure the swab is fully located on the sensor, but not enough to 'scrub', seems to be the way to go. However the [URL="http://www.photosol.com/swabdemo.htm"]video says enough pressure to bend the swab handle slightly!
After one swipe [URL="http://www.photosol.com/swabproduct.htm"]they instruct to 'turn over to use opposite side' or 'rotate 180 degrees'. However on the diagram they then drag in the opposite direction having rotated it, -- er doesn't this present the same side to the sensor? Shouldn't it be swiped in the same direction once rotated, or not rotated if swiped in the reverse direction? i.e. if reversing the direction do not 'rotate' but simply lean handle to use opposite side? Fortunately the video concurs i.e. they just swab back in the opposite direction without any rotating of the swab.
The Eclipse bottle doesn't deliver drops until you get te hang of it, what it does is pour. Not ideal when you're trying for one drop! It needs to be tipped very slowly and carefully against a dark background in good light so you can see exactly what is coming out
However once I got the hang of it, it produced the results needed at a cost that was affordable. This is a product I will stay with.
The 59ml (2oz) bottle of Eclipse and packet of Sensor Swabs came in cardboard packages that didn't have the quantity or size on the outside. The actual bottle of Eclipse does have the size on, and I count 8 swabs in the swab box.[edit: according to photosolutions site there should be 12 per box - so check when you get it; as it's not sealed anyone can nick a couple and you won't be any the wiser until too late - as I just found out:()
First I'd like to say these products are reasonably priced and they do work;)
However you may need to repeat the process several times before you get the results you need, I used 6 of the 8 swabs before I got the results I wanted. This was no doubt due to inexperience though and I expect to need less attempts on my next try.
The instructions say to put one or two drops on the 'tip' of the swab, the diagram says two drops but their demo [URL="http://www.photosol.com/swabdemo.htm"]video says two to four drops. This is confusing as most reports of using this product also state that it works best with one or two drops at the very most.
A diagram to show what the 'tip' is would be helpful (does it mean leading edge, where it joins the handle, or one of each of the corners?) In the video it doesn't seem to be important exactly where it goes as long as it goes on the right end
How hard to apply the swab? I was being too gentle I believe to start with, I mean I was scared of scratching the sensor! Average pressure seems to be the thing, [URL="http://www.photosol.com/swabproduct.htm"]they recommend 'firm' pressure - just enough to be sure the swab is fully located on the sensor, but not enough to 'scrub', seems to be the way to go. However the [URL="http://www.photosol.com/swabdemo.htm"]video says enough pressure to bend the swab handle slightly!
After one swipe [URL="http://www.photosol.com/swabproduct.htm"]they instruct to 'turn over to use opposite side' or 'rotate 180 degrees'. However on the diagram they then drag in the opposite direction having rotated it, -- er doesn't this present the same side to the sensor? Shouldn't it be swiped in the same direction once rotated, or not rotated if swiped in the reverse direction? i.e. if reversing the direction do not 'rotate' but simply lean handle to use opposite side? Fortunately the video concurs i.e. they just swab back in the opposite direction without any rotating of the swab.
The Eclipse bottle doesn't deliver drops until you get te hang of it, what it does is pour. Not ideal when you're trying for one drop! It needs to be tipped very slowly and carefully against a dark background in good light so you can see exactly what is coming out
However once I got the hang of it, it produced the results needed at a cost that was affordable. This is a product I will stay with.
Wednesday 11 June 2008
The Sunny f16 rule
Just in case you ever wondered:
The Sunny f16 rule: this is a great thing to fall back on if you have a manaul camera and the battery dies. Nowadays with digital it's only use its to let you know if your exposure is going to be way off. E.g. when shooting subjects with a lot of black or of white in; or if you have no spot meter when shooting say a white bird against a deep shadow.
The idea is that on a clear sunny day, you set the meter to f16 and the shutter speed at the same speed as the ISO.
I.e. if you are using ISO/ASA (film speed) of 400, then the shutter speed should be 400th sec at f16, if the ISO is 100 then it's 100th sec at f16.
Lets say you're using 100 film speed (ISO/ASA 100) - If you want to use f8 for example instead of f16 then you just adjust the shutter speed to match: i.e. here wee would be using a wider aperture by 2 stops, (f16 to f8 ) = so shutter speed is increased by 2 stops so the same amount of light gets through -so it would be f8 at the ISO speed plus two stops e.g. (with ISO 100 film speed/sensor sensitivity) it would normally be f16 at 100th sec shutter speed, so it could also be f8 at 400 shutter speed or any other combination , e.g going the other way f22 at 50sec shutter speed.
