Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

How did they take this photo?

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
January 23, 2005 12:16:52 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

http://www.airliners.net/open.file?id=759763

A photo of the new A380.

I'd like to know, how did the photographer get the plane so sharp, in such a
dark environment. OK, maybe a slow shutter speed, but in that case, howcome
the people moving are not blurred??

More about : photo

Anonymous
January 23, 2005 12:16:53 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 21:16:52 -0000, "Craig" <me@here.com> wrote:

>http://www.airliners.net/open.file?id=759763
>
>A photo of the new A380.
>
>I'd like to know, how did the photographer get the plane so sharp, in such a
>dark environment. OK, maybe a slow shutter speed, but in that case, howcome
>the people moving are not blurred??

The plane is light-colored, almost white, so it reflects a lot of
light.

I think the photog just metered off of the aircraft and didn't worry
about anything else. The aircraft is so reflective, and because it
was probably all lite-up for the event, a slow shutter speed was not
necessarily needed, so because of that, the people and ceiling are
dark and in the shadows.

Why don't you send the photographer (Michael Eggenschwiler) an email
and ask him for the specifics? A point of contact is listed on the
referenced page.

-Astro

---
AstroPax Photography
http://nikon.astropax.com
---
Anonymous
January 23, 2005 12:16:53 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Craig wrote:
>
> http://www.airliners.net/open.file?id=759763
>
> A photo of the new A380.
>
> I'd like to know, how did the photographer get the plane so sharp, in such a
> dark environment. OK, maybe a slow shutter speed, but in that case, howcome
> the people moving are not blurred??

look at the sharpening on 'airbus'.
talk about a tad excessive...
Related resources
Anonymous
January 23, 2005 12:16:54 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 17:09:23 -0800, Crownfield <Crownfield@cox.net>
wrote:

>look at the sharpening on 'airbus'.
>talk about a tad excessive...

I agree. It's a nice photo, but not exactly earth-shattering, IMO.

-Astro
Anonymous
January 23, 2005 12:42:26 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Craig" <me@here.com> writes:

> http://www.airliners.net/open.file?id=759763
>
> A photo of the new A380.
>
> I'd like to know, how did the photographer get the plane so sharp, in such a
> dark environment. OK, maybe a slow shutter speed, but in that case, howcome
> the people moving are not blurred??

I would imagine a combination of multiple strobe lights in the rafters and
probably some amount of photoshop type editing. I vaguelly recall reading an
article in the National Geographic magazine when I was getting my snow tires
removed in spring, where they had an article on some plane (B2? I don't
remember), and they had a sidebar about the photographer and how he set it up,
and the answer was lots of strobes.

--
Michael Meissner
email: mrmnews@the-meissners.org
http://www.the-meissners.org
January 23, 2005 1:00:49 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Thanks for that. Fired off a question to the man.

PS: Your site has some pretty good ones!
"AstroPax" <astro@astropax.com> wrote in message
news:5ph5v0lnf8moohfnmefk8rl7mot8fclhuk@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 21:16:52 -0000, "Craig" <me@here.com> wrote:
>
> >http://www.airliners.net/open.file?id=759763
> >
> >A photo of the new A380.
> >
> >I'd like to know, how did the photographer get the plane so sharp, in
such a
> >dark environment. OK, maybe a slow shutter speed, but in that case,
howcome
> >the people moving are not blurred??
>
> The plane is light-colored, almost white, so it reflects a lot of
> light.
>
> I think the photog just metered off of the aircraft and didn't worry
> about anything else. The aircraft is so reflective, and because it
> was probably all lite-up for the event, a slow shutter speed was not
> necessarily needed, so because of that, the people and ceiling are
> dark and in the shadows.
>
> Why don't you send the photographer (Michael Eggenschwiler) an email
> and ask him for the specifics? A point of contact is listed on the
> referenced page.
>
> -Astro
>
> ---
> AstroPax Photography
> http://nikon.astropax.com
> ---
>
January 23, 2005 1:54:11 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

