pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Will Yellowstone erupt any time soon?  (Read 17998 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #25 on: August 25, 2010, 11:16 »
0
Well, the good thing about "this type of nonsense" is that geologists get more money for research.


« Reply #26 on: August 25, 2010, 11:33 »
0
Indeed Gaja :) 
True.

jbarber873

« Reply #27 on: August 26, 2010, 10:19 »
0
PRO:
1 - a great cure for global warming
2 - fantastic sunsets by the ashes in the atmosphere
3 - 95% of all microstock photographers are killed - more room for you, more room for me
4 - great photo-op with a good tele - try video too
5 - no plane hijackings since no flights any more - use abandoned planes as props
6 - yellowstone park pictures become priceless on stock

CONTRA:
1 - 95% of all microstock buyers are killed - less sales for you, less sales for me
2 - more sensor dust when changing lenses
3 - "magma chamber explosion" over-abundant category on stock
4 - model girls with headset difficult to find

Don't worry, be happy  ;D


This model girl with headset thing has really got me worried. I've been putting off shooting model girls with headsets because I've been working on model girls with stethoscopes ( i'm a doctor!). Do you think I should drop that for a while and get some headsets?

« Reply #28 on: August 26, 2010, 11:24 »
0
Who really knows when or if it will happen? 2 Peter, ch 3, ver 8 puts it in a nutshell. Whether you are a "believer" or not it has some sense about it.

« Reply #29 on: August 26, 2010, 11:57 »
0
PRO:
1 - a great cure for global warming
2 - fantastic sunsets by the ashes in the atmosphere
3 - 95% of all microstock photographers are killed - more room for you, more room for me
4 - great photo-op with a good tele - try video too
5 - no plane hijackings since no flights any more - use abandoned planes as props
6 - yellowstone park pictures become priceless on stock

CONTRA:
1 - 95% of all microstock buyers are killed - less sales for you, less sales for me
2 - more sensor dust when changing lenses
3 - "magma chamber explosion" over-abundant category on stock
4 - model girls with headset difficult to find
CONTRA:
...
5. 95% of all microstock buyers are killed - resulting in a lot fewer dls
6. I live about a hundred miles from Yellowstone

« Reply #30 on: August 26, 2010, 17:14 »
0
I was there last year.

Here is my blog with some photos about the trip:
http://hubpages.com/hub/Yellowstone-National-Park-Beautiful-and-otherworldy
 

« Reply #31 on: August 26, 2010, 17:24 »
0
This model girl with headset thing has really got me worried. I've been putting off shooting model girls with headsets because I've been working on model girls with stethoscopes ( i'm a doctor!). Do you think I should drop that for a while and get some headsets?
You can try unusual combinations like cigar-smoking senior ladies looking at stethoscopes with a headset on. I don't know what concept it would be, but it's certainly niche. :-p

« Reply #32 on: August 26, 2010, 17:32 »
0
6. I live about a hundred miles from Yellowstone
Well, keep your tripod ready all the time and your batteries charged! You're an illustrator? Oh well. Have a large plastic bag ready in the drawer to put your drawing pad in.  ;) Nero had Rome set afire to get inspiration for his poems. Maybe a flying magma chamber over your head will do the same.  8)

« Reply #33 on: August 26, 2010, 18:29 »
0
Well, the good thing about "this type of nonsense" is that geologists get more money for research.

Maybee in this case I can get some money for research "this type of nonsense", how global warming have influence on Stokas reviewers.
 ;D

« Reply #34 on: August 26, 2010, 19:24 »
0
Wasn't there a big die-off of photographers trying to capture the Mt. Saint Helens eruption?  At least one of them I remember ... National Geographic published the pictures he snapped out his car's back window of the enormous cloud of poisonous gas as he tried to outrun it.  Should have use a tripod to steady that "must have" shot!

« Reply #35 on: August 26, 2010, 19:42 »
0
I just returned yesterday from a month in the Tetons and Yellowstone. No signs of imminent disaster as far as I could tell....

A few photos here if anyone's interested.... http://www.flickr.com/photos/blaneyphoto/sets/72157624629212839/

« Reply #36 on: August 26, 2010, 19:46 »
0
A few photos here if anyone's interested.... http://www.flickr.com/photos/blaneyphoto/sets/72157624629212839/
Great stuff! Wat lens did you use for the wildlife shots?

« Reply #37 on: August 26, 2010, 19:53 »
0
A few photos here if anyone's interested.... http://www.flickr.com/photos/blaneyphoto/sets/72157624629212839/
Great stuff! Wat lens did you use for the wildlife shots?


I bought a Canon 7D and 100-400mm for this trip. Worked pretty well, but f/5.6 is SO limiting. I used the 5D mk II as well, and the 24-70mm was on that most of the time. Used both for both wildlife and landscape - sometimes the wildlife was right in my face and othertimes the 400mm made for great landscape shots.

