Breaking All The Laws Of Physics With The 500/4 Nikkor!!
in [Digital Cameras]
|
From: Noons on 2 Jul 2010 20:29 John Navas wrote,on my timestamp of 3/07/2010 12:32 AM: > If severely tilted horizons are your thing, then good on ya. > My own taste runs to horizontal horizons; e.g., > <http://i50.tinypic.com/15quiw8.jpg> > Actually, I never said they were. But if that's your conclusion, you can keep it. It depends on the shot. If you want to do a journalistic coverage, then it might be important. If you just want a snap for the memories, who cares? Not every shot has to be a competition winner or an historic one. Trying to do so will only get you missed stuff...
From: John Navas on 2 Jul 2010 20:49 On Sat, 03 Jul 2010 10:29:17 +1000, in <i0m03i$ffh$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, Noons <wizofoz2k(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote: >John Navas wrote,on my timestamp of 3/07/2010 12:32 AM: > >> If severely tilted horizons are your thing, then good on ya. >> My own taste runs to horizontal horizons; e.g., >> <http://i50.tinypic.com/15quiw8.jpg> > >Actually, I never said they were. But if that's your conclusion, you can keep it. >It depends on the shot. If you want to do a journalistic coverage, then it might >be important. If you just want a snap for the memories, who cares? >Not every shot has to be a competition winner or an historic one. >Trying to do so will only get you missed stuff... Always striving for excellence will give you more and better shots of anything and everything. -- Best regards, John <http:/navasgroup.com> "At every crossway on the road that leads to the future, each progressive spirit is opposed by a thousand men appointed to guard the past." -Maeterlinck
From: John McWilliams on 2 Jul 2010 21:17 John Navas wrote: > On Fri, 02 Jul 2010 15:08:47 -0700, in > <i0lo1h$u8o$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, John McWilliams > <jpmcw(a)comcast.net> wrote: > >> John Navas wrote: >> >>> If severely tilted horizons are your thing, then good on ya. >>> My own taste runs to horizontal horizons; e.g., >>> <http://i50.tinypic.com/15quiw8.jpg> >> It's very close! The left hand height of the Bay is about 1/64" higher >> than the right hand side. >> Most would not even notice this, but I've been shooting water scenes for >> 50 years. > > LOL! Not sure what amuses you, but the slant is also perceivable in the line of the jib furling rollers at the bow line. Almost imperceptible. -- john mcwilliams
From: Savageduck on 2 Jul 2010 22:05 On 2010-07-02 18:17:31 -0700, John McWilliams <jpmcw(a)comcast.net> said: > John Navas wrote: >> On Fri, 02 Jul 2010 15:08:47 -0700, in >> <i0lo1h$u8o$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, John McWilliams >> <jpmcw(a)comcast.net> wrote: >> >>> John Navas wrote: >>> >>>> If severely tilted horizons are your thing, then good on ya. >>>> My own taste runs to horizontal horizons; e.g., >>>> <http://i50.tinypic.com/15quiw8.jpg> >>> It's very close! The left hand height of the Bay is about 1/64" higher >>> than the right hand side. >>> Most would not even notice this, but I've been shooting water scenes >>> for 50 years. >> >> LOL! > > Not sure what amuses you, but the slant is also perceivable in the line > of the jib furling rollers at the bow line. > Almost imperceptible. I hate to say this, but the shot is just fine, in what had to be difficult conditions for photography with any camera. Nitpicking over horizon in a shot, which given the subject is ridiculous. As far as determining "slant" from the "jib furling rollers", I would like to know how you make that measurement, given each of the yachts is heeled over at slightly different angles. The best bet for a horizon is the waterline paint on what looks to be a committee boat, and even that would be questionable as it is not perpendicular to the camera. The horizon is close enough given the subject. It is not some horizon critical landscape or interior. So give credit where credit is due, it is a good shot. -- Regards, Savageduck
From: John McWilliams on 2 Jul 2010 23:57
Savageduck wrote: > On 2010-07-02 18:17:31 -0700, John McWilliams <jpmcw(a)comcast.net> said: > >> John Navas wrote: >>> On Fri, 02 Jul 2010 15:08:47 -0700, in >>> <i0lo1h$u8o$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, John McWilliams >>> <jpmcw(a)comcast.net> wrote: >>> >>>> John Navas wrote: >>>> >>>>> If severely tilted horizons are your thing, then good on ya. >>>>> My own taste runs to horizontal horizons; e.g., >>>>> <http://i50.tinypic.com/15quiw8.jpg> >>>> It's very close! The left hand height of the Bay is about 1/64" >>>> higher than the right hand side. >>>> Most would not even notice this, but I've been shooting water scenes >>>> for 50 years. >>> >>> LOL! >> >> Not sure what amuses you, but the slant is also perceivable in the >> line of the jib furling rollers at the bow line. >> Almost imperceptible. > > I hate to say this, but the shot is just fine, in what had to be > difficult conditions for photography with any camera. > Nitpicking over horizon in a shot, which given the subject is ridiculous. > As far as determining "slant" from the "jib furling rollers", I would > like to know how you make that measurement, given each of the yachts is > heeled over at slightly different angles. The best bet for a horizon is > the waterline paint on what looks to be a committee boat, and even that > would be questionable as it is not perpendicular to the camera. > The horizon is close enough given the subject. It is not some horizon > critical landscape or interior. > > So give credit where credit is due, it is a good shot. I did. And I was the first to say so. I wouldn't have commented but for John's original comment about straight horizons. In this case, nitpicking would be in the eye of the commentator. The racing boats are all on the same tack, all at the same angle to the wind, all professionally sailed. Any difference due to crew weights, sail trim, wind pressure (other than trim; they're all trimmed within millimeters of one another), distribution of weight: All of these factors wouldn't have accounted for more than an inch at the bow (or anywhere else along the length), and the heel of all four vessels would be withing a meter or so vertically, causing at most a few millimeters rise or fall of the bow. I didn't say it wasn't close enough; merely that is wasn't perfectly level. You could measure it yourself. -- john mcwilliams |