> Craig wrote:
> >
> > http://www.airliners.net/open.file?id=759763
> >
> > A photo of the new A380.
> >
> > I'd like to know, how did the photographer get the plane so sharp, in
such a
> > dark environment. OK, maybe a slow shutter speed, but in that case,
howcome
> > the people moving are not blurred??
>
> look at the sharpening on 'airbus'.
> talk about a tad excessive...

excessive sharpening probably happened when they reduced the image for web
page viewing. There is usually a big difference when you reduce an image
from megapixels to kilopixels, I give them a sharpening filter to make the
image pull together and don't worry about fine details like that, cause
there aren't any.
Anonymous
January 23, 2005 2:11:20 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Craig writes:

> http://www.airliners.net/open.file?id=759763
>
> A photo of the new A380.
>
> I'd like to know, how did the photographer get the plane so sharp, in such a
> dark environment. OK, maybe a slow shutter speed, but in that case, howcome
> the people moving are not blurred??

I suspect the environment was actually very well lit.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
Anonymous
January 23, 2005 2:11:21 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Mxsmanic" <mxsmanic@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:8rj5v0d4usmr3qhre2jvdpoq0nl480o4tp@4ax.com...
> Craig writes:
>
>> http://www.airliners.net/open.file?id=759763
>>
>> A photo of the new A380.
>>
>> I'd like to know, how did the photographer get the plane so sharp, in
>> such a
>> dark environment. OK, maybe a slow shutter speed, but in that case,
>> howcome
>> the people moving are not blurred??
>
> I suspect the environment was actually very well lit.


As it was lit for TV, still shooters should have had no problems getting
shots.
Anonymous
January 23, 2005 2:37:08 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

The photographer (who was/is a professional) used a view camera (4" x 5"
.... or maybe even 8" x 10" ... using sheet film), and employed "swings and
tilts" to correct the focus. The picture was also taken with a high quality
lens (such as one of the high end Schneider Symmars) and a small aperture.

Piece of cake ... using the correct equipment.





"Craig" <me@here.com> wrote in message
news:41f2c2c8$0$15396$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk...
> http://www.airliners.net/open.file?id=759763
>
> A photo of the new A380.
>
> I'd like to know, how did the photographer get the plane so sharp, in
such a
> dark environment. OK, maybe a slow shutter speed, but in that case,
howcome
> the people moving are not blurred??
>
>
January 23, 2005 2:37:09 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Do you know this for a fact or just guessing?

The lights in the rafters certainly look like a digital shot to me.

"RSD99" <rsdwla.NOSPAM@gte.net> wrote in message
news:EsBId.11785$ef6.2309@trnddc07...
> The photographer (who was/is a professional) used a view camera (4" x 5"
> ... or maybe even 8" x 10" ... using sheet film), and employed "swings and
> tilts" to correct the focus. The picture was also taken with a high
> quality
> lens (such as one of the high end Schneider Symmars) and a small aperture.
>
> Piece of cake ... using the correct equipment.
>
>
>
>
>
> "Craig" <me@here.com> wrote in message
> news:41f2c2c8$0$15396$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk...
>> http://www.airliners.net/open.file?id=759763
>>
>> A photo of the new A380.
>>
>> I'd like to know, how did the photographer get the plane so sharp, in
> such a
>> dark environment. OK, maybe a slow shutter speed, but in that case,
> howcome
>> the people moving are not blurred??
>>
>>
>
>
Anonymous
January 23, 2005 3:04:51 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Craig" <me@here.com> wrote in message
news:41f2c2c8$0$15396$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk...
> http://www.airliners.net/open.file?id=759763
>
> A photo of the new A380.
>
> I'd like to know, how did the photographer get the plane so sharp, in such
a
> dark environment. OK, maybe a slow shutter speed, but in that case,
howcome
> the people moving are not blurred??
>
That's oversharpened - look at the white halos.
Anonymous
January 23, 2005 4:00:33 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

RSD99 writes:

> The photographer (who was/is a professional) used a view camera (4" x 5"
> ... or maybe even 8" x 10" ... using sheet film), and employed "swings and
> tilts" to correct the focus. The picture was also taken with a high quality
> lens (such as one of the high end Schneider Symmars) and a small aperture.

