Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > too much light

Reply
Thread Tools

too much light

 
 
zipper40hDIESPAMMERS@netscape.net
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-19-2007
On Wed, 18 Jul 2007 07:40:45 GMT, Gladiator <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>On Wed, 18 Jul 2007 00:25:51 -0700, Desert Dweller
><(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>Say it's a bright sunny day and you see a stream. You want to take a
>>creative exposure of the stream such that is shows motion.

>
>What's creative about that? Every tom, dick and harry has emulated
>that shot. To be creative you have to be original.


It may not be creative to you, but perhaps such a shot would be a
significant accomplishment for someone who is new to digital
photography. It's condescending responses like yours that discourage
less-experienced photographers from asking questions in this group.

I'm sure we all hope to approach your level of creativity and
originality some day. Until then, why not help us with some
constructive advice, rather than scorn.

Craig

"Nothing matters but the weekend, from a Tuesday point of view."
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
zipper40hDIESPAMMERS@netscape.net
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-19-2007
On Wed, 18 Jul 2007 07:40:46 -0700, C J Campbell
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>On 2007-07-18 00:40:45 -0700, Gladiator <(E-Mail Removed)> said:
>
>> On Wed, 18 Jul 2007 00:25:51 -0700, Desert Dweller
>> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>>> Say it's a bright sunny day and you see a stream. You want to take a
>>> creative exposure of the stream such that is shows motion.

>>
>> What's creative about that? Every tom, dick and harry has emulated
>> that shot. To be creative you have to be original.

>
>You are right. The shot is not creative at all and has become trite.
>You almost want to slap someone who takes yet another flowing stream,
>or a bee on a flower, or a mountain reflected in a lake at sunset, etc.
>Trite as they are, however, you can learn a great deal by attempting to
>'reverse engineer' a picture. The OP will not become creative until he
>learns the techniques he wants to know. Let him practice on the stream,
>taking the same tired old picture that everybody else does. Then, when
>he has polished his skills, he will seek for a vision of his own. Maybe.



Another condescending response to a simple request for advice.

Sad.

Craig
"Nothing matters but the weekend, from a Tuesday point of view."
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Gladiator
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-19-2007
On Wed, 18 Jul 2007 16:29:40 -0400, ASAAR <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:


>
> How embarrassing. I hope there weren't any other photographers or
>bystanders nearby to witness your moment of weakness.


No, I made sure I was alone when taking photos of the tangled tree
roots in B&W. I made sure I was alone when taking pics of the naked
girls too.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Gladiator
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-19-2007
On Wed, 18 Jul 2007 20:43:13 -0500, http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed)
wrote:


>It may not be creative to you, but perhaps such a shot would be a
>significant accomplishment for someone who is new to digital
>photography. It's condescending responses like yours that discourage
>less-experienced photographers from asking questions in this group.
>
>I'm sure we all hope to approach your level of creativity and
>originality some day. Until then, why not help us with some
>constructive advice, rather than scorn.
>
>Craig
>
>"Nothing matters but the weekend, from a Tuesday point of view."


It wasn't scorn. It's called tongue-in-cheek. Next!
 
Reply With Quote
 
Al, Cambridge, UK
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-19-2007
On Jul 18, 8:25 am, Desert Dweller <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> Say it's a bright sunny day and you see a stream. You want to take a
> creative exposure of the stream such that is shows motion. You clamp
> down the aperture as much as possible and set the shutter speed to 4
> seconds.
>
> Your light meter shows you are way overexposed. You set the ISO as slow
> as possible, to say ISO50. Still your light meter shows you are overexposed.
>
> What do you do in this situation to get the correct exposure? Is this
> where the ND filters I've been reading about come into play? Or do you
> need some sort of solar eclipse filter to get the shot?
>
> --
> DD


If you don't have neutral density filters, or you haven't taken them
with you on your walk, try using your sunglasses. Green/grey RayBans
gave me exposures of several seconds, and the camera (Fuji E900)
managed to colour-balance pretty well.
What really helps is a little tripod - I take an "UltraPod" and a
polarizing filter, leaving the rest of the rucsack for waterproof
clothes and sandwiches.

 
Reply With Quote
 
zipper40hDIESPAMMERS@netscape.net
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-19-2007
On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 02:35:52 GMT, Gladiator <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>On Wed, 18 Jul 2007 20:43:13 -0500, (E-Mail Removed)
>wrote:
>
>
>>It may not be creative to you, but perhaps such a shot would be a
>>significant accomplishment for someone who is new to digital
>>photography. It's condescending responses like yours that discourage
>>less-experienced photographers from asking questions in this group.
>>
>>I'm sure we all hope to approach your level of creativity and
>>originality some day. Until then, why not help us with some
>>constructive advice, rather than scorn.
>>
>>Craig
>>
>>"Nothing matters but the weekend, from a Tuesday point of view."

>
>It wasn't scorn. It's called tongue-in-cheek. Next!


And the back-pedalling begins.

Over to you.

"Nothing matters but the weekend, from a Tuesday point of view."
 
Reply With Quote
 
SMS
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-19-2007
John Sheehy wrote:
> ASAAR <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in news:nsts93dn2ekl0u7u7tgbjqslr3hrqibgu6@
> 4ax.com:
>
>> How embarrassing. I hope there weren't any other photographers or
>> bystanders nearby to witness your moment of weakness.

>
> That can't be as embarrasing as putting a little 3-ounce P&S camera on a 7-
> section 6 foot tripod with hollow aluminum legs, and having the camera
> bounce around and the legs vibrate when you press the release button on the
> camera.


When I use a P&S on a tripod I use the self-timer to avoid this problem.

