| Author |
Message |
Ron Hardin
Guest
|
 Posted:
Mon Nov 07, 2005 5:40 am Post subject:
Leaf in Flight |
|
|
One thing digital cameras have done is make scattershot techniques
work, eg. take 200 pics of where a leaf might fall, panning at the
rate it would likely fall at in the wind, and you get one or two
that are decent when a leaf happens to be there going in the right
direction at the right speed
http://home.att.net/~rhhardin2/fall04.jpg
being the sharpest.
Who could afford to do that with film?
--
Ron Hardin
rhhardin@mindspring.com
On the internet, nobody knows you're a jerk.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Gary Eickmeier
Guest
|
| Posted:
Mon Nov 07, 2005 5:40 am Post subject:
Re: Leaf in Flight |
|
|
Joseph Meehan wrote:
| Quote: | Not bad, but I think most people would just through a leaf or two into
the air where needed.
|
Sorry, but I just can't resist - what does "through a leaf" mean?
Gary Eickmeier |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joseph Meehan
Guest
|
| Posted:
Mon Nov 07, 2005 5:40 am Post subject:
Re: Leaf in Flight |
|
|
Ron Hardin wrote:
| Quote: | One thing digital cameras have done is make scattershot techniques
work, eg. take 200 pics of where a leaf might fall, panning at the
rate it would likely fall at in the wind, and you get one or two
that are decent when a leaf happens to be there going in the right
direction at the right speed
http://home.att.net/~rhhardin2/fall04.jpg
being the sharpest.
Who could afford to do that with film?
|
Not bad, but I think most people would just through a leaf or two into
the air where needed.
--
Joseph Meehan
Dia duit |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cyclone
Guest
|
| Posted:
Mon Nov 07, 2005 5:40 am Post subject:
Re: Leaf in Flight |
|
|
"Gary Eickmeier" <geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:d6zbf.34552$kd.14591@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
| Quote: |
Joseph Meehan wrote:
Not bad, but I think most people would just through a leaf or two
into
the air where needed.
Sorry, but I just can't resist - what does "through a leaf" mean?
|
it is an advanced technique using a really really tiny aperture |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Eatmorepies
Guest
|
| Posted:
Tue Nov 08, 2005 4:32 am Post subject:
Re: Leaf in Flight |
|
|
"Ron Hardin" <rhhardin@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:436E9804.5C30@mindspring.com...
| Quote: | One thing digital cameras have done is make scattershot techniques
work, eg. take 200 pics of where a leaf might fall, panning at the
rate it would likely fall at in the wind, and you get one or two
that are decent when a leaf happens to be there going in the right
direction at the right speed
Who could afford to do that with film?
|
Since I bought my 350D in March this year I have taken 5700 shots - more
than I took in 10 years with my film EOS.
Digital photography liberates us in that way. But - I don't have to think so
much about the shot I'm making, a possible retrograde step.
Having said that I am a complete convert to digital.
John |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Donald Gray
Guest
|
| Posted:
Tue Nov 08, 2005 4:42 am Post subject:
Re: Leaf in Flight |
|
|
On 7 Nov 2005 14:52:06 GMT, George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com>
wrote:
That was not a photoshop dodge/fudge - It was an actual scan from a
film print - The eyes were scanned at higher resolution - NO photoshop
funny biz! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bob Harrington
Guest
|
| Posted:
Tue Nov 08, 2005 4:42 am Post subject:
Re: Leaf in Flight |
|
|
Gary Eickmeier <geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in news:V5Kbf.34711
$kd.23951@tornado.tampabay.rr.com:
| Quote: |
Joseph Meehan wrote:
Not bad, but I think most people would just through a leaf or
two into the air where needed.
Sorry, but I just can't resist - what does "through a leaf" mean?
I guess I need a more intelligent spell checker. :-)
You mean you misspelled "throw" and it offered you "through" as one of
the alternatives? That is interesting!
|
I occasionally intentionally misspell the word "figure" as "figger" in
casual conversation, figgering it sounds a little more chatty.