It was taken with an inexpensive digital camera, judging by the purple
fringing around light sources.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
January 23, 2005 4:28:30 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"AstroPax" <astro@astropax.com> wrote in message
news:5ph5v0lnf8moohfnmefk8rl7mot8fclhuk@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 21:16:52 -0000, "Craig" <me@here.com> wrote:
>
> >http://www.airliners.net/open.file?id=759763
> >
> >A photo of the new A380.
> >
> >I'd like to know, how did the photographer get the plane so sharp, in
such a
> >dark environment. OK, maybe a slow shutter speed, but in that case,
howcome
> >the people moving are not blurred??
>
> The plane is light-colored, almost white, so it reflects a lot of
> light.

That by the way tends to under-expose an image. Metering off a very
reflective object tells the camera meter there is more light than actually
required. On the opposite end, a black object (high light absorption) leads
to over-exposed images since the black fooled the camera into thinking there
is less light.

But, back to the OP's question. If you look at the image, there is nothing
surprising here:

1) The plane is lit reasonably well by lighting in the building
2) The people (who you are surprised are not blurred), are horribly
under-exposed (possibly due to metering off the reflective while plane).
This is ok since the shooter wants to make note of the plane and not the
people. I would not call this "incorrect" exposure.

Also notice the CA around the spot lights (should have been fixed in PS).

Now, had the people been exposed such that they are visible AND they were
not blurry, there are explanations such as the use of a neutral density
filter (or graduated ND). A graduated ND filter could have made the peolple
visible and the plane correctly exposed.

Thanks
Musty.

>
> I think the photog just metered off of the aircraft and didn't worry
> about anything else. The aircraft is so reflective, and because it
> was probably all lite-up for the event, a slow shutter speed was not
> necessarily needed, so because of that, the people and ceiling are
> dark and in the shadows.
>
> Why don't you send the photographer (Michael Eggenschwiler) an email
> and ask him for the specifics? A point of contact is listed on the
> referenced page.
>
> -Astro
>
> ---
> AstroPax Photography
> http://nikon.astropax.com
> ---
>
Anonymous
January 23, 2005 4:30:38 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Michael Meissner wrote:
> "Craig" <me@here.com> writes:
>
>
>>http://www.airliners.net/open.file?id=759763
>>
>>A photo of the new A380.
>>
>>I'd like to know, how did the photographer get the plane so sharp, in such a
>>dark environment. OK, maybe a slow shutter speed, but in that case, howcome
>>the people moving are not blurred??
>
>
> I would imagine a combination of multiple strobe lights in the rafters and
> probably some amount of photoshop type editing. I vaguelly recall reading an
> article in the National Geographic magazine when I was getting my snow tires
> removed in spring, where they had an article on some plane (B2? I don't
> remember), and they had a sidebar about the photographer and how he set it up,
> and the answer was lots of strobes.
>
The fact that the plane is painted white certainly helps. LOTS of light
on it!


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
January 23, 2005 5:54:52 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

The hanger may be a little dark but that plane is well lit.
Ken
"Craig" <me@here.com> wrote in message
news:41f2c2c8$0$15396$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk...
> http://www.airliners.net/open.file?id=759763
>
> A photo of the new A380.
>
> I'd like to know, how did the photographer get the plane so sharp, in such
> a
> dark environment. OK, maybe a slow shutter speed, but in that case,
> howcome
> the people moving are not blurred??
>
>
Anonymous
January 23, 2005 7:11:28 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Michael Meissner writes:

> I would imagine a combination of multiple strobe lights in the rafters and
> probably some amount of photoshop type editing. I vaguelly recall reading an
> article in the National Geographic magazine when I was getting my snow tires
> removed in spring, where they had an article on some plane (B2? I don't
> remember), and they had a sidebar about the photographer and how he set it up,
> and the answer was lots of strobes.