> Not that I've done that, but I've seen it far too often. These random
> strangers never seem to learn that you can hold a camera steadier than a
> joke tripod can, for short exposures.


It's often the case that the reason for the tripod is so the shooter can
be in the photo themselves.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Fed-Up-With-Corel
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-19-2007
On Wed, 18 Jul 2007 00:25:51 -0700, Desert Dweller <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>Say it's a bright sunny day and you see a stream. You want to take a
>creative exposure of the stream such that is shows motion. You clamp
>down the aperture as much as possible and set the shutter speed to 4
>seconds.
>
>Your light meter shows you are way overexposed. You set the ISO as slow
>as possible, to say ISO50. Still your light meter shows you are overexposed.
>
>What do you do in this situation to get the correct exposure? Is this
>where the ND filters I've been reading about come into play? Or do you
>need some sort of solar eclipse filter to get the shot?


Your best bet is to get two inexpensive linear polarizers, or one cheap linear
one to go with the one you probably already own. Adorama sells a $12 "Adorama"
brand LP filter, but it's actually a Tiffen. It has poor polarizing quality but
you don't need the best for this. All Tiffen polarizers are poor quality, even
their $80 circular polarizers are no better than this $12 one.

When polarizers are stacked and crossed at 90-degrees to each other they will
darken to almost black, becoming a variable ND filter. The higher the quality of
polarizers the nearer to black they will become. If stacking a linear with
circular polarizer then make sure the linear polarizer is the one on top / out
front. There is sometimes a blue or purplish tint when polarizers are fully
crossed to one another but the camera's auto-white-balance can usually
compensate for that easily. Rarely do you need to cross them that close to
90-degrees to filter out that much light where the color-shift will become an
issue. When using 2 crossed polarizers you can dial-in the exact amount of light
that you want for the exact shutter speed that you want. No need to stack 2 or
more ND filters to only get close to light level you want. You have to remember
that you are working with polarizers which are usually used to filter out
unwanted reflections on surfaces or darken areas of the sky. If there are some
reflections that you wanted to keep in the image after you have "dialed-in" your
desired light level be sure to rotate the stack of 2 as one whole unit to bring
the reflections back.

A true solar filter will be much too dark to use for this purpose, but with an
ultra-zoom camera it's always nice to keep one handy for those rare times you'll
hear of some unusual sunspot activity and you want to record it. You can make a
perfectly adequate solar-filter from a double or triple layer of aluminized
mylar from a "space-blanket" / "emergency blanket" that they sell in most any
discount or dollar-store and using an old UV or Daylight filter. Just inspect
the aluminized mylar against full sunlight and use those areas where the
aluminizing is the darkest, most homogenous (evenly applied), and with no
pin-holes of light coming through. Then cut 2 to 3 squares of the mylar material
larger than your filter. Remove the retaining-ring and glass, place the mylar
layers over the filter-holder ring, put the glass down on that to sandwich the
mylar between filter-holder and glass, then trim the mylar to the glass edge.
Replace the retaining ring. Start with 3 layers. If your resulting shutter
speeds are too slow then use 2 layers. 1 layer is not usually not good enough
and could be dangerous to your camera (or eyesight when used for direct
viewing). Don't listen to the hype from those telling you that using a
space-blanket / emergency-blanket for this isn't safe. It's perfectly safe when
you use 2 or more layers. The rumors to the contrary were started by people who
were trying to sell highly-over-priced telescope filters made from the exact
same (but better quality) material. They inspected the space-blanket material
for you is all, then charged you an arm and a leg for what you could do on your
own.

I happen to use a solar-filter that I made from relatively inexpensive
telescope-quality "Baader" filter material. (Find it on the net.) The aluminized
mylar filters cause more light-scatter, resulting in lower-contrast images. I
also made solar-filters for my binoculars from what I had left over. It's a
choice between going through the hassle of ordering some of this Baader
material, or picking up a $1 emergency-blanket in the camping section of any
variety or discount store. Remembering that the mylar method won't provide as
crisp an image, but good enough. Aluminized mylar is, after-all, what
astronomers were using until the Baader material came along. If it was good
enough for them it's most certainly good enough for your occasional photos of
sunspots with just camera, without an 1/8th-wave-perfect optics telescope
attached.
 
Reply With Quote
 
John Sheehy
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-19-2007
ASAAR <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
news:(E-Mail Removed):

> It's hard to imagine how bad that would be, if you can actually
> notice tripod sway from a slight distance.


Well, it's the oscillation I've seen, more than anything else. Some of the
tripods they sell are pretty sad.

You can see, too, when someone doesn't know how to supply minimal force
when pressing he button, with no counterforce from opposing fingers.



--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <(E-Mail Removed)>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><

 
Reply With Quote
 
Gladiator
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-19-2007
On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 08:12:13 -0500, (E-Mail Removed)
wrote:


>And the back-pedalling begins.
>
>Over to you.


If it was scorn I would have said something along the lines of this,
"What kind of dumbass wants to take photos of a boring stream? What
are you, some kind of new age freak?".
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Too Much Talent + Too Much Demand = ? Lawrence D'Oliveiro NZ Computing 5 02-18-2011 10:14 PM
How much image manipulation is too much? Rich Digital Photography 30 03-19-2006 08:52 AM
Simulation questions...how much is too much? =?Utf-8?B?VGlwcHk=?= Microsoft Certification 0 04-16-2005 04:47 AM
CPU Heat--how much is too much? PowerPost2000 Computer Support 4 12-22-2003 12:40 AM
paranoia... much too much adcl Computer Support 14 11-08-2003 05:18 PM



Advertisments