There's No Way Around It!
 

Aside from that, since an 8x10 uses
sheet film, one would expect that the shutter mechanism doesn't have an
'expose-once' lock, like you'd find on a 35mm - so what's the point in
messing about with the dark slide? Surely that will be more likely to induce
camera shake than a cable release.

What a terrible ignorant post. The bellows and rig is fixed. You simply close
the shutter for multi exposures. Common stuff if you actually make money taking
pics. Don't guess if you don't know....which you don't.

RB

There's No Way Around It!
 

Then you should have exposed for the gear and eliminated the curtains from
the equation. Ever heard of the zone system? Spot metering?

When you want a lighting scheme intact, you don't expose for the gear. That's
why there's a second shot blown for the gear, dummy.
Spot metering? Bwahahahahaha!

RB

There's No Way Around It!
 

Bobsprit wrote:

When you want a lighting scheme intact, you don't expose for the
gear.

So, it was a picture of the lighting scheme, but with the curtains badly
lit?


--
Wally
www.makearatherlonglinkthattakesyounowhere.com
Things are always clearer in the cold, post-upload light.

There's No Way Around It!
 

Bobsprit wrote:
With large format camera, such an 8X10, i'd have made a double
exposure by slipping the sheet..not that you know what that means!

Why would you make a double exposure?

Oh boy. You know nothing about still work. The photo was taken to
show the lighting as is, not the gear, which is clear and bright in
the second photo. Half slides on an 8x10 cassette is standard,
exposing twice, then dodging with the enlarger.

Ah, like a sort of half-frame that yields two 5x8s?


You clearly never learned how a camera works or worked in a darkroom.

I know how a camera works, but haven't used 8x10 (35mm and 6x6cm). As for
working in a darkroom, if you dodge your half frame exposure, you'll get a
fuzzy edge - much better to mask it and get a clean one.


--
Wally
www.makearatherlonglinkthattakesyounowhere.com
Things are always clearer in the cold, post-upload light.

There's No Way Around It!
 

So, it was a picture of the lighting scheme, but with the curtains badly
lit?

The curtains are not lit at all. It's an EL shot.

RB

There's No Way Around It!
 

the second photo. Half slides on an 8x10 cassette is standard,
exposing twice, then dodging with the enlarger.

Ah, like a sort of half-frame that yields two 5x8s?

Good lord, Wally. If you haven't worked with 8x10 gear, it's a bit late for you
to learn.

RB

There's No Way Around It!
 

Bobsprit wrote:
So, it was a picture of the lighting scheme, but with the curtains
badly lit?

The curtains are not lit at all. It's an EL shot.

An 'EL' shot? Don't you mean available light?


--
Wally
www.makearatherlonglinkthattakesyounowhere.com
Things are always clearer in the cold, post-upload light.

There's No Way Around It!
 

The curtains are not lit at all. It's an EL shot.

An 'EL' shot? Don't you mean available light?

Oh my god.
Try Existing Light. Also try "practicals." Wally, stop reading practical
photographer magazine and visit a real studio.

RB

There's No Way Around It!
 

Bobsprit wrote:

Try Existing Light. Also try "practicals." Wally, stop reading
practical photographer magazine and visit a real studio.

Given how unbelievably crap your available/existing light photograph is, it
would seem that you're the Practical Photographer reader. You talk a good
photo, Bob, but you can't produce one.


--
Wally
www.makearatherlonglinkthattakesyounowhere.com
Things are always clearer in the cold, post-upload light.

There's No Way Around It!
 

Looks like "Available Light" is the preferred term. Under this
websight's listing for "Existing Light", it says "see Available Light"

Yup "preferred term" on websites and in magazines.
EL is such a common term that light kit practical gag lights are called Els or
"L's."
Seems like you know about as much about photography as you do about sailing!!!

Bwahahahaha! I can't lose!

RB

There's No Way Around It!
 

You talk a good
photo, Bob, but you can't produce one.

When you can shoot like this, get back to us!

http://members.aol.com/bobsprit/images/stargray.jpg

Now, think DOV and consider how I got this shot with a Nikon F series body with
a standard 50mm lens.
Yeah, you know photography!

Bwahahahahaha!

RB

There's No Way Around It!
 

And while you're all taking a beating!!!

http://hometown.aol.com/bobsprit/images/cat27.jpg

That's a pic of Yoda. Canon AE1 with 80mm fx, Nikon remote flash flagged to
bring the hull up. Note! No indication of the flash on water due to expert flag
use.
Thank you!
Better than all of you AGAIN!!!

Hoohoohohhoho! Hooooh ahhhh!

RB

There's No Way Around It!
 

Bobsprit wrote:

That's a pic of Yoda. Canon AE1 with 80mm fx, Nikon remote flash
flagged to bring the hull up. Note! No indication of the flash on
water due to expert flag use.

Flash? Yeah, right!


--
Wally
www.makearatherlonglinkthattakesyounowhere.com
Things are always clearer in the cold, post-upload light.

There's No Way Around It!
 

Bobsprit wrote:

When you can shoot like this, get back to us!

The horizon is squint. The face is badly exposed and the coiled line
dangling from the boom is in the way. For someone who supposedly takes his
photography seriously enough to set up a remote fill-in flash for a
contre-jour of a motoring boat, I'd have thought you'd take more care. Or at
least show us something where you *did* take more care, rather than posting
any old rubbish and trying to claim that it's good.


http://members.aol.com/bobsprit/images/stargray.jpg

Now, think DOV and consider how I got this shot with a Nikon F series
body with a standard 50mm lens.

