8 ms·

I travelled on a (non-nuclear) icebreaker out from Murmansk back in 2012. On the way out to the open ocean we passed several moored nuclear powered icebreakers

I travelled on a (non-nuclear) icebreaker out from Murmansk back in 2012. On the way out to the open ocean we passed several moored nuclear powered icebreakers and other vessels in various states of decay[0]. It was both fascinating and disturbing to see - many of these had not yet been decommissioned and it seemed to me that they were huge disasters waiting to happen. In Murmansk itself there is a nuclear icebreaker (The Lenin) that has been decommissioned and converted into a museum where you can tour the vessel and see everything including the engine rooms and nuclear reactors. Despite it being decommissioned, I discovered some systems were clearly still functioning when I accidentally leaned on a random control panel and a bunch of lights lit up! Photos from the trip are here[1], with the first seven photos being taken of or onboard the Lenin. Note that one of the most powerful nuclear icebreakers in the world, The 50 Years of Victory, is available for tourists to travel to the North Pole[2] [0] http://www.redyeti.net/FranzJosefLand/content/bin/images/large/AH5A5916.jpg http://www.redyeti.net/FranzJosefLand/content/bin/images/lar... [1] http://www.redyeti.net/FranzJosefLand/index.html http://www.redyeti.net/FranzJosefLand/index.html [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/50_Let_Pobedy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/50_Let_Pobedy