« Reply #38 on: August 26, 2010, 20:15 »
0
Wasn't there a big die-off of photographers trying to capture the Mt. Saint Helens eruption?  At least one of them I remember ... National Geographic published the pictures he snapped out his car's back window of the enormous cloud of poisonous gas as he tried to outrun it.  Should have use a tripod to steady that "must have" shot!

Heh
I think that lets say that they "National Geographic" drop down down they criteria. They have "good" images because they are able to be in that "niche" and nothing else.
So crap happens like to photographers who was in first war lines which after they survive became "photo reviewers" or something else pompous title after that.
I dont know is it you words or from NG writers which no even heard from him this case "Should have use a tripod to steady that ........

Anyhow RIP for him/them............

« Reply #39 on: August 27, 2010, 01:24 »
0
Nero had Rome set afire to get inspiration for his poems.

Vile slander. He did nothing of the sort. It's just a lie put about by his enemies (though even they didn't claim it was for poetic inspiration, you've embroidered it FD .... you must be in the Flavian camp!)

« Reply #40 on: August 27, 2010, 06:23 »
0
I used the 5D mk II as well, and the 24-70mm was on that most of the time. Used both for both wildlife and landscape - sometimes the wildlife was right in my face and othertimes the 400mm made for great landscape shots.
Well the real reason I asked is that I have a 5DII with a 24-70 which is great (but heavy) for general work and landscapes, but a little bit short even for portraits. I couldn't imagine using a 24-70 for wildlife on a full frame, and I was thinking of a 70-200. The problem is they are around 1000 euro.

« Reply #41 on: August 27, 2010, 06:46 »
0
Vile slander. He did nothing of the sort. It's just a lie put about by his enemies (though even they didn't claim it was for poetic inspiration, you've embroidered it FD .... you must be in the Flavian camp!)
You must have read too much of Tacitus. Ok, ok, the Christians did it!  :P  "Nero Fiddled While Rome Burned"

« Reply #42 on: August 27, 2010, 10:42 »
0
I used the 5D mk II as well, and the 24-70mm was on that most of the time. Used both for both wildlife and landscape - sometimes the wildlife was right in my face and othertimes the 400mm made for great landscape shots.
Well the real reason I asked is that I have a 5DII with a 24-70 which is great (but heavy) for general work and landscapes, but a little bit short even for portraits. I couldn't imagine using a 24-70 for wildlife on a full frame, and I was thinking of a 70-200. The problem is they are around 1000 euro.

Well.... the L lenses only go up in weight from the 24-70. That's about the lightest one I own.  70-200 is a useful range, but really the longer the better.

« Reply #43 on: August 27, 2010, 17:25 »
0
Well.... the L lenses only go up in weight from the 24-70. That's about the lightest one I own.
The 24-105 is lighter and many people claim they don't see any difference. Ask Lisa: she has both.

« Reply #44 on: August 27, 2010, 17:32 »
0
Well.... the L lenses only go up in weight from the 24-70. That's about the lightest one I own.
The 24-105 is lighter and many people claim they don't see any difference. Ask Lisa: she has both.
It might be a bit lighter, but its an f/4.... too slow to be much use to me - I'll stick with the 24-70.

RacePhoto

« Reply #45 on: August 31, 2010, 02:23 »
0
Sorry to break up the camera talk and go back to Doom and Gloom and the end of the world is near.  ;D

The best known eruption of Krakatoa culminated in a series of massive explosions on August 2627, 1883, which was among the most violent volcanic events in modern and recorded history.

With a Volcanic Explosivity Index (VEI) of 6,[3] the eruption was equivalent to 200 megatons of TNT (840 PJ)about 13,000 times the nuclear yield of the Little Boy bomb (13 to 16 kT) that devastated Hiroshima, Japan during World War II and four times the yield of the Tsar Bomba (50 MT), the largest nuclear device ever detonated.

The 1883 eruption ejected approximately 21 cubic kilometres (5.0 cu mi) of rock, ash, and pumice.[4]

The cataclysmic explosion was distinctly heard as far away as Perth in Western Australia, about 1,930 miles (3,110 km) away, and the island of Rodrigues near Mauritius, about 3,000 miles (5,000 km) away.[5]

Near Krakatau, according to official records, 165 villages and towns were destroyed and 132 seriously damaged, at least 36,417 (official toll) people died, and many thousands were injured by the eruption, mostly from the tsunamis that followed the explosion. The eruption destroyed two-thirds of the island of Krakatoa.


No I'm not concerned about Yellowstone.

Here's another one, that like Krakatoa should have caused some "nuclear Winter" effects.