Looks overcast, so it might not have been bright enough to stop down to get
the pulpit in focus. That said, it looks a tad wide for a 50mm - more like
something in the 28-35mm range.


--
Wally
www.makearatherlonglinkthattakesyounowhere.com
Things are always clearer in the cold, post-upload light.

There's No Way Around It!
 

flagged to bring the hull up. Note! No indication of the flash on
water due to expert flag use.

Flash? Yeah, right!

Dopey...I mean WALLY, look at that hull. Does that look like ambient light to
you? White light? Maybe there's a 1K off in the distance...nope...that would be
orange light. I guess the hull is thin and light is shining
through...nope...that would be also yellow or orange.
Hmmmm! Must be a flagged flash!

Hoooh ahhhh!

RB

There's No Way Around It!
 

Looks overcast, so it might not have been bright enough to stop down to get
the pulpit in focus. That said, it looks a tad wide for a 50mm - more like
something in the 28-35mm range.

Good lord, Wally. Give it up. You know nothing about photography. You lost.
Going sailing...enjoy your work-day!

RB

There's No Way Around It!
 

Bobsprit wrote:
Looks overcast, so it might not have been bright enough to stop down
to get the pulpit in focus. That said, it looks a tad wide for a 50mm
- more like something in the 28-35mm range.

Good lord, Wally. Give it up. You know nothing about photography. You
lost. Going sailing...enjoy your work-day!

You mean you really did put a cheap teleconverter on the Nikon??


--
Wally
www.makearatherlonglinkthattakesyounowhere.com
Things are always clearer in the cold, post-upload light.

There's No Way Around It!
 

Good lord, Wally. Give it up. You know nothing about photography. You
lost. Going sailing...enjoy your work-day!

You mean you really did put a cheap teleconverter on the Nikon??

Tell us again what you think was used to take the pic....

RB

There's No Way Around It!
 

Bobsprit wrote:

You mean you really did put a cheap teleconverter on the Nikon??

Tell us again what you think was used to take the pic....

A camera. If it was a 35mm camera, then the angle of view looks a little
wide to have been a 50mm standard lens. You're right that it has very good
depth of field, as evinced by the sharp rendition of the pulpit in the top
left corner, while retaining a clear, unblurred horizon.

If the light was bright, or if you were using fast film, then you could
potentially acheive such depth of field by stopping stopped the lens down -
f11 at minimum; f16 or f22 would be better (for a 50mm lens). The sky looks
overcast, so I'm tempted to think that maybe it wasn't bright enough for a
small aperture without compromising shutter speed to the extent of risking
camera shake - but the picture looks sharp, so maybe the camera was on some
kind of support.

However, looking at the picture, it seems to have a wider angle of view than
one would expect from a 50mm lens - there are mild distortions, typical of
wide angle lenses, in the shape of the coach roof and the horizon. It just
doesn't look like a shot through a 50mm lens.

It's well known that a wide angle, for a given neg size, has greater depth
of field than a standard lens, so this would account for both the wider
field of view and the excellent depth of field - consequently with less risk
of compromising shutter speed.

If your claim that it was done on a 35mm camera with a 50mm lens is true,
then it must be the case that you altered the focal length of the lens in
some way - by means of a teleconverter, for example. I used to use a 24mm
lens, and this photo doesn't look as wide as the stuff I got from that, so
the photo has either been cropped, or a slightly longer lens was used -
hence my guess of something in the 28-35mm range.


--
Wally
www.makearatherlonglinkthattakesyounowhere.com
Things are always clearer in the cold, post-upload light.

There's No Way Around It!
 

You're passing off a one time lucky shot as talent... in your case it's
luck.


"Bobsprit" wrote in message
...
| You talk a good
| photo, Bob, but you can't produce one.
|
| When you can shoot like this, get back to us!
|
| http://members.aol.com/bobsprit/images/stargray.jpg
|
| Now, think DOV and consider how I got this shot with a Nikon F series body
with
| a standard 50mm lens.
| Yeah, you know photography!
|
| Bwahahahahaha!
|
| RB
|
|

There's No Way Around It!
 

It certainly wasn't a Nikon F4 with a data-back... that's what I use. Plus
ten grand in lenses. everything from a 17 Fisheye, 500 Catadioptric up to a
500 to 2000 telephoto zoom at F11 [okay it's really a 250 to 1000 at F5.6
but with the Nikon 2x teleconverter....] Flashes and slaves... it makes
the pros drool in envy.

CM

"Bobsprit" wrote in message
...
| Good lord, Wally. Give it up. You know nothing about photography. You
| lost. Going sailing...enjoy your work-day!
|
| You mean you really did put a cheap teleconverter on the Nikon??
|
| Tell us again what you think was used to take the pic....
|
| RB

There's No Way Around It!
 

"Bobsprit" wrote in message
...
the second photo. Half slides on an 8x10 cassette is standard,
exposing twice, then dodging with the enlarger.

Ah, like a sort of half-frame that yields two 5x8s?

Good lord, Wally. If you haven't worked with 8x10 gear, it's a bit late
for you
to learn.

Oh dear! Bob's been on Google again. Now he's pretending that he knows
about photography.!!!



Bwawaaaaawaaaaa. Haahahahahahhaaaa.



Regards


Donal
--

There's No Way Around It!
 

"Donal" wrote

Oh dear! Bob's been on Google again. Now he's pretending that he knows
about pornography.!!!


he just may well.

There's No Way Around It!
 

I use a Kