Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Re: [PICS] frustration of hummingbirds

Reply
Thread Tools

Re: [PICS] frustration of hummingbirds

 
 
Annika1980
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-29-2008
On Aug 29, 11:12*am, Noons <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
> I wish he'd make up his mind: is it a "complete blur"
> or is it 1/2 inch distance blur or is it a full stroke
> blur like in your shots? *One wonders...


No confusion there, except by you. The wings are moving up to 1/2
inch duing the exposure. That creates a blur. What is so difficult
to understand?



> Yeah, I get the idea your shots have fake wings:
> they show a full stroke of blur with a flash burst
> on the body.


Not a full stroke. Probably only 1/2 or so.

>
> Get this very simply, dickhead:
> you CANNOT have a flash-frozen body of a bird
> and at the same time blurred wings, like you do
> in your fakes!


Of course you can, idiot. The body of the bird is moving slowly
compared to the wings. Have you never seen a photo of a flying plane
or copter with the blurred props?


> Got it, you blithering moron? *What you just
> provided in this stupidly moronic post of yours
> is complete proof of what *I* said since the start.


Oh really? Seems like you are the only one here who doesn't get it.


> So, HOW COME YOUR SHOTS WITH SUCH A FLASH SHOW
> A COMPLETE, FULL STROKE BLURRED WING BEAT AND
> A "FLASH-FROZEN" BODY AT THE SAME TIME?


It's a type of magic.

Moron!


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Noons
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-29-2008
Annika1980 wrote,on my timestamp of 30/08/2008 1:23 AM:

> No confusion there, except by you. The wings are moving up to 1/2
> inch duing the exposure. That creates a blur. What is so difficult
> to understand?


A full stroke blur like in your FAKE shots?
Yeah that is indeed difficult to understand.
But only if one wants to keep the illusion of
credibility: which you exhausted ages ago...

>> Yeah, I get the idea your shots have fake wings:
>> they show a full stroke of blur with a flash burst
>> on the body.

>
> Not a full stroke. Probably only 1/2 or so.


A very clear full stroke, dickhead.


> Oh really? Seems like you are the only one here who doesn't get it.


what, that your shots are complete FAKES?


>> So, HOW COME YOUR SHOTS WITH SUCH A FLASH SHOW
>> A COMPLETE, FULL STROKE BLURRED WING BEAT AND
>> A "FLASH-FROZEN" BODY AT THE SAME TIME?

>
> It's a type of magic.


It's called a FAKE, moron.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Scott W
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-29-2008
On Aug 29, 4:51*am, Noons <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> Scott W wrote,on my timestamp of 30/08/2008 12:29 AM:
>
> > You believe a spinning propeller is going much faster then 3600 RPM?

>
> No. And that is much faster than the wings of
> ANY bird, including stuffed ones.
> Exactly what was your point?


You said

"Hummingbirds beat their wings much, much slower than
a spinning propeller"

Well at 60 Hz, this would be 3600 RPM.

Scott
 
Reply With Quote
 
Alan LeHun
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-29-2008
In article <g992dl$m0m$(E-Mail Removed)>,
http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed) says...
> > You believe a spinning propeller is going much faster then 3600 RPM?

>
> No. And that is much faster than the wings of
> ANY bird, including stuffed ones.
> Exactly what was your point?
>


I think he was querying your assertion that "Hummingbirds beat their
wings much, much slower than a spinning propeller, at around 60Hz"

Generally, it's the other way around. Propellers are usually around 30Hz
max, although there are, of course, exceptions.


--
Alan LeHun
 
Reply With Quote
 
Noons
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-29-2008
Scott W wrote,on my timestamp of 30/08/2008 2:13 AM:
> On Aug 29, 4:51 am, Noons <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> Scott W wrote,on my timestamp of 30/08/2008 12:29 AM:
>>
>>> You believe a spinning propeller is going much faster then 3600 RPM?

>> No. And that is much faster than the wings of
>> ANY bird, including stuffed ones.
>> Exactly what was your point?

>
> You said
>
> "Hummingbirds beat their wings much, much slower than
> a spinning propeller"
>
> Well at 60 Hz, this would be 3600 RPM.


Sheesh, took you a loooong time for that one...

Except propellers have usually 3, and
quite often 4 blades. Birds have one wing
blade to beat with. That would be 180Hz or
even 240 against 60. Rather different, not?
Once again: your point?
 
Reply With Quote
 
Noons
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-29-2008
Alan LeHun wrote,on my timestamp of 30/08/2008 2:16 AM:
> In article <g992dl$m0m$(E-Mail Removed)>,
> (E-Mail Removed) says...
>>> You believe a spinning propeller is going much faster then 3600 RPM?

>> No. And that is much faster than the wings of
>> ANY bird, including stuffed ones.
>> Exactly what was your point?
>>

>
> I think he was querying your assertion that "Hummingbirds beat their
> wings much, much slower than a spinning propeller, at around 60Hz"
>
> Generally, it's the other way around. Propellers are usually around 30Hz
> max, although there are, of course, exceptions.


Of course. Now: read my reply to him instead
of interjecting with nonsense.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Scott W
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-29-2008
On Aug 29, 6:18*am, Noons <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> Scott W wrote,on my timestamp of 30/08/2008 2:13 AM:
>
> > On Aug 29, 4:51 am, Noons <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >> Scott W wrote,on my timestamp of 30/08/2008 12:29 AM:

>
> >>> You believe a spinning propeller is going much faster then 3600 RPM?
> >> No. And that is much faster than the wings of
> >> ANY bird, including stuffed ones.
> >> Exactly what was your point?

