Nicely Posed in the Snowstorm
in [Digital Cameras]
|
From: Robert Coe on 11 Feb 2010 21:33 On Mon, 08 Feb 2010 17:00:08 -0600, Observant One <oo(a)hmmm.org> wrote: : On Mon, 08 Feb 2010 17:14:53 -0500, M-M <nospam.m-m(a)ny.more> wrote: : : >In article <C795DA00.3E36E%ghost_topper(a)hotmail.com>, : > George Kerby <ghost_topper(a)hotmail.com> wrote: : > : >> >>> http://www.mhmyers.com/d80/DSC_21427w.jpg : > : >> : >> Being a native Houstonian, I never realized the soft reflectivity factor of : >> snow, since it is so rare here. I assume that is what is providing the light : >> on the birds' bellies. Very interesting. : > : >That, but a little Photoshop helped also :) : > : >Interesting also that when you take a photo of snow on a sunny day, it : >comes out blue- reflecting the sky. : : Composition is pretty bad overall, but with some strong cropping you could : still get a decent composition out of it because the birds posed themselves : fairly nicely. : : But why is it so blurry? Shot through a few panes of glass or something? : : Looks more like the DOF is so shallow that only the mid-point of the twig : the male cardinal is sitting on is the part in focus. Aren't those giant : sensors and huge apertures wonderful? : : Just checked the EXIF. Sheesh, f/5.6 and you still couldn't get both birds : in focus. Yeah, I'll pass on those kinds of cameras, thanks anyway. When : I'm shooting wildlife I have to make sure I have a useful image when I get : back home. <Guffaw!!> If simpleton trolls like you didn't exist, we might have to invent one now and then, just to remember what a hearty belly laugh feels like in these trying times. Bob
From: Robert Coe on 11 Feb 2010 21:40 On Mon, 08 Feb 2010 19:57:23 -0600, Observant One <oo(a)hmmm.org> wrote: : On Mon, 08 Feb 2010 20:40:40 -0500, M-M <nospam.m-m(a)ny.more> wrote: : : >In article <ha51n591hb9r2hh5pil1vtkih3fvu3k5vr(a)4ax.com>, : > Observant One <oo(a)hmmm.org> wrote: : > : >> Shot through a few panes of glass or something? : > : > : >That and the heat coming out of the house. : : Why was there heat coming out of the house? Shooting through an open : window? If so, then you can't blame the glass. If it was closed then you : can't blame the heat. Which is it? ... He wasn't "blaming" anything, you stupid twerp. His is a better picture than any you ever took, and you damn well know that we all know it. ;^) Bob
From: Cal Rollins on 11 Feb 2010 22:33 On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 21:28:43 -0500, Robert Coe <bob(a)1776.COM> wrote: >On Mon, 08 Feb 2010 17:14:53 -0500, M-M <nospam.m-m(a)ny.more> wrote: >: In article <C795DA00.3E36E%ghost_topper(a)hotmail.com>, >: George Kerby <ghost_topper(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >: >: > >>> http://www.mhmyers.com/d80/DSC_21427w.jpg >: >: > >: > Being a native Houstonian, I never realized the soft reflectivity factor of >: > snow, since it is so rare here. I assume that is what is providing the light >: > on the birds' bellies. Very interesting. >: >: That, but a little Photoshop helped also :) >: >: Interesting also that when you take a photo of snow on a sunny day, it >: comes out blue- reflecting the sky. > >Snow scenes tend to be so monochromatic that one can often set the white >balance to almost any value and still get an interesting result. (Not the case >with your cardinals, of course.) > >Bob Adequately proving that you've never used any camera in your lifetime. In sunlight the sunlit patches of snow will be tinted to 6500 Kelvin, those in shade tinted by the blue sky, nearer to 9300K. If they are not balanced properly it will not look correct. The same two shades of white are also used by every painter who has ever painted a snow-covered house, field, or mountain. During sunrise and sunset then you also have to include hues of red, purple, and even greens. No different than clouds in a sunset due to the subtle shades occurring in the alpenglow and alpen-scheine bands in the sky, clouds present or not. Go back to whatever other discussion groups where you can still pretend that you are fooling people with your "expertise". You'll be happier there, rather than you constantly being revealed as an ignorant troll in this one.
From: Cal Rollins on 11 Feb 2010 23:46 On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 21:33:14 -0600, Cal Rollins <anywhere(a)anyplace.net> wrote: >On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 21:28:43 -0500, Robert Coe <bob(a)1776.COM> wrote: > >>On Mon, 08 Feb 2010 17:14:53 -0500, M-M <nospam.m-m(a)ny.more> wrote: >>: In article <C795DA00.3E36E%ghost_topper(a)hotmail.com>, >>: George Kerby <ghost_topper(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>: >>: > >>> http://www.mhmyers.com/d80/DSC_21427w.jpg >>: >>: > >>: > Being a native Houstonian, I never realized the soft reflectivity factor of >>: > snow, since it is so rare here. I assume that is what is providing the light >>: > on the birds' bellies. Very interesting. >>: >>: That, but a little Photoshop helped also :) >>: >>: Interesting also that when you take a photo of snow on a sunny day, it >>: comes out blue- reflecting the sky. >> >>Snow scenes tend to be so monochromatic that one can often set the white >>balance to almost any value and still get an interesting result. (Not the case >>with your cardinals, of course.) >> >>Bob > >Adequately proving that you've never used any camera in your lifetime. In >sunlight the sunlit patches of snow will be tinted to 6500 Kelvin, those in >shade tinted by the blue sky, nearer to 9300K. If they are not balanced >properly it will not look correct. The same two shades of white are also >used by every painter who has ever painted a snow-covered house, field, or >mountain. During sunrise and sunset then you also have to include hues of >red, purple, and even greens. No different than clouds in a sunset due to >the subtle shades occurring in the alpenglow and alpen-scheine bands in the >sky, clouds present or not. Sample of snow colors in sunlight and shade, captured around 9am. http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4052/4349907023_8b99948fca_o.jpg If your photos are not representing snow in those warmer and cooler hues in sunlight and shade, then you should look up "white balance settings" in your camera manual. Because it's obviously something that you have overlooked or failed to implement correctly. These problems of all gray or all blue snows are mostly caused by rank-amateurs due to leaving the camera set on their snapshooter's auto-everything dependency. Using auto white-balance will tend to wipe out the important colors or shift them in error, just as it will do the same for sunrises and sunsets. The only times where there is an exception is in the deeply packed snows of glaciers and icebergs where the natural blue color of water will be strongly apparent when light is passing through it. Contrary to the colors of surface snows with light only reflecting off of it. To further educate the foolish trolls that will no doubt make their typical idiotic comments ... no that is not sensor noise nor hot-pixels in the example photo, that is the sunlight glinting off of snowflakes. A large percentage of them lost due to downsizing. The individual pixels of glinting snowflakes being combined into non-glinting neighbor pixels.
From: J�rgen Exner on 11 Feb 2010 23:50
Cal Rollins <anywhere(a)anyplace.net> wrote: [whatever] You are never running out of new fake names, are you? jue |