Thus on a clear sunny day: for every f-stop you open up you set a shutter speed double (i.e. HALF the time , that is, one stop less) what it was when the same as the ISO setting OR for every f-stop you close down the aperture you set a shutter speed half the speed (i.e. TWICE the time it's open = one stop) what it was when the same as the ISO setting.
Examples at ISO 100:
f32 @ 25th sec
f22 @ 50th sec
f16 @ 100th sec
f11 @ 200th sec
f8 @ 400th sec
f5.6 @ 800th sec
Examples at ISO 400:
f32 @ 100th sec
f22 @ 200th sec
f16 @ 400th sec
f11 @ 800th sec
f8 @ 1600th sec
f5.6 @ 3200th sec
If it's not a clear sunny day it becomes pretty much guess work but it's still a good starting point;-)
The Sunny f16 rule: this is a great thing to fall back on if you have a manaul camera and the battery dies. Nowadays with digital it's only use its to let you know if your exposure is going to be way off. E.g. when shooting subjects with a lot of black or of white in; or if you have no spot meter when shooting say a white bird against a deep shadow.
The idea is that on a clear sunny day, you set the meter to f16 and the shutter speed at the same speed as the ISO.
I.e. if you are using ISO/ASA (film speed) of 400, then the shutter speed should be 400th sec at f16, if the ISO is 100 then it's 100th sec at f16.
Lets say you're using 100 film speed (ISO/ASA 100) - If you want to use f8 for example instead of f16 then you just adjust the shutter speed to match: i.e. here wee would be using a wider aperture by 2 stops, (f16 to f8 ) = so shutter speed is increased by 2 stops so the same amount of light gets through -so it would be f8 at the ISO speed plus two stops e.g. (with ISO 100 film speed/sensor sensitivity) it would normally be f16 at 100th sec shutter speed, so it could also be f8 at 400 shutter speed or any other combination , e.g going the other way f22 at 50sec shutter speed.
Thus on a clear sunny day: for every f-stop you open up you set a shutter speed double (i.e. HALF the time , that is, one stop less) what it was when the same as the ISO setting OR for every f-stop you close down the aperture you set a shutter speed half the speed (i.e. TWICE the time it's open = one stop) what it was when the same as the ISO setting.
Examples at ISO 100:
f32 @ 25th sec
f22 @ 50th sec
f16 @ 100th sec
f11 @ 200th sec
f8 @ 400th sec
f5.6 @ 800th sec
Examples at ISO 400:
f32 @ 100th sec
f22 @ 200th sec
f16 @ 400th sec
f11 @ 800th sec
f8 @ 1600th sec
f5.6 @ 3200th sec
If it's not a clear sunny day it becomes pretty much guess work but it's still a good starting point;-)
Monday 9 June 2008
Thursday 14 February 2008
Wednesday 13 February 2008
Of Homeopathic guns and targets
http://www.homeopathyworkedforme.org/
Click on this link to sign the 'Homeopathy worked for me' petition
Click on this link to sign the 'Homeopathy worked for me' petition
Wednesday 9 January 2008
Of Homeopathic feet and guns
[RANT]
Since qualifying in Homeopathy in 1993 I have been keeping an eye on the professional bodies that charge a princely sum each year to 'register' and insure homeopaths, to see how much use they actually are to the homeopaths they register and 'represent'.
I put parentheses round 'register' because it confers no legal status and does little more (in my opinion) than confirm the signing up to a code of ethics. All well and good you might say, but it has that official ring to it, and certainly those organisations would wish it to be official, but whatever weight it carries, extends no further than the boundaries of those already in the know, as far as I can see.
Yes they also produce a leaflet or two and a magasine for members, but I do question whether that amounts to value for ( a lot of) money. I guess it must to those of us that sign up, or is it just that there is a perception that it's a necessary evil on the ladder to self worth and justification of practicing a therapy so vilified in the media?
I also put parentheses round 'represent' because this is what I presumed these organisations with exclusive and expensive membership did for their registered members, but their interpretation of 'represent' and mine appear to differ. How so? read on:
The (UK) homeopathic profession has recently finished an extremely expensive exercise in determining whether the umbrella organisations can play nicely together. They can't.
There will be no profession-lead single register. There will be no profession-lead über umbrella organisation (CORH etc ) to decide how to set up another über organisation for registration, there will be no inefficient over-priced money machine to filch our hard earned pennies (c'mon, they took six years and blew a fortune just trying to set it up!). [Though it looks like a non profession-lead register is looming under the auspices if the Prince of Wales Trust - but overseen by whom, with what homeopathic qualifications? - good question!]
The bureaucratic knots the profession has got itself into during the last few years over the single register issue have finally tripped it up, they ran out of money for it, apparently - and a good job too, otherwise it might have gone on ad infinitum gobbling up resources that could be put to MUCH better use!