>
> > You said

>
> > "Hummingbirds beat their wings much, much slower than
> > a spinning propeller"

>
> > Well at 60 Hz, this would be 3600 RPM.

>
> Sheesh, took you a loooong time for that one...
>
> Except propellers have usually 3, and
> quite often 4 blades. *Birds have one wing
> blade to beat with. *That would be 180Hz or
> even 240 against 60. *Rather different, not?
> Once again: your point?


You might want to read this.
http://www.rpphoto.com/howto/hummer/humguide1.asp

Scott
 
Reply With Quote
 
Noons
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-29-2008
Scott W wrote,on my timestamp of 30/08/2008 2:37 AM:
> On Aug 29, 6:18 am, Noons <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> Scott W wrote,on my timestamp of 30/08/2008 2:13 AM:
>>
>>> On Aug 29, 4:51 am, Noons <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>> Scott W wrote,on my timestamp of 30/08/2008 12:29 AM:
>>>>> You believe a spinning propeller is going much faster then 3600 RPM?
>>>> No. And that is much faster than the wings of
>>>> ANY bird, including stuffed ones.
>>>> Exactly what was your point?
>>> You said
>>> "Hummingbirds beat their wings much, much slower than
>>> a spinning propeller"
>>> Well at 60 Hz, this would be 3600 RPM.

>> Sheesh, took you a loooong time for that one...
>>
>> Except propellers have usually 3, and
>> quite often 4 blades. Birds have one wing
>> blade to beat with. That would be 180Hz or
>> even 240 against 60. Rather different, not?
>> Once again: your point?

>
> You might want to read this.
> http://www.rpphoto.com/howto/hummer/humguide1.asp


Can you stop idiotic quotes of out of
context sites?

But let's indulge the stupidity anyway.
From *your* quoted site, this:

"The result is about 1/6,000 s at 1/16 power,
and 1/10,000 s at 1/32 power.
That's plenty of stopping ability"

Did you get that?

"PLENTY" of stopping ability.

Once more, to see if it gets
through your brain:

"That's plenty of stopping ability"

OK. Got it? So, now:
how come Bret's shots have a bird with
a flash-ed body and blurred wings?
With exif info saying the flash fired?

What, *another* "pbase exif bug"?

Does it even reach your brain that an
electronic flash firing at close distance
shows PRECISELY and EXACTLY the "plenty of
stopping ability" mentioned above? And
therefore it is COMPLETELY IMPOSSIBLE for
the wings to be blurred to the extent he
fabricates in his images?


So, once again: exactly what is your
point? *IF* you have one, other than
out of context insinuations?
 
Reply With Quote
 
Annika1980
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-29-2008
On Aug 29, 12:59*pm, Noons <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
> "The result is about 1/6,000 s at 1/16 power,
> and 1/10,000 s at 1/32 power.
> That's plenty of stopping ability"
>
> Did you get that?
>
> "PLENTY" of stopping ability.
>
> Once more, to see if it gets
> through your brain:
>
> "That's plenty of stopping ability"
>
> OK. Got it? *So, now:
> how come Bret's shots have a bird with
> a flash-ed body and blurred wings?
> With exif info saying the flash fired?


Because I didn't use High-speed sync at 1/32 or 1/64 power.
Dumbass.

I could use that setting on my Speedlights, but I'd need to have the
flash very close to the bird because of the greatly reduced light
output.

 
Reply With Quote
 
Scott W
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-29-2008
On Aug 29, 6:59*am, Noons <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> Scott W wrote,on my timestamp of 30/08/2008 2:37 AM:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Aug 29, 6:18 am, Noons <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >> Scott W wrote,on my timestamp of 30/08/2008 2:13 AM:

>
> >>> On Aug 29, 4:51 am, Noons <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >>>> Scott W wrote,on my timestamp of 30/08/2008 12:29 AM:
> >>>>> You believe a spinning propeller is going much faster then 3600 RPM?
> >>>> No. And that is much faster than the wings of
> >>>> ANY bird, including stuffed ones.
> >>>> Exactly what was your point?
> >>> You said
> >>> "Hummingbirds beat their wings much, much slower than
> >>> a spinning propeller"
> >>> Well at 60 Hz, this would be 3600 RPM.
> >> Sheesh, took you a loooong time for that one...

>
> >> Except propellers have usually 3, and
> >> quite often 4 blades. *Birds have one wing
> >> blade to beat with. *That would be 180Hz or
> >> even 240 against 60. *Rather different, not?
> >> Once again: your point?

>
> > You might want to read this.
> >http://www.rpphoto.com/howto/hummer/humguide1.asp

>
> Can you stop idiotic quotes of out of
> context sites?
>


What qoutes? I simply posted link to a site that goes into some
detail on what you need to do to get the flash fast enough to freeze a
hummingbird's wings.

He stated that you need a duration as short as 1/5,00 to 1/20,000 sec.

Scott

 
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
out of focus Hummingbirds dohc46 Digital Photography 8 05-17-2007 04:20 PM
OT:Friday Frustration CBIC MCSE 8 10-14-2005 07:37 PM
D70 loves baby hummingbirds (ISO 800 daylight) paul Digital Photography 0 03-07-2005 04:47 AM
Filter Frustration Mark Adams Firefox 7 03-01-2005 05:06 AM
Frustration getting MELL support Sandy Wood Microsoft Certification 0 07-14-2004 10:25 PM



Advertisments