How did they take this photo?

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??
44 answers Last reply
More about photo
  1. 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
    ---
  2. 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...
  3. 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
  4. 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
  5. 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
    > ---
    >
  6. 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.
  7. 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.
  8. 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.
  9. 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??
    >
    >
  10. 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??
    >>
    >>
    >
    >
  11. 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.
  12. 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.
  13. 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
    > ---
    >
  14. 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
  15. 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??
    >
    >
  16. 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.
  17. 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.
  18. 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..."
  19. 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
    >>---
    >>
    >
    >
    >
  20. 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
  21. 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
    ---
  22. 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
    ---
  23. 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.
  24. 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.
  25. 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.
  26. 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
    ---
  27. 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>
    ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
  28. 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>
    ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
  29. 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>
    > ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
  30. 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.
  31. 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?
  32. 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.
  33. 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.
  34. 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..."
  35. 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>
    ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
  36. 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
  37. 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.
  38. 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>
    ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
  39. 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??
    >
    >
  40. 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?
  41. 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'
  42. 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... =)
  43. 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
  44. 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
Ask a new question

Read More

Sharp Photo Cases Cameras