So now perhaps that this (predictably) futile exercise is over they can put the same level of resources into what they should have been putting it into in the first place, i.e. MARKETING HOMEOPATHY TO THE PUBLIC. For the money (and time!) they spent over the last 6 years or so, we ( the homeopathic profession en masse) could have had a whopping advertising campaign, even TV ads!
I have argued for for a long time that marketing should be the prime concern of these organisations (SOH, ARH, HMA,CMA etc - CORH even) but it was deemed more important by the combined council members that they try to learn to play nicely with each other rather than to get the public educated about the potential of homeopathy, and using it.
The SOH's obsession with 'protecting the public' (I assume it's an obsession as it's what they bang on about over and above anything else in my experience) not only detracts from the real issue ( see in CAPS above) but it is their big bass drum that they love to proudly beat as they march like tin soldiers up and down the corridors of CORH.
Yet if my own experience is anything to go by the members of SOH practice no differently to members of HMA or ARH. I know many in each of the camps and as I say, if my experience is anything to go by there are definitely no unequivocal differences IN PRACTICE despite the claims to the contrary!)
Of course what they are trying to imply is that anyone who is not SOH registered is a danger to the public. In other words they put the majority their energy into bashing the other registering bodies (ARH, HMA etc) who have then to spend just as much energy trying to persuade them that it would be better if they all agreed at least on what it is they are all trying to do (over and above 'protecting the public')
As it turns out if we are to judge them (SOH, ARH, HMA) by the CORH farce ( I'm sorry but with the benefit of hindsight you have to agree, it was a farce) then what they are actually all trying to do is simply to jostle for position. i.e. where they are REALLY spending their energies ( and money) is in vying for the registration fees of the members of the homeopathic profession.
Just to make this point really clear: the T.E.A. ( Time energy attention) of these organisations is being taken up by their preoccupation with themselves and their own importance. My arguement is that it should be taken up specifically with PROMOTING HOMEOPATHY TO THE PUBLIC.
The rest of the stuff, promoting themselves, code of ethics, etc should play second fiddle to that. Not the other way round as it currently is. What do these organisations currently do to market homeopathy to the public? They occasionally write to a newspaper, who may or may not print, they answer the phone and perform other administrative tasks. Big deal. ('HAW' is less than a drop in the ocean compared to what it needed) All for a registration fee anywhere from £250 to over twice that. Great value huh?
They (SOH, HMA, ARH etc) need to stop examining their navels and get out there!
Ask any average homeopath and they will be more concerned about aquiring a steady stream of patients and having their profession defended against slurs in the media, than whether they are on a single register or whether the public are being protected from them. (WTF?) Currently however the media is promoting the single register. I wonder why? Could it be that tey have seen what a sore point it is for the homeopathic profession? I wonder.
Some registration organisations ( you know who you are) do not even see it as their remit to promote homeopathy to the public, - WHY NOT???. They argue that it is up to the individual practitioners to promote themselves and the job of the organisation to regulate the practitioners. It is my assertion that this should be their FIRST priority and that they have got it completely back to front.
Without the public using homeopathy there will be no profession to promote or regulate, so the real priority should be self evident! As it is It is most homeopaths I speak to complain that in their practice patient numbers yoyo and are frequently insufficient to provide a decent living. It is very frustrating to watch as the organisations PAID to represent the homeopathic profession squander resources on self-obsessive idealisms and infighting.
So I say ( again) to the registration bodies: GET YOUR PRIORITIES RIGHT! Homeopathy is a BUSINESS (not a medico-political party). It needs to be marketed as such and the organisations representing homeopaths should do more for their fee than register and administer. They should recognise and realise their potential to so so much more for the profession
[/RANT]
Talking of which: http://www.homeopathyworkedforme.org/
Since qualifying in Homeopathy in 1993 I have been keeping an eye on the professional bodies that charge a princely sum each year to 'register' and insure homeopaths, to see how much use they actually are to the homeopaths they register and 'represent'.
I put parentheses round 'register' because it confers no legal status and does little more (in my opinion) than confirm the signing up to a code of ethics. All well and good you might say, but it has that official ring to it, and certainly those organisations would wish it to be official, but whatever weight it carries, extends no further than the boundaries of those already in the know, as far as I can see.
Yes they also produce a leaflet or two and a magasine for members, but I do question whether that amounts to value for ( a lot of) money. I guess it must to those of us that sign up, or is it just that there is a perception that it's a necessary evil on the ladder to self worth and justification of practicing a therapy so vilified in the media?
I also put parentheses round 'represent' because this is what I presumed these organisations with exclusive and expensive membership did for their registered members, but their interpretation of 'represent' and mine appear to differ. How so? read on:
The (UK) homeopathic profession has recently finished an extremely expensive exercise in determining whether the umbrella organisations can play nicely together. They can't.
There will be no profession-lead single register. There will be no profession-lead über umbrella organisation (CORH etc ) to decide how to set up another über organisation for registration, there will be no inefficient over-priced money machine to filch our hard earned pennies (c'mon, they took six years and blew a fortune just trying to set it up!). [Though it looks like a non profession-lead register is looming under the auspices if the Prince of Wales Trust - but overseen by whom, with what homeopathic qualifications? - good question!]
The bureaucratic knots the profession has got itself into during the last few years over the single register issue have finally tripped it up, they ran out of money for it, apparently - and a good job too, otherwise it might have gone on ad infinitum gobbling up resources that could be put to MUCH better use!
So now perhaps that this (predictably) futile exercise is over they can put the same level of resources into what they should have been putting it into in the first place, i.e. MARKETING HOMEOPATHY TO THE PUBLIC. For the money (and time!) they spent over the last 6 years or so, we ( the homeopathic profession en masse) could have had a whopping advertising campaign, even TV ads!
I have argued for for a long time that marketing should be the prime concern of these organisations (SOH, ARH, HMA,CMA etc - CORH even) but it was deemed more important by the combined council members that they try to learn to play nicely with each other rather than to get the public educated about the potential of homeopathy, and using it.
The SOH's obsession with 'protecting the public' (I assume it's an obsession as it's what they bang on about over and above anything else in my experience) not only detracts from the real issue ( see in CAPS above) but it is their big bass drum that they love to proudly beat as they march like tin soldiers up and down the corridors of CORH.
Yet if my own experience is anything to go by the members of SOH practice no differently to members of HMA or ARH. I know many in each of the camps and as I say, if my experience is anything to go by there are definitely no unequivocal differences IN PRACTICE despite the claims to the contrary!)
Of course what they are trying to imply is that anyone who is not SOH registered is a danger to the public. In other words they put the majority their energy into bashing the other registering bodies (ARH, HMA etc) who have then to spend just as much energy trying to persuade them that it would be better if they all agreed at least on what it is they are all trying to do (over and above 'protecting the public')
As it turns out if we are to judge them (SOH, ARH, HMA) by the CORH farce ( I'm sorry but with the benefit of hindsight you have to agree, it was a farce) then what they are actually all trying to do is simply to jostle for position. i.e. where they are REALLY spending their energies ( and money) is in vying for the registration fees of the members of the homeopathic profession.
Just to make this point really clear: the T.E.A. ( Time energy attention) of these organisations is being taken up by their preoccupation with themselves and their own importance. My arguement is that it should be taken up specifically with PROMOTING HOMEOPATHY TO THE PUBLIC.
The rest of the stuff, promoting themselves, code of ethics, etc should play second fiddle to that. Not the other way round as it currently is. What do these organisations currently do to market homeopathy to the public? They occasionally write to a newspaper, who may or may not print, they answer the phone and perform other administrative tasks. Big deal. ('HAW' is less than a drop in the ocean compared to what it needed) All for a registration fee anywhere from £250 to over twice that. Great value huh?
They (SOH, HMA, ARH etc) need to stop examining their navels and get out there!
Ask any average homeopath and they will be more concerned about aquiring a steady stream of patients and having their profession defended against slurs in the media, than whether they are on a single register or whether the public are being protected from them. (WTF?) Currently however the media is promoting the single register. I wonder why? Could it be that tey have seen what a sore point it is for the homeopathic profession? I wonder.
Some registration organisations ( you know who you are) do not even see it as their remit to promote homeopathy to the public, - WHY NOT???. They argue that it is up to the individual practitioners to promote themselves and the job of the organisation to regulate the practitioners. It is my assertion that this should be their FIRST priority and that they have got it completely back to front.
Without the public using homeopathy there will be no profession to promote or regulate, so the real priority should be self evident! As it is It is most homeopaths I speak to complain that in their practice patient numbers yoyo and are frequently insufficient to provide a decent living. It is very frustrating to watch as the organisations PAID to represent the homeopathic profession squander resources on self-obsessive idealisms and infighting.
So I say ( again) to the registration bodies: GET YOUR PRIORITIES RIGHT! Homeopathy is a BUSINESS (not a medico-political party). It needs to be marketed as such and the organisations representing homeopaths should do more for their fee than register and administer. They should recognise and realise their potential to so so much more for the profession
[/RANT]
Talking of which: http://www.homeopathyworkedforme.org/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)