stefan
Cave Dweller
Member since January 2005
Posts: 14,095
|
Post by stefan on Jan 8, 2023 11:29:39 GMT -5
First and foremost I love the pixs as well as the vid! Amazing job on those. I'm intrigued by the comparison of the Mini-sonic to the Lot-o. I have a mini on the way and am very curious as to your "recipe" This is my first true vibe and I have plenty of rotary time under my belt. My plan (for now) is to run the mini in prepolish and polish only (got an extra barrel for polish only) with ceramics, but I may want to expand out as I gain experience. Any thoughts you can provide would be great.
|
|
|
Post by oregon on Jan 8, 2023 14:41:54 GMT -5
I will preface this post with the fact that these rocks were tumbled in a rotary for stage one and after that all the work was done in a MT-4 mini-sonic vibe tumbler. I have had the mini-sonic for about 6 years and it usually only runs when the Lot-o gets backlogged. While I still prefer the lot-o for a few key reasons these rocks do show that a mirror finish can be achieved with the mini-sonic. Lot-o uses less grit/polish, less time and while in the end the mini-sonic can produce a nice finish the lot-o achieves a polish at the 500 step that the mini-sonic will never duplicate no matter how long I let it run. This tells me the lot-o is a more efficient motion. These rocks are 500 stage lot-o. The mini-sonic does not compare at the 500 step. I can't explain it. The motion in the mini-sonic barrel looks awesome and pretty much matches the lot-o it just does not work the same. I have a similar experience/feeling. I'm wondering if the bowl barrel shape of the lot-o forces a bit more 'mixing' where as the minisonic hopper the entire group can sort of roll around as one cylinder? Haven't used the viking enough to compare, too much of a pain to bolt and unbolt the hoppers...
Feedback on the video would be appreciated. Is the video worth the hassle or did the pictures do them justice?
Vid is fine, adding background music that suits the viewers taste is good. Looks hand held? a steady rest or putting the stones on a rotating platform may produce a 'smoother' video. But as always, very nice pics.
|
|
rocknewb101
fully equipped rock polisher
Member since October 2022
Posts: 1,323
|
Post by rocknewb101 on Jan 9, 2023 13:46:33 GMT -5
Those pictures are gold and the rocks are even better! Wow. I can not even come close to getting a shine like that and my rocks always look way duller in the pictures then real life. Are you using a special camera/lens? I'll figure it out one day lol...until then......practice makes perfect.
|
|
|
Post by Drummond Island Rocks on Jan 9, 2023 17:55:22 GMT -5
Those pictures are gold and the rocks are even better! Wow. I can not even come close to getting a shine like that and my rocks always look way duller in the pictures then real life. Are you using a special camera/lens? I'll figure it out one day lol...until then......practice makes perfect. Thank you. Over 500 completed batches during the last 10 yrs. Lots of experience tumbling and taking photos of tumbles. Years ago I was using a fancy DSLR camera then switched to a high end point and shoot and now I am just being lazy and using my phone.
|
|
|
Post by rockjunquie on Jan 9, 2023 18:50:20 GMT -5
I've always thought your photos were phenomenal. I don't think the video really added anything that the pictures were missing.
I am also using a cell phone camera now. Just easier. My dslr is packed away. Don't know what to do with it now.
Gorgeous tumbles, BTW.
|
|
|
Post by Drummond Island Rocks on Jan 10, 2023 10:06:08 GMT -5
I've always thought your photos were phenomenal. I don't think the video really added anything that the pictures were missing. I am also using a cell phone camera now. Just easier. My dslr is packed away. Don't know what to do with it now.
Gorgeous tumbles, BTW. Thanks. The cell phone is convenient but I really prefered the pictures from my old and now broken point and shoot. I was using an 8 yr old sony with a really good carl zeiss lens. Sony still makes that line of cameras but I have bought and tried both newer models and could not get the same results I was getting. I keep checking ebay for a replacement of my original but have a hard time spending $200-$250 on an 8 year old used point and shoot camera. Chuck
|
|
|
Post by rockjunquie on Jan 10, 2023 10:10:47 GMT -5
I've always thought your photos were phenomenal. I don't think the video really added anything that the pictures were missing. I am also using a cell phone camera now. Just easier. My dslr is packed away. Don't know what to do with it now.