Nothing was set up here. It was just a snapshot.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
Anonymous
January 23, 2005 7:11:29 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Mxsmanic wrote:
>
> Michael Meissner writes:
>
> > I would imagine a combination of multiple strobe lights in the rafters and
> > probably some amount of photoshop type editing. I vaguelly recall reading an
> > article in the National Geographic magazine when I was getting my snow tires
> > removed in spring, where they had an article on some plane (B2? I don't
> > remember), and they had a sidebar about the photographer and how he set it up,
> > and the answer was lots of strobes.
>
> Nothing was set up here. It was just a snapshot.

and how do you know this?

perhps 'unsubstantiated opinion' fits better?


>
> --
> Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
January 23, 2005 9:02:19 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 21:16:52 -0000, "Craig" <me@here.com> wrote:

>http://www.airliners.net/open.file?id=759763
>
>A photo of the new A380.
>
>I'd like to know, how did the photographer get the plane so sharp, in such a
>dark environment. OK, maybe a slow shutter speed, but in that case, howcome
>the people moving are not blurred??

I think it was just a lucky snapshot, sort of like this one
http://www.pbase.com/zespectre/image/37533126


Drifter
"I've been here, I've been there..."
Anonymous
January 23, 2005 11:00:00 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Do let us know if he replies...

Craig wrote:
> Thanks for that. Fired off a question to the man.
>
> PS: Your site has some pretty good ones!
> "AstroPax" <astro@astropax.com> wrote in message
> news:5ph5v0lnf8moohfnmefk8rl7mot8fclhuk@4ax.com...
>
>>On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 21:16:52 -0000, "Craig" <me@here.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>http://www.airliners.net/open.file?id=759763
>>>
>>>A photo of the new A380.
>>>
>>>I'd like to know, how did the photographer get the plane so sharp, in
>
> such a
>
>>>dark environment. OK, maybe a slow shutter speed, but in that case,
>
> howcome
>
>>>the people moving are not blurred??
>>
>>The plane is light-colored, almost white, so it reflects a lot of
>>light.
>>
>>I think the photog just metered off of the aircraft and didn't worry
>>about anything else. The aircraft is so reflective, and because it
>>was probably all lite-up for the event, a slow shutter speed was not
>>necessarily needed, so because of that, the people and ceiling are
>>dark and in the shadows.
>>
>>Why don't you send the photographer (Michael Eggenschwiler) an email
>>and ask him for the specifics? A point of contact is listed on the
>>referenced page.
>>
>>-Astro
>>
>>---
>>AstroPax Photography
>>http://nikon.astropax.com
>>---
>>
>
>
>
January 23, 2005 12:38:31 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Craig" <me@here.com> wrote in message
news:41f2c2c8$0$15396$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk...
> http://www.airliners.net/open.file?id=759763
>
> A photo of the new A380.
>
> I'd like to know, how did the photographer get the plane so sharp, in such
a
> dark environment. OK, maybe a slow shutter speed, but in that case,
howcome
> the people moving are not blurred??

I downloaded the photo and did a slight adjustment "shadow/highlights" on
Photoshop CS and people are not blurred. Either they weren't moving, awed as
they were ;-) or the pic was taken at 125 or better.
http://celestart.com/images/airbus.jpg
By the way, there is no exif data.

Marcel
Anonymous
January 23, 2005 1:57:28 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 21:16:52 -0000, "Craig" <me@here.com> wrote:

>http://www.airliners.net/open.file?id=759763
>
>A photo of the new A380.
>
>I'd like to know, how did the photographer get the plane so sharp, in such a
>dark environment. OK, maybe a slow shutter speed, but in that case, howcome
>the people moving are not blurred??

I received a reply from the photographer Eggenschwiler.

Didn't say what specific camera was used, but obviously it was a
digital:

300 dpi
no flash
focal length 8mm
F/2,6
1/28 sec
handheld
ISO-100

-Astro

---
AstroPax Photography
http://nikon.astropax.com
---
Anonymous
January 23, 2005 1:59:52 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 06:02:19 -0500, Drifter <zespectre@askme.com>
wrote:

>I think it was just a lucky snapshot, sort of like this one
>http://www.pbase.com/zespectre/image/37533126

I don't think I would classify the above referenced photo as "lucky".