Mozilla Thunderbird's spell-czecher then offers an entirely unacceptable
correction, changing the first letter to an 'N'... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Donald Gray
Guest
|
| Posted:
Tue Nov 08, 2005 4:45 am Post subject:
Re: Leaf in Flight |
|
|
On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 13:10:08 -0700, Bill Funk
<BigBill@pipping.com.com> wrote:
| Quote: | On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 16:28:01 +0100, Stephen Poley
sbpoleySpicedHamTrap@xs4all.nl> wrote:
On 7 Nov 2005 14:52:06 GMT, George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com
wrote:
On 11/7/05 8:10 AM, in article svnum113r4j00d9jjom0qahm6mfmma3tsg@4ax.com,
"Donald Gray" <donald@SAFETYPINodcombe.demon.co.uk> wrote:
No , but could you do this with a digital camera?
www.websilk.co.uk/eye
Based on the info given, I think one could with the EOS-1Ds Mark II.
Why couldn't one do that? Photoshop is Photoshop whether the original was
analoge or digital.
What does Photoshop have to do with it?
Think 'layers.'
How the hell could you do it in layers and maintain detail! |
Cow poo! Not layers!
A digi pic of a 3/4 length man would not show the detail in the eyes -
No how!
More cowpoo! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Donald Gray
Guest
|
| Posted:
Tue Nov 08, 2005 4:48 am Post subject:
Re: Leaf in Flight |
|
|
On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 09:29:44 -0800, John McWilliams
<jpmcw@comcast.net> wrote:
| Quote: | Donald Gray wrote:
On Sun, 06 Nov 2005 23:55:42 GMT, Ron Hardin <rhhardin@mindspring.com
wrote:
http://home.att.net/~rhhardin2/fall04.jpg
being the sharpest.
Who could afford to do that with film?
No , but could you do this with a digital camera?
www.websilk.co.uk/eye
IAE, I get a blank page encoded thusly:
html
head
title>justsowindow.htm</title
meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1"
META name="ROBOTS" content="NOINDEX, NOFOLLOW"
!-- by E. Michael Brandt of ValleyWebDesigns.com --
!-- This dummy file is required by the behavior JustSoPictureWindow and
the command JustSoPhotoAlbum.--
!-- It is needed to support AOL browsers, which do not permit
javascript window.open calls to create new files. --
/head
body
/body
/html
(Clicking on an image thumbnail.)
Huh? I just clicked on the link in your 'repeat' & it went to the |
right page... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
George Kerby
Guest
|
| Posted:
Tue Nov 08, 2005 5:40 am Post subject:
Re: Leaf in Flight |
|
|
On 11/7/05 2:10 PM, in article k4dvm1dlmq8atuomoluo30883usk1jlb4c@4ax.com,
"Bill Funk" <BigBill@pipping.com.com> wrote:
| Quote: | On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 16:28:01 +0100, Stephen Poley
sbpoleySpicedHamTrap@xs4all.nl> wrote:
On 7 Nov 2005 14:52:06 GMT, George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com
wrote:
On 11/7/05 8:10 AM, in article svnum113r4j00d9jjom0qahm6mfmma3tsg@4ax.com,
"Donald Gray" <donald@SAFETYPINodcombe.demon.co.uk> wrote:
No , but could you do this with a digital camera?
www.websilk.co.uk/eye
Based on the info given, I think one could with the EOS-1Ds Mark II.
Why couldn't one do that? Photoshop is Photoshop whether the original was
analoge or digital.
What does Photoshop have to do with it?
Think 'layers.'
Thank you. |
_______________________________________________________________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><> |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
George Kerby
Guest
|
| Posted:
Tue Nov 08, 2005 5:40 am Post subject:
Re: Leaf in Flight |
|
|
On 11/7/05 4:42 PM, in article avlvm19aivl5jt3gheqt840eh8qh4omf6d@4ax.com,
"Donald Gray" <donald@SAFETYPINodcombe.demon.co.uk> wrote:
| Quote: | On 7 Nov 2005 14:52:06 GMT, George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com
wrote:
On 11/7/05 8:10 AM, in article svnum113r4j00d9jjom0qahm6mfmma3tsg@4ax.com,
"Donald Gray" <donald@SAFETYPINodcombe.demon.co.uk> wrote:
On Sun, 06 Nov 2005 23:55:42 GMT, Ron Hardin <rhhardin@mindspring.com
wrote:
http://home.att.net/~rhhardin2/fall04.jpg
being the sharpest.