Gorgeous tumbles, BTW. Thanks. The cell phone is convenient but I really prefered the pictures from my old and now broken point and shoot. I was using an 8 yr old sony with a really good carl zeiss lens. Sony still makes that line of cameras but I have bought and tried both newer models and could not get the same results I was getting. I keep checking ebay for a replacement of my original but have a hard time spending $200-$250 on an 8 year old used point and shoot camera. Chuck My favorite camera was an old Nikon 990-995 (pretty sure that's the model). It had THE BEST lens! Nothing I have had since has been better, but it was only 8 mega pixels, I think. Forget about cropping. I can pick those pictures out of hundreds- they just look so much better.
|
|
|
Post by Drummond Island Rocks on Jan 10, 2023 10:54:27 GMT -5
Thanks. The cell phone is convenient but I really prefered the pictures from my old and now broken point and shoot. I was using an 8 yr old sony with a really good carl zeiss lens. Sony still makes that line of cameras but I have bought and tried both newer models and could not get the same results I was getting. I keep checking ebay for a replacement of my original but have a hard time spending $200-$250 on an 8 year old used point and shoot camera. Chuck My favorite camera was an old Nikon 990-995 (pretty sure that's the model). It had THE BEST lens! Nothing I have had since has been better, but it was only 8 mega pixels, I think. Forget about cropping. I can pick those pictures out of hundreds- they just look so much better. That is funny. I had the Nikon 995 with the swivel body. That was a really unique design. It was before I got into rocks though so I was just using it for family pics and such. That might have been my second digital camera after my kodak DC120. The DC120 was the first digital camera to hit the one megapixel mark and was over $900 back 1997-1998. Edit: just looked at some exif info and I got the 995 in the middle of 2002. Chuck
|
|
|
Post by rockjunquie on Jan 10, 2023 13:16:58 GMT -5
My favorite camera was an old Nikon 990-995 (pretty sure that's the model). It had THE BEST lens! Nothing I have had since has been better, but it was only 8 mega pixels, I think. Forget about cropping. I can pick those pictures out of hundreds- they just look so much better. That is funny. I had the Nikon 995 with the swivel body. That was a really unique design. It was before I got into rocks though so I was just using it for family pics and such. That might have been my second digital camera after my kodak DC120. The DC120 was the first digital camera to hit the one megapixel mark and was over $900 back 1997-1998. Edit: just looked at some exif info and I got the 995 in the middle of 2002. Chuck My son had that kodak. I had an HP. What a piece of crap for the money. I spent a FORTUNE on that thing. LOL! It was the latest and greatest back in the day. It wanted everything to be blue.
I don't remember when I got my 990/995 but I had 3. One my brother dropped and broke, so I replaced it. And then I got paranoid that I wouldn't be able to replace it, so I picked up another for cheap. I wish I still had them honestly. They were great for macros. Can't remember the year, but about the same time. It was a few years older model when I got them. I loved the swivel body.
|
|
|
Post by Drummond Island Rocks on Jan 10, 2023 13:37:18 GMT -5
That is funny. I had the Nikon 995 with the swivel body. That was a really unique design. It was before I got into rocks though so I was just using it for family pics and such. That might have been my second digital camera after my kodak DC120. The DC120 was the first digital camera to hit the one megapixel mark and was over $900 back 1997-1998. Edit: just looked at some exif info and I got the 995 in the middle of 2002. Chuck My son had that kodak. I had an HP. What a piece of crap for the money. I spent a FORTUNE on that thing. LOL! It was the latest and greatest back in the day. It wanted everything to be blue.
I don't remember when I got my 990/995 but I had 3. One my brother dropped and broke, so I replaced it. And then I got paranoid that I wouldn't be able to replace it, so I picked up another for cheap. I wish I still had them honestly. They were great for macros. Can't remember the year, but about the same time. It was a few years older model when I got them. I loved the swivel body.
Would hate to add up the cost of all the cameras I have purchased since 1998 and now the dang phone has a camera that tops them all. lol Chuck
|
|
doublebluff
having dreams about rocks
Member since September 2021
Posts: 55
|
Post by doublebluff on Jan 12, 2023 8:42:52 GMT -5
Those rocks are wonderful! Thanks for posting.
|
|
dirtsifter
Cave Dweller
Co to za kamyczek?
Member since September 2022
Posts: 402
|
Post by dirtsifter on Jan 13, 2023 2:01:20 GMT -5
Great shine! Great pictures. I really liked the video.
|
|