More like "very cool". That is a nice shot.

-Astro

---
AstroPax Photography
http://nikon.astropax.com
---
Anonymous
January 23, 2005 3:55:17 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

zeitgeist writes:

> There is usually a big difference when you reduce an image
> from megapixels to kilopixels ...

Not if the photographer knows what he's doing.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
Anonymous
January 23, 2005 3:55:18 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Mxsmanic wrote:
>
> zeitgeist writes:
>
> > There is usually a big difference when you reduce an image
> > from megapixels to kilopixels ...
>
> Not if the photographer knows what he's doing.

right.

if you know what you are doing,
you can reduce a 22mp image from a phase one back,
of a beautiful model with fine hair and many freckles
to about 2 k and not lose any detail.
but you really have to know what you are doing.

right.

>
> --
> Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
Anonymous
January 23, 2005 3:56:58 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Crownfield writes:

> and how do you know this?

Because nobody going to the trouble of setting up a shot would produce
such inferior results. This is a digital shot taken with a cheap
camera.

> perhps 'unsubstantiated opinion' fits better?

No, more like experience. There aren't any good lenses that produce the
kind of purple fringing that is very obvious in this photo, for example,
and nobody using special lighting or large-format view cameras or the
like is going to use a cheap lens.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
Anonymous
January 23, 2005 3:59:14 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 21:16:52 -0000, "Craig" <me@here.com> wrote:

>http://www.airliners.net/open.file?id=759763
>
>A photo of the new A380.
>
>I'd like to know, how did the photographer get the plane so sharp, in such a
>dark environment. OK, maybe a slow shutter speed, but in that case, howcome
>the people moving are not blurred??

Photog Eggenschwiler advises me that the above referenced A380 photo
was shot with a Nikon Coolpix 995:

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikoncp995/

Shooting data (quoted):

300 dpi
no flash
focal length 8mm
F/2,6
1/28 sec
handheld
ISO-100

I suspect that the focal length was actually 38mm, and that the quoted
"8mm" is a typo because the 995 is equipped with a 38-152mm f/2.6 -
5.1 lens.

Case closed.

-Astro

---
AstroPax Photography
http://nikon.astropax.com
---
Anonymous
January 23, 2005 4:58:19 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In message <8pGId.61629$Z%.30179@fe1.texas.rr.com>,
"Musty" <musty@nospam.net> wrote:

>Just look at the purple fringing (CA) on the lights.

Purple fringing and CA are two different things.

Purple fringing is a sensor-overload problem; CA is a lens or
lens/microlens problem.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
Anonymous
January 23, 2005 5:19:27 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In message <c547v01k8ju9i30d3v3tsa0fs5ii92pi2r@4ax.com>,
Mxsmanic <mxsmanic@hotmail.com> wrote:

>No, more like experience. There aren't any good lenses that produce the
>kind of purple fringing that is very obvious in this photo, for example,
>and nobody using special lighting or large-format view cameras or the
>like is going to use a cheap lens.

That is CA, not "purple fringing". The lights have green on one side
and magenta on the other, and is more pronounced the further you go into
the corners.

Purple fringing is when there is spill-over in a saturated sensor in the
green channel (which is the most sensitive on most cameras) into the
blue and red channels. which are not yet saturated. It is most likely
to occur only at the lowest ISOs offered on the camera.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
Anonymous
January 23, 2005 5:19:28 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

JPS@no.komm wrote:
>
> In message <c547v01k8ju9i30d3v3tsa0fs5ii92pi2r@4ax.com>,
> Mxsmanic <mxsmanic@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >No, more like experience. There aren't any good lenses that produce the
> >kind of purple fringing that is very obvious in this photo, for example,
> >and nobody using special lighting or large-format view cameras or the
> >like is going to use a cheap lens.
>
> That is CA, not "purple fringing". The lights have green on one side
> and magenta on the other, and is more pronounced the further you go into
> the corners.
>
> Purple fringing is when there is spill-over in a saturated sensor in the
> green channel (which is the most sensitive on most cameras) into the
> blue and red channels. which are not yet saturated. It is most likely
> to occur only at the lowest ISOs offered on the camera.

he does seem to leap to unsubstanstiated conclusions...
his substantiation seems to be incorrectly analyzed.

