"Ifff you go out in the sun today..." Better make sure your camera/lens is metal!
in [Digital Cameras]
|
Prev: [SI] Don't forget to send your "Pinhole" shots, due tomorrow!
Next: "Ifff you go out in the sun today..." Better make sure your camera/lens is metal!
From: Peter on 19 Jul 2010 19:41 "Wolfgang Weisselberg" <ozcvgtt02(a)sneakemail.com> wrote in message news:iehch7-ll7.ln1(a)ID-52418.user.berlin.de... > > Can you please decide between terrorists and guerillas? > Whose side are they on -- Peter
From: charles on 19 Jul 2010 21:09 On Sat, 17 Jul 2010 14:38:22 -0700, John McWilliams <jpmcw(a)comcast.net> wrote: >charles wrote: >> On Sat, 17 Jul 2010 07:33:17 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rander3127(a)gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> Horrifying how black plastic attracts heat. If you shoot an IR image >>> (or even use a bright flash) you can see why. Black plastic either >>> painted or not absorbs IR hugely whereas the metal reflects a lot of >>> it (it appears purple in photos). >>> >>> What is the downshot of a hotter camera body? Reduced lifespan and >>> more noise in the images. >>> >>> http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/metal_versus_plastic_heat_absorption >> >> >> Some temperatures I measured with a non-contact IR thermometer. >> >> Canon kit lens ( the old bad one) 128-140 depending on which part of >> the lens was measured. >> >> vivitar metal lens from late 1970'2 117.6 >> >> Lenses were left in the So Cal sun for about an hour, warm day, about >> 86 now >> >> Dark piece of iron, 117.5 >> >> Light colored iron (galvanized?) 108.5 >> >> White automobile 112.4 >> Dark automobile 147.9 >> >> Iron and autos have been in the sun all day, presumably at >> equilibration. >> >> All temps in Fahrenheit, we don't have Celsius in California. > >Well, he just posted in another thread, which i just saw, and I am in >CA, therefor, we occasionally have C in CA..... > >Are there any conclusions you wish to draw from your tests? Nothing special, I was bored.
From: Wolfgang Weisselberg on 20 Jul 2010 03:02 Peter <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote: > The very definition of black is the absence of radiation. ITYM reflection. Just because usual black stuff radiates warmth on earth and you cannot see it, that doesn't mean no radiation. -Wolfgang
From: Wolfgang Weisselberg on 20 Jul 2010 15:26 Peter <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote: > "Wolfgang Weisselberg" <ozcvgtt02(a)sneakemail.com> wrote in message >> Peter <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote: >>> The very definition of black is the absence of radiation. >> ITYM reflection. >> Just because usual black stuff radiates warmth on earth and >> you cannot see it, that doesn't mean no radiation. > I am usually reasonably precise in my language. If there was any ambiguity I > cleared it up. You cleared up that you have no idea what black does or is. > Reread you own statement. My statement is correct. > Believe what you will, I have said > all I care to.. So you intent to stop digging your own hole? -Wolfgang
From: Wolfgang Weisselberg on 23 Jul 2010 21:15
Peter <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote: > "Wolfgang Weisselberg" <ozcvgtt02(a)sneakemail.com> wrote in message >> Peter <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote: >>> "Wolfgang Weisselberg" <ozcvgtt02(a)sneakemail.com> wrote in message >>>> Peter <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote: >>>>> The very definition of black is the absence of radiation. [...] >>> Believe what you will, I have said >>> all I care to.. >> So you intent to stop digging your own hole? > Whatever you say! > My comment was made in the context of photography. As we should have learned > from recent events, context is important to understanding. And here I thought you stopped digging. In what context of photography does black not radiate? -Wolfgang |