Hurley's Gold

What's the deal with TX?

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Texas

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • Are used guns typically ridiculously overpriced in TX?


    • Total voters
      45

    45tex

    TGT Addict
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Feb 1, 2009
    3,449
    96
    The only times I've had buyer's remorse was when I spent too little money.

    I spent over $3500 for my Nikon F5 back when I couldn't afford it. It was the best 35mm SLR in the world when I bought it, even though it's probably worth $100 today, if that. I still have no remorse. Just holding that tank of a camera in my hand, knowing how perfectly it performs every task I ask of it, and how many wonderful events it helped me document, fills my heart with joy.

    OTOH, I've bought second best a couple of times because I couldn't justify in my mind the several hundred extra dollars to get that last little bit of performance. In those cases, I've sometimes regretted it.

    The lesson I take from all this? Don't settle and you don't get buyer's remorse.
    Didn't somebody come out with a digital back for the F5? That would and did give some great film bodies a new life. As well as some of the best glass made. I've been out of the camera market for many years now.
    Capitol Armory ad
     

    benenglish

    Just Another Boomer
    Staff member
    Lifetime Member
    Admin
    Rating - 100%
    7   0   0
    Nov 22, 2011
    23,933
    96
    Spring
    To be a little on-topic, there are lessons to be learned in the used camera market that could translate to used firearms. However, that would be a long, complex post that no one would want to read. :)
    Didn't somebody come out with a digital back for the F5?
    Theoretically, yes, but it never sold. It turned the camera into a giant brick and resolution was low. You could get better pictures from Nikon's cheapest digital SLR.

    Up until a few years ago, shooting film and scanning to digital was still cost effective for high quality work. My F5 still had limited utility. Today, digital has progressed so far that I don't think anyone still shoots 35mm film to produce digital files.

    If I ever get *really* back into photography, it'll be large-format film, contact printed. I just like film.

    But my F5? As much as I love it, it's forever morphed into a personally meaningful little sculpture that I leave on a shelf.
     

    pronstar

    TGT Addict
    Rating - 100%
    2   0   0
    Jul 2, 2017
    10,540
    96
    Dallas
    Up until a few years ago, shooting film and scanning to digital was still cost effective for high quality work. My F5 still had limited utility. Today, digital has progressed so far that I don't think anyone still shoots 35mm film to produce digital files.

    Yeah the car shooters (for brochures and print ads) I’m familiar with really resisted digital for as long as they could.

    The interim step was digital backs on their existing Hasselblads, which didn’t last very long until DSLRs came out.



    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
     

    benenglish

    Just Another Boomer
    Staff member
    Lifetime Member
    Admin
    Rating - 100%
    7   0   0
    Nov 22, 2011
    23,933
    96
    Spring
    The interim step was digital backs on their existing Hasselblads, which didn’t last very long until DSLRs came out.
    For what 35mm film used to do, there were digital medium format film backs that ran neck-and-neck with scanned 35mm film for a while. There are now 35mm SLR form factor cameras that produce higher (different but, overall, higher) quality output than 35mm film.

    For what medium format film used to do in the studio (certainly at 6x4.5 and probably at 6x6), there are now medium format digital cameras that are about as good.

    For what larger medium format film used to do in the field (e.g., 6x9 work), film still has utility in that it's possible to travel light and scan later. I like using cameras that don't require batteries but I think most of that work has succumbed to the whole "digital workflow" concept; photographers just suck it up and take their heavier digital equipment to the field.

    Skipping over 4x5 and 8x10, where people still like to argue...

    For large(st) format work, especially in the field, especially that can be contact-printed to display size, especially that adapts easily to platinum processes, 11x14 and larger is still amazing and far, far beyond what can be achieved with those computers that have lenses attached to the front.

    Ilford still makes 14x20 pan @125 ISO under their FP4 moniker. If I were 20 years old again, I can imagine using that stuff to take a completely different direction in life.
     

    C_Hallbert

    Color Commentator
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Nov 18, 2017
    1,318
    96
    McAlester, OK
    To be a little on-topic, there are lessons to be learned in the used camera market that could translate to used firearms. However, that would be a long, complex post that no one would want to read. :)

    Theoretically, yes, but it never sold. It turned the camera into a giant brick and resolution was low. You could get better pictures from Nikon's cheapest digital SLR.

    Up until a few years ago, shooting film and scanning to digital was still cost effective for high quality work. My F5 still had limited utility. Today, digital has progressed so far that I don't think anyone still shoots 35mm film to produce digital files.

    If I ever get *really* back into photography, it'll be large-format film, contact printed. I just like film.

    But my F5? As much as I love it, it's forever morphed into a personally meaningful little sculpture that I leave on a shelf.

    I read that modern digital recording devices are now equipped with an embedded program that enables government agencies to block recording of video or images in areas where they want to prevent it.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
     

    BillFairbanks

    Well-Known
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    May 8, 2017
    1,626
    96
    Johnson County, TX
    What’s the deal with Texas?

    683b8c49852fe0752b2d043603d31ada.jpg



    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
     

    ZX9RCAM

    Over the Rainbow bridge...
    TGT Supporter
    Lifetime Member
    Rating - 100%
    2   0   0
    May 14, 2008
    59,734
    96
    The Woodlands, Tx.
    I read that modern digital recording devices are now equipped with an embedded program that enables government agencies to block recording of video or images in areas where they want to prevent it.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

    I want to hear more about this...
     

    toddnjoyce

    TGT Addict
    Rating - 100%
    4   0   0
    Sep 27, 2017
    19,285
    96
    Boerne
    I read that modern digital recording devices are now equipped with an embedded program that enables government agencies to block recording of video or images in areas where they want to prevent it.

    Source?

    The data.gov provided GIS data sets for military installations are disclaimed to not reflect legal or surveyed boundaries:

    https://catalog.data.gov/dataset/military-installations-ranges-and-training-areas

    Seeing as I’ve got tons of digital iWhatever pics and GoPro vids on military installations, to include places where photography is prohibited, I can tell you if that kind of effort exists, it’s not been successful at all.
     

    C_Hallbert

    Color Commentator
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Nov 18, 2017
    1,318
    96
    McAlester, OK
    Source?

    The data.gov provided GIS data sets for military installations are disclaimed to not reflect legal or surveyed boundaries:

    https://catalog.data.gov/dataset/military-installations-ranges-and-training-areas

    Seeing as I’ve got tons of digital iWhatever pics and GoPro vids on military installations, to include places where photography is prohibited, I can tell you if that kind of effort exists, it’s not been successful at all.

    I was recalling an article that I read some years ago related to APPLE or one of the other corporations which were resistant to implementation. I want more info myself and regret not making a hard copy of the source.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
     

    benenglish

    Just Another Boomer
    Staff member
    Lifetime Member
    Admin
    Rating - 100%
    7   0   0
    Nov 22, 2011
    23,933
    96
    Spring
    I read that modern digital recording devices are now equipped with an embedded program that enables government agencies to block recording of video or images in areas where they want to prevent it.
    That seems technically possible. I suppose there are drone enthusiasts who would know more about that since enforcing no-fly zones seems to be a hot topic in that world. I've never heard of it being done with cameras, though.

    In cameras, it's more interesting to me that virtually all manufacturers have always embedded information in their digital files to identify the camera used and other information. It used to be that if you wanted to scrub that information, you just used a decent EXIF data scrubber and you were done. After all, there were industry standard places where data like the type of camera, exposure data, camera serial number, etc. were supposed to be stored in digital files. Those could be wiped without hurting the image.

    A few years ago, though, it came to the attention of nerds who like to look at raw data from photos (Force a text editor to open a *.jpg file if you want to see what I mean.) that some manufacturers are duplicating all that data in random, undocumented, nonstandard places in their files so that normal scrubbing techniques don't work.

    If you want to take a digital photo, put it online, and remain anonymous, it behooves you to use an old, preferably second-hand camera and give the file a proper scrubbing of the source data. In many new cameras, a "proper scrubbing" may not be possible.
     

    GoPappy

    Well-Known
    Lifetime Member
    Rating - 100%
    9   0   0
    Dec 18, 2015
    1,277
    96
    When did that practice start? I.e., how long ago. My main camera is a Nikon D700 (I'd guess 10+/- years old), so I'm wondering if this "random" EXIF data practice was implemented before or after that time?
     

    benenglish

    Just Another Boomer
    Staff member
    Lifetime Member
    Admin
    Rating - 100%
    7   0   0
    Nov 22, 2011
    23,933
    96
    Spring
    When did that practice start? I.e., how long ago. My main camera is a Nikon D700 (I'd guess 10+/- years old), so I'm wondering if this "random" EXIF data practice was implemented before or after that time?
    I honestly don't know. The last time I heard it discussed was in a forum where people were paranoid about data security and that was years ago.

    It may not be the location of the data; it may be the storage of data in binary blobs within the EXIF specification. I'm no longer in a job that requires me to dive deep into security problems like this but a quick search shows that this is, in some form, a real thing.

    For example, Kaspersky says:
    ...camera vendors might use a proprietary metadata format, partially redundant with EXIF.
    ...implying the storage of data outside the EXIF standards. At minimum, I interpret that sentence as saying it's technically possible for a camera maker to store any data they want, almost anywhere they want.

    As for binary blobs, the Wikipedia article on EXIF says that:
    The "MakerNote" tag contains image information normally in a proprietary binary format. Some of these manufacturer-specific formats have been decoded...
    ...meaning, to me, that not all of those binary formats have been broken. So we don't really know what all camera manufacturers are storing even within the EXIF spec.

    Since I don't immediately find a cite that documents the storage of proprietary metadata outside the EXIF-, IPTC-, etc. defined locations, I suggest you take my assertion with a grain of salt. I'm relying on my memory for that one and Kaspersky seems to be saying it's possible but you really need to do your own research on that issue to establish your own comfort level.

    I've been cognizant of the reality of metadata in photos even before Cat Schwartz lost control of her nude photos back in 2003 because they could be reconstructed from metadata pulled off of non-nude crops of those photos. (I was a big fan of her and the whole TechTV crowd back then. Her nudes were the incident that brought photo metadata issues to light to a much more general audience than just data privacy paranoids.) You never really know everything that's in there. Cameras these days are mostly computers that are closed, proprietary, and ever-changing.

    In my old age I had decided that I don't care and I don't have anything to hide, anyway, so I stopped paying much attention to metadata, not even bothering to scrub what I put online. Writing this post, though, has reminded me that a little paranoia is probably always a good thing. This post is me, reflecting on the state of photo metadata for the first time in years. It gives me a sinking feeling in my stomach.

    I really should pay more attention but life has too many details to track, already. I had let this one slip and now I have to decide whether I should change that.

    I don't know whether to thank you or curse you for forcing me to look at the issue again. :)
     

    birddog

    bullshit meter
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Mar 4, 2008
    3,599
    96
    nunya
    I read that modern digital recording devices are now equipped with an embedded program that enables government agencies to block recording of video or images in areas where they want to prevent it.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

    I’ve worked in classified facilities. The only technology I’ve seen is a sign at the entrance saying cameras aren’t allowed.

    The exception is the use of IR emitters which aren’t visible to the naked eye (as opposed to a “dressed eye?) and which flood an area with light that washes out the CCD or sensor array of a digital and the film in an old fashioned camera.
     

    Mowingmaniac 24/7

    TGT Addict
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Nov 7, 2015
    9,387
    96
    I just saw a G19 Gen 3 selling with a load of upgrades.

    The seller wants all of his investment back by asking (go ahead, ask all you care to) for a cost that would buy you a new one with all the upgrades new too.

    I view this kind of 'out there' asking price and laugh and laugh and laugh....though to be sure, some uniformed knuckle head will pay the asking price.
     
    Top Bottom