> --
>
> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
> John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
Anonymous
January 23, 2005 9:16:31 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

JPS@no.komm writes:

> Purple fringing and CA are two different things.
>
> Purple fringing is a sensor-overload problem; CA is a lens or
> lens/microlens problem.

I'll take your word for it, as I've never gotten a straight story on
what causes it. Whatever it is, it's obvious in this photo, which
spells cheap P&S digital.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
Anonymous
January 23, 2005 9:20:35 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

AstroPax wrote:
> On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 21:16:52 -0000, "Craig" <me@here.com> wrote:
>
>> http://www.airliners.net/open.file?id=759763
>>
>> A photo of the new A380.
>>
>> I'd like to know, how did the photographer get the plane so sharp,
>> in such a dark environment. OK, maybe a slow shutter speed, but in
>> that case, howcome the people moving are not blurred??
>
> I received a reply from the photographer Eggenschwiler.
>
> Didn't say what specific camera was used, but obviously it was a
> digital:
>
> 300 dpi
> no flash
> focal length 8mm
> F/2,6
> 1/28 sec
> handheld
> ISO-100
>
> -Astro

Rectilinear 8mm rules out a DSLR, I think?
Anonymous
January 23, 2005 11:44:46 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Crownfield writes:

> if you know what you are doing,
> you can reduce a 22mp image from a phase one back,
> of a beautiful model with fine hair and many freckles
> to about 2 k and not lose any detail.
> but you really have to know what you are doing.
>
> right.

I was referring to sharpening errors and similar improper manipulations
of the image.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
Anonymous
January 23, 2005 11:44:47 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Mxsmanic wrote:
>
> Crownfield writes:
>
> > if you know what you are doing,
> > you can reduce a 22mp image from a phase one back,
> > of a beautiful model with fine hair and many freckles
> > to about 2 k and not lose any detail.
> > but you really have to know what you are doing.
> >
> > right.
>
> I was referring to sharpening errors and similar improper manipulations
> of the image.

right.
i believe you.
sure.

>
> --
> Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
January 24, 2005 12:17:09 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 10:59:52 -0700, AstroPax <astro@astropax.com>
wrote:

>On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 06:02:19 -0500, Drifter <zespectre@askme.com>
>wrote:
>
>>I think it was just a lucky snapshot, sort of like this one
>>http://www.pbase.com/zespectre/image/37533126
>
>I don't think I would classify the above referenced photo as "lucky".
>
>More like "very cool". That is a nice shot.

Thanks, I appreciate it.


Drifter
"I've been here, I've been there..."
Anonymous
January 24, 2005 12:55:06 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In message <5308v01ee58grr5b1uh7agbmcicu81dlsf@4ax.com>,
AstroPax <astro@astropax.com> wrote:

>I suspect that the focal length was actually 38mm, and that the quoted
>"8mm" is a typo because the 995 is equipped with a 38-152mm f/2.6 -
>5.1 lens.

No, it isn't. That's way too long for a tiny-sensor digital. That
would be telephoto to super-duper-telephoto!

>Case closed.

Case re-opened.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
Anonymous
January 24, 2005 12:55:07 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 21:55:06 GMT, JPS@no.komm wrote:

>Case re-opened.

STFU.

-Astro
Anonymous
January 24, 2005 2:01:22 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

AstroPax writes:

> I suspect that the focal length was actually 38mm, and that the quoted
> "8mm" is a typo because the 995 is equipped with a 38-152mm f/2.6 -
> 5.1 lens.

That's the 35mm-equivalent focal length, not the actual focal length.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
Anonymous
January 24, 2005 2:02:53 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In message <hv88v09i11vn57ac9hft44q4t7u4te5bp9@4ax.com>,
AstroPax <astro@astropax.com> wrote:

>On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 21:55:06 GMT, JPS@no.komm wrote:
>
>>Case re-opened.
>
>STFU.

Consider me mute. I can still type, however.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
January 24, 2005 9:43:29 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Well, the photographer got back to me, and this maybe puts it to rest:

"I was surprised myself how well the photo turned out. i dont have a tripod
so i took the photo handheld which is really hard. the exposure was 1/28.
I am not a professional either so i cant help you much. i sharpened it a
little bit in photoshop on my computer so that helps."

Never the less, I like it.

"Craig" <me@here.com> wrote in message
news:41f2c2c8$0$15396$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk...
> http://www.airliners.net/open.file?id=759763
>
> A photo of the new A380.
>
> I'd like to know, how did the photographer get the plane so sharp, in such
a
> dark environment. OK, maybe a slow shutter speed, but in that case,
howcome
> the people moving are not blurred??
>
>
Anonymous
January 24, 2005 8:41:40 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Marcel wrote:

> "Craig" <me@here.com> wrote in message
> news:41f2c2c8$0$15396$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk...
>
>>http://www.airliners.net/open.file?id=759763
>>
>>A photo of the new A380.
>>
>>I'd like to know, how did the photographer get the plane so sharp, in such
>
> a
>
>>dark environment. OK, maybe a slow shutter speed, but in that case,
>
> howcome
>
>>the people moving are not blurred??
>
>
> I downloaded the photo and did a slight adjustment "shadow/highlights" on
> Photoshop CS and people are not blurred. Either they weren't moving, awed as
> they were ;-) or the pic was taken at 125 or better.
> http://celestart.com/images/airbus.jpg
> By the way, there is no exif data.

Why is that one guy just left of center, poking the bottom of the plane
with a stick?
January 24, 2005 10:44:14 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Matt Ion wrote:

> Marcel wrote:
>
>> "Craig" <me@here.com> wrote in message
>> news:41f2c2c8$0$15396$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk...
>>
>>> http://www.airliners.net/open.file?id=759763
>>>
>>> A photo of the new A380.
>>>
>>> I'd like to know, how did the photographer get the plane so sharp, in
>>> such
>>
>>
>> a
>>
>>> dark environment. OK, maybe a slow shutter speed, but in that case,
>>
>>
>> howcome
>>
>>> the people moving are not blurred??
>>
>>
>>
>> I downloaded the photo and did a slight adjustment "shadow/highlights" on
>> Photoshop CS and people are not blurred. Either they weren't moving,
>> awed as
>> they were ;-) or the pic was taken at 125 or better.
>> http://celestart.com/images/airbus.jpg
>> By the way, there is no exif data.
>
>
> Why is that one guy just left of center, poking the bottom of the plane
> with a stick?


Maybe he's pointing out the 'Place bomb here' decal. :p 

--
jer
email reply - I am not a 'ten'
Anonymous
January 24, 2005 11:37:21 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Jer wrote:
> Matt Ion wrote:
>
>> Why is that one guy just left of center, poking the bottom of the
>> plane with a stick?
>
> Maybe he's pointing out the 'Place bomb here' decal. :p 

He's in charge of keeping it inflated properly... =)
January 25, 2005 11:11:51 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Matt Ion <soundy@moltenimage.com> wrote:

> > http://celestart.com/images/airbus.jpg
>
> Why is that one guy just left of center,
> poking the bottom of the plane with a stick?

He's trying to flush the toilet from the outside... ;^)

Jeff
Anonymous
January 25, 2005 3:09:44 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Craig <me@here.com> wrote:

>Well, the photographer got back to me, and this maybe puts it to rest:
>"I was surprised myself how well the photo turned out. i dont have a tripod
>so i took the photo handheld which is really hard. the exposure was 1/28.
>I am not a professional either so i cant help you much. i sharpened it a
>little bit in photoshop on my computer so that helps."

Sounds unlikely he used any fancy rectilinear stuff then. Photoshop?
--
Ken Tough
!