pratyushag2 10y ago
These are incredible pictures. What kind of camera did you use to click these?
- coldtea 10y ago
  >What kind of camera did you use to click these? This is an incredible comment. What keyboard did you use to write it? (Camera choice doesn't matter beyond certain ergonomics and certain capabilities (low noise, more room for cropping, shallow DOF, etc, a lot of which depend on the lens as well). Any $300+ DSLR can give you the exact same results, as can a lot of mirrorless with a speedy lens. And for most of the pictures shown, any modern compact or even smartphone will do just as well).
  - Tepix 10y ago
    The role of the camera is generally overrated, however there are certain characteristics that you only get with expensive full frame cameras such as the Canon EOS 5D Mark III he appears to be using: * very low noise * very shallow DOF * long bursts of rapid images * weather proofing (including cold) * improved dynamic range * high resolution (lets you crop the part you are interested in and retain good quality) There are also other improvements such as better autofocus. Which means, no a $300 camera will not be good enough for some of these shots. PS: I use a MFT camera myself and it's good enough for my needs.
    - neom 10y ago
      As someone who went to college for digital imaging technology I would say that's not strictly true, crop on a sensor actually has some advantages, for example if you have a 50 1.2 and you can't afford the 85 1.2 you can put the 50 on an APS-C, and in many instances that is cheaper than the second lens, none of the other points you made apply specifically to full frame cameras either. These are all shot on a MkII but they could just a well have been shot on a 300D: https://500px.com/john https://500px.com/john
      - sjwright 10y ago
        A 50mm 1.2 lens on a Canon APS-C body has a full frame equivalent focal length of 80mm and a full frame equivalent aperture of f/1.9 — giving it the characteristics of a comparatively inexpensive lens. In other words, your $1300 lens on a crop body will have comparable performance of a $350 lens on the full frame body.
        neom 10y ago
        Go put a 50 1.2 L on a 300D and tell me it looks like the 85 1.4 on a 5D. In fact, I'm so confident you're incorrect I'd happily drive up to B&H and snap some raws to prove it.
        10y ago
- hunta2097 10y ago
  Want to know how to piss off a photographer? "These are great pictures, you must have a great camera!" Caveat: You can take great pictures with a camera-phone but you can't take every type of shot. I think any DSLR with a good choice of glass (lenses) would be able to reproduce most of these shots. More expensive camera bodies are only slightly better in the optical sense but are MUCH better constructed. Framing, aperture selection and patience plays a bigger part. Most photographers take a prolific amount of pictures, expect to only keep about 1-10% of the shots you take.
  - alistairSH 10y ago
    Most photographers take a prolific amount of pictures Digital cameras are a wonderful thing! A good mirrorless could take most of these shots as well, though I suspect by the time you installed a lens long enough for the wildlife shots[1], it wouldn't be much lighter than the DSLR. 1 - I didn't check the EXIF data, but assume he was using at least 200mm, probably longer, for those shots.
    - semi-extrinsic 10y ago
      The biggest question to my mind, when it comes to camera shootouts, is how close could you get to this kind of quality with a superzoom? Take a Canon SX60, having a lens that's 21-1365mm (sic) 35 mm equivalent. Admittedly the sensor is much worse, etc., but this covers most of that 6 lens range (apart from wide apertures at high tele).
      - chris_overseas 10y ago
        Somewhat anecdotal evidence, but I was on safari with a guy who had a superzoom camera (can't remember which sorry but it went to 1200mm or so). He was mocking the size of my full frame DSLR + 800mm Canon prime, saying he had far more reach with his almost pocketable camera - which was of course true. I was curious to see what the difference was in practice so we both took photos of a waterbuck in the distance (him at both 800mm and 1200mm). Comparing them later on a laptop PC the difference was truly night and day, MUCH more significant than I was expecting. Every single hair was razor sharp in my photo while his just showed a mottled "mush" with very little detail at all due to poor optical resolution combined with overly strong noise reduction (the latter of which could at least be partly addressed by shooting RAW).
- chris_overseas 10y ago
  Thank you. For this trip I was using a Canon 5D Mark III as my main camera, some were probably taken with my backup at the time (a Canon 40D). I had about 6 lens ranging from ultra wide angle to long telephotos. The photos should all have EXIF data intact if you want to see more details on a particular shot. [edit]: while I generally agree with the sibling posts that it's not always the camera that matters, having a high end DSLR makes all the difference in the world for certain types of shots and situations. Others have pointed out many of the benefits but one of the biggest for me is the handling. Having dedicated (and programmable) buttons and viewfinder displays for all the key features mean that it's extremely quick to change camera settings (ISO/aperture/focal points/exposure compensation etc) to suit the moment, without having to hunt through menus or look at the screen. It takes a lot of practice before this becomes second nature though. I've seen a lot of people buy a high end camera thinking it will magically produce better results than a point and shoot. These people often end up disappointed because their results actually end up far worse because they haven't taken the time to learn how to use their equipment properly.
axelfontaine 10y ago
I recognize those yellow jackets! I travelled with the same company (Quark Expeditions) on an expedition to Antarctica that same year. Incredible memories :-)
csomar 10y ago
How much does it cost for such a trip?
- topbanana 10y ago
  $25,000 US
  - lobster_johnson 10y ago
    Apparently this is from Wikipedia [1]: Each participant pays up to US $25,000 for a cruise lasting three weeks. The Fiftieth Anniversary of Victory contains an accommodation deck customised for tourists. But it looks like the information is outdated. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/50_Let_Pobedy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/50_Let_Pobedy
- edler 10y ago
  Looks like it is around 6000€, so pretty expensive but worth it? source: https://www.quarkexpeditions.com/gb/antarctic/expeditions/antarctic-explorer-discovering-the-7th-continent/dates-rates https://www.quarkexpeditions.com/gb/antarctic/expeditions/an...
  - chris_overseas 10y ago
    Yes these sort of trips aren't cheap, but I still consider them good value for money to see corners of the world that are stunning and completely inaccessible otherwise. Note that it is possible to get significant discounts when there are sales (eg Black Friday) or last minute when they have spare cabins to fill. I've done a few other similar trips and I've never paid full price, including one to Antarctica where I managed to get nearly 70% off.
dvdgsng 10y ago
What is this about? http://www.redyeti.net/FranzJosefLand/content/bin/images/large/AH5A6064.jpg http://www.redyeti.net/FranzJosefLand/content/bin/images/lar...
- chris_overseas 10y ago
  That was a huge bird colony nesting on the face of a place called Rubini Rock. We were fortunate to have ideal conditions and as a result the ship's captain was able to position the ship within a meter or so of the cliff face, allowing us a very up close view of the colony.
tlow 10y ago
As many have noted, these are excellent photographs. I have limited knowledge and experience with photography. Do you worry about your work being stolen and sold? I'm thinking particularly of this story: https://petapixel.com/2016/07/27/photographer-suing-getty-images-1-billion/ https://petapixel.com/2016/07/27/photographer-suing-getty-im...
- chris_overseas 10y ago
  I used to, but not so much these days. I'm not really interested in commercialising my photography (it's a LOT of work and its hard to make a decent living from) and I generally don't mind people sharing them non-commercially. Commercial use is a different matter and I do keep a bit of an eye on it (https://pixsy.com/ https://pixsy.com/ is great for this), but in my experience it is rare for them to get used inappropriately without being asked permission first. I also don't put them online at high enough a resolution to be useful for printing which cuts down any offline abuse. The story you linked is an interesting one, especially given how heavy handed Getty are when it comes to misuse of any of their images in the reverse situation. Personally I think what Getty have done here is completely unethical but given the public domain nature of the images in question they might be in the clear here.
  - tlow 10y ago
    Thank you for your answer and the beautiful photographs.
- iamatworknow 10y ago
  I'm an amateur photographer and, unfortunately, you see this come up a lot in photography communities online, but you don't hear about most cases in the media. You'd be surprised how many businesses will just openly steal images from any website or social media platform and use them without notice, credit, or payment. Unfortunately watermarks are either easily cropped out or they ruin the picture (like by spanning the whole image with transparent text). There are some resources for the little guy like Pixsy[0] but reports of their efficacy are mixed. The usual advice if you find your image being used without permission is to ask the offender nicely, send them an invoice, or get a lawyer involved, depending on how far you want to take it. [0] https://pixsy.com/ https://pixsy.com/

pratyushag2 10y ago

These are incredible pictures. What kind of camera did you use to click these?

coldtea 10y ago
>What kind of camera did you use to click these? This is an incredible comment. What keyboard did you use to write it? (Camera choice doesn't matter beyond certain ergonomics and certain capabilities (low noise, more room for cropping, shallow DOF, etc, a lot of which depend on the lens as well). Any $300+ DSLR can give you the exact same results, as can a lot of mirrorless with a speedy lens. And for most of the pictures shown, any modern compact or even smartphone will do just as well).
- Tepix 10y ago
  The role of the camera is generally overrated, however there are certain characteristics that you only get with expensive full frame cameras such as the Canon EOS 5D Mark III he appears to be using: * very low noise * very shallow DOF * long bursts of rapid images * weather proofing (including cold) * improved dynamic range * high resolution (lets you crop the part you are interested in and retain good quality) There are also other improvements such as better autofocus. Which means, no a $300 camera will not be good enough for some of these shots. PS: I use a MFT camera myself and it's good enough for my needs.
  - neom 10y ago
    As someone who went to college for digital imaging technology I would say that's not strictly true, crop on a sensor actually has some advantages, for example if you have a 50 1.2 and you can't afford the 85 1.2 you can put the 50 on an APS-C, and in many instances that is cheaper than the second lens, none of the other points you made apply specifically to full frame cameras either. These are all shot on a MkII but they could just a well have been shot on a 300D: https://500px.com/john https://500px.com/john
    - sjwright 10y ago
      A 50mm 1.2 lens on a Canon APS-C body has a full frame equivalent focal length of 80mm and a full frame equivalent aperture of f/1.9 — giving it the characteristics of a comparatively inexpensive lens. In other words, your $1300 lens on a crop body will have comparable performance of a $350 lens on the full frame body.
      - neom 10y ago
        Go put a 50 1.2 L on a 300D and tell me it looks like the 85 1.4 on a 5D. In fact, I'm so confident you're incorrect I'd happily drive up to B&H and snap some raws to prove it.
        10y ago
hunta2097 10y ago
Want to know how to piss off a photographer? "These are great pictures, you must have a great camera!" Caveat: You can take great pictures with a camera-phone but you can't take every type of shot. I think any DSLR with a good choice of glass (lenses) would be able to reproduce most of these shots. More expensive camera bodies are only slightly better in the optical sense but are MUCH better constructed. Framing, aperture selection and patience plays a bigger part. Most photographers take a prolific amount of pictures, expect to only keep about 1-10% of the shots you take.
- alistairSH 10y ago
  Most photographers take a prolific amount of pictures Digital cameras are a wonderful thing! A good mirrorless could take most of these shots as well, though I suspect by the time you installed a lens long enough for the wildlife shots[1], it wouldn't be much lighter than the DSLR. 1 - I didn't check the EXIF data, but assume he was using at least 200mm, probably longer, for those shots.
  - semi-extrinsic 10y ago
    The biggest question to my mind, when it comes to camera shootouts, is how close could you get to this kind of quality with a superzoom? Take a Canon SX60, having a lens that's 21-1365mm (sic) 35 mm equivalent. Admittedly the sensor is much worse, etc., but this covers most of that 6 lens range (apart from wide apertures at high tele).
    - chris_overseas 10y ago
      Somewhat anecdotal evidence, but I was on safari with a guy who had a superzoom camera (can't remember which sorry but it went to 1200mm or so). He was mocking the size of my full frame DSLR + 800mm Canon prime, saying he had far more reach with his almost pocketable camera - which was of course true. I was curious to see what the difference was in practice so we both took photos of a waterbuck in the distance (him at both 800mm and 1200mm). Comparing them later on a laptop PC the difference was truly night and day, MUCH more significant than I was expecting. Every single hair was razor sharp in my photo while his just showed a mottled "mush" with very little detail at all due to poor optical resolution combined with overly strong noise reduction (the latter of which could at least be partly addressed by shooting RAW).
chris_overseas 10y ago
Thank you. For this trip I was using a Canon 5D Mark III as my main camera, some were probably taken with my backup at the time (a Canon 40D). I had about 6 lens ranging from ultra wide angle to long telephotos. The photos should all have EXIF data intact if you want to see more details on a particular shot. [edit]: while I generally agree with the sibling posts that it's not always the camera that matters, having a high end DSLR makes all the difference in the world for certain types of shots and situations. Others have pointed out many of the benefits but one of the biggest for me is the handling. Having dedicated (and programmable) buttons and viewfinder displays for all the key features mean that it's extremely quick to change camera settings (ISO/aperture/focal points/exposure compensation etc) to suit the moment, without having to hunt through menus or look at the screen. It takes a lot of practice before this becomes second nature though. I've seen a lot of people buy a high end camera thinking it will magically produce better results than a point and shoot. These people often end up disappointed because their results actually end up far worse because they haven't taken the time to learn how to use their equipment properly.

axelfontaine 10y ago

I recognize those yellow jackets! I travelled with the same company (Quark Expeditions) on an expedition to Antarctica that same year. Incredible memories :-)

csomar 10y ago

How much does it cost for such a trip?

topbanana 10y ago
$25,000 US
- lobster_johnson 10y ago
  Apparently this is from Wikipedia [1]: Each participant pays up to US $25,000 for a cruise lasting three weeks. The Fiftieth Anniversary of Victory contains an accommodation deck customised for tourists. But it looks like the information is outdated. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/50_Let_Pobedy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/50_Let_Pobedy
edler 10y ago
Looks like it is around 6000€, so pretty expensive but worth it? source: https://www.quarkexpeditions.com/gb/antarctic/expeditions/antarctic-explorer-discovering-the-7th-continent/dates-rates https://www.quarkexpeditions.com/gb/antarctic/expeditions/an...
- chris_overseas 10y ago
  Yes these sort of trips aren't cheap, but I still consider them good value for money to see corners of the world that are stunning and completely inaccessible otherwise. Note that it is possible to get significant discounts when there are sales (eg Black Friday) or last minute when they have spare cabins to fill. I've done a few other similar trips and I've never paid full price, including one to Antarctica where I managed to get nearly 70% off.

dvdgsng 10y ago

What is this about? http://www.redyeti.net/FranzJosefLand/content/bin/images/large/AH5A6064.jpg http://www.redyeti.net/FranzJosefLand/content/bin/images/lar...

chris_overseas 10y ago
That was a huge bird colony nesting on the face of a place called Rubini Rock. We were fortunate to have ideal conditions and as a result the ship's captain was able to position the ship within a meter or so of the cliff face, allowing us a very up close view of the colony.

tlow 10y ago

As many have noted, these are excellent photographs. I have limited knowledge and experience with photography. Do you worry about your work being stolen and sold? I'm thinking particularly of this story: https://petapixel.com/2016/07/27/photographer-suing-getty-images-1-billion/ https://petapixel.com/2016/07/27/photographer-suing-getty-im...

chris_overseas 10y ago
I used to, but not so much these days. I'm not really interested in commercialising my photography (it's a LOT of work and its hard to make a decent living from) and I generally don't mind people sharing them non-commercially. Commercial use is a different matter and I do keep a bit of an eye on it (https://pixsy.com/ https://pixsy.com/ is great for this), but in my experience it is rare for them to get used inappropriately without being asked permission first. I also don't put them online at high enough a resolution to be useful for printing which cuts down any offline abuse. The story you linked is an interesting one, especially given how heavy handed Getty are when it comes to misuse of any of their images in the reverse situation. Personally I think what Getty have done here is completely unethical but given the public domain nature of the images in question they might be in the clear here.
- tlow 10y ago
  Thank you for your answer and the beautiful photographs.
iamatworknow 10y ago
I'm an amateur photographer and, unfortunately, you see this come up a lot in photography communities online, but you don't hear about most cases in the media. You'd be surprised how many businesses will just openly steal images from any website or social media platform and use them without notice, credit, or payment. Unfortunately watermarks are either easily cropped out or they ruin the picture (like by spanning the whole image with transparent text). There are some resources for the little guy like Pixsy[0] but reports of their efficacy are mixed. The usual advice if you find your image being used without permission is to ask the offender nicely, send them an invoice, or get a lawyer involved, depending on how far you want to take it. [0] https://pixsy.com/ https://pixsy.com/