How did they take this photo?

[Guest]

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.

 

[Guest]

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
---

 

[Guest]

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>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><

 

[Guest]

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>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><

 

[Guest]

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>
> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><

 

[Guest]

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.

 

[Guest]

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?

 

[Guest]

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.

 

[Guest]

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.

 

[drifter]

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..."

 

[Guest]

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>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><

 

[Guest]

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

 

[Guest]

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.

 

[Guest]

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>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><

 

[Craig]

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??
>
>

 

[Guest]

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?

 

[Jer]

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.

--
jer
email reply - I am not a 'ten'

 

[Guest]

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.

He's in charge of keeping it inflated properly... =)

 

[Confused]

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

 

[Guest]

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