The Tunguska Event, or Tunguska explosion, was a powerful explosion that occurred not far from the Podkamennaya (Lower Stony) Tunguska (Подкаменная Тунгуска) River in what is now Krasnoyarsk Krai (Красноярский Край) in Russia, at 00:13:35 Greenwich Mean Time [1] (around 07:14 local time)[2][3] on June 30, 1908 (June 17 in the Julian calendar, in use locally at the time).[3]

The explosion is believed to have been caused by the air burst of a large meteoroid or comet fragment at an altitude of 510 kilometres (3.16.2 mi) above the Earth's surface. Different studies have yielded varying estimates of the object's size, with general agreement that it was a few tens of metres across.[4]

The number of scholarly publications on the problem of the Tunguska explosion since 1908 may be estimated at about 1,000 (mainly in Russian). Many scientists have participated in Tunguska studies, the best-known of them being Leonid Kulik, Yevgeny Krinov, Kirill Florensky, Nikolay Vasiliev, and Wilhelm Fast. [5]

Although the meteoroid or comet burst in the air rather than hitting the surface, this event is still referred to as an impact. Estimates of the energy of the blast range from 5 to as high as 30 megatons of TNT (21130 PJ).[6][7], with 1015 megatons of TNT (4263 PJ) the most likely[7]roughly equal to the United States' Castle Bravo thermonuclear bomb tested on March 1, 1954, about 1,000 times as powerful as the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima, Japan, and about one-third the power of the Tsar Bomba, the largest nuclear weapon ever detonated.[8] The explosion knocked over an estimated 80 million trees over 2,150 square kilometres (830 sq mi). It is estimated that the shock wave from the blast would have measured 5.0 on the Richter scale. An explosion of this magnitude is capable of destroying a large metropolitan area.[9] This possibility has helped to spark discussion of asteroid deflection strategies.

The Tunguska event is the largest impact event over land in Earth's recent history.[10] Impacts of similar size over remote ocean areas would have gone unnoticed[11] before the advent of global satellite monitoring in the 1960s and 1970s.


Yes the one in Russia was in a remote area, but the effects would have spread a long way in the atmosphere.

Worrying won't change anything either, so lets just get on with life and do what we do.  :)

« Reply #46 on: August 31, 2010, 03:19 »
0
The 1883 eruption ejected approximately 21 cubic kilometres (5.0 cu mi) of rock, ash, and pumice.[4]


Yellowstone ejected 240 cubic miles in last explosion, which is roughly 1000 times stronger than Krakatoa. The explosion was 875000 Megatons.
Now compare me this with firecrackers you described. :)
You got some interesting data here:


http://www.statemaster.com/encyclopedia/Megaton

« Reply #47 on: August 31, 2010, 05:30 »
0
It might be a bit lighter, but its an f/4.... too slow to be much use to me - I'll stick with the 24-70.
It's a bit short for portraits and I have to stick with it since I don't have money to burn.  ;) I was thinking of a Canon EF 70-200mm F2.8 L USM instead, so I can do portraits and wildlife/surfers/urban. I'm still canvassing what to buy for a longer range. Have to check on the Canon EF 70-300mm F4.5-5.6 DO IS USM which seems very handy to carry around.
« Last Edit: August 31, 2010, 05:35 by FD-regular »

RacePhoto

« Reply #48 on: August 31, 2010, 17:04 »
0
The 1883 eruption ejected approximately 21 cubic kilometres (5.0 cu mi) of rock, ash, and pumice.[4]


Yellowstone ejected 240 cubic miles in last explosion, which is roughly 1000 times stronger than Krakatoa. The explosion was 875000 Megatons.
Now compare me this with firecrackers you described. :)
You got some interesting data here:


http://www.statemaster.com/encyclopedia/Megaton


Really, is that scientific data, hypothesis, or "run and hide Yellowstone is going to blow!".  :) yes 875000 Megatons would be big and millions of years ago, events like that were much more common.

"The Yellowstone region has produced three exceedingly large volcanic eruptions in the past 2.1 million years."

"If another large caldera-forming eruption were to occur at Yellowstone, its effects would be worldwide. Thick ash deposits would bury vast areas of the United States, and injection of huge volumes of volcanic gases into the atmosphere could drastically affect global climate. Fortunately, the Yellowstone volcanic system shows no signs that it is headed toward such an eruption. The probability of a large caldera-forming eruption within the next few thousand years is exceedingly low."

I don't think we need to worry about it and I don't think we could do anything to alter the large natural event if it was going to happen soon.

« Reply #49 on: August 31, 2010, 17:13 »
0
^^^ Yes, it's scientific data, since the ash from the Yellowstone is found all around the world. And yes, we can do something about it if we manage to run away on time with our families from the most endangered areas. :)


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
9 Replies
3523 Views
Last post November 27, 2006, 16:36
by madelaide
7 Replies
2875 Views
Last post February 03, 2007, 05:15
by takestock
22 Replies
10461 Views
Last post March 05, 2007, 17:20
by madelaide
32 Replies
7400 Views
Last post May 25, 2007, 15:05
by PenelopeB
15 Replies
3755 Views
Last post August 29, 2010, 07:04
by luissantos84

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results