Who could afford to do that with film?
No , but could you do this with a digital camera?
www.websilk.co.uk/eye
Why couldn't one do that? Photoshop is Photoshop whether the original was
analoge or digital.
Huh?
That was not a photoshop dodge/fudge - It was an actual scan from a
film print - The eyes were scanned at higher resolution - NO photoshop
funny biz!
If you say so. However, my experience with similar reflective glasses |
generally do not have that wide of an angle between the two lenses. It's
like they are pointed differently - not on the same shot.
Anyway, like a previous poster pointed (no pun intended), a Canon with 16.7
full frame sensor would NOT have a problem with such resolution, so you
challenge is invalid.
_______________________________________________________________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><> |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
George Kerby
Guest
|
| Posted:
Tue Nov 08, 2005 5:40 am Post subject:
Re: Leaf in Flight |
|
|
On 11/7/05 4:45 PM, in article 54mvm1h2s4a8sk2talkl8hro0hobhkiea5@4ax.com,
"Donald Gray" <donald@SAFETYPINodcombe.demon.co.uk> wrote:
| Quote: | On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 13:10:08 -0700, Bill Funk
BigBill@pipping.com.com> wrote:
On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 16:28:01 +0100, Stephen Poley
sbpoleySpicedHamTrap@xs4all.nl> wrote:
On 7 Nov 2005 14:52:06 GMT, George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com
wrote:
On 11/7/05 8:10 AM, in article svnum113r4j00d9jjom0qahm6mfmma3tsg@4ax.com,
"Donald Gray" <donald@SAFETYPINodcombe.demon.co.uk> wrote:
No , but could you do this with a digital camera?
www.websilk.co.uk/eye
Based on the info given, I think one could with the EOS-1Ds Mark II.
Why couldn't one do that? Photoshop is Photoshop whether the original was
analoge or digital.
What does Photoshop have to do with it?
Think 'layers.'
How the hell could you do it in layers and maintain detail!
Cow poo! Not layers!
A digi pic of a 3/4 length man would not show the detail in the eyes -
No how!
Huh?!? |
_______________________________________________________________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><> |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Roger N. Clark (change us
Guest
|
| Posted:
Wed Nov 09, 2005 5:40 am Post subject:
Re: Leaf in Flight |
|
|
Ron Hardin wrote:
| Quote: | Lorem Ipsum wrote:
"Ron Hardin" <rhhardin@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:4370CBF6.D22@mindspring.com..
Lorem Ipsum wrote:
Experienced photographer do not simply rely upon "odds"; they have
learned
how to make a picture, how to focus, how to pan, how to anticipate.
That's
the difference experience makes. And if the objective were to make a
sharp
picture, they would make one, and in far less time than shooting the
"odds."
Interesting! Focus on what? Pan on what?
After using a camera with manual focus for a long time, the photographer
aquires a tightly-coupled coordination between the object being focused upon
and the lens in his hand, and timing of the shutter to anticipate. I cannot
tell you how that relates to purely auto-focus cameras/lenses. One doesn't
have to shoot with one eye open, either: the view, the focus, the object are
coordinated in a mental-physical space. If it sounds silly at first, then
consider how athletes and dancers coordinate - some of it becomes 'body
knowledge'. If you had to write out how you did it, it would be almost
impossible because the knowledge is not available to the language center.
I think you're overestimating the time available to catch a leaf. Try it and see.
A leaf falling is slower than many birds in flight or take-off |
and landing. A leaf is more predictable too.
Try full frame imaging of birds in flight. Here are some examples:
http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries/gallery.bird/index.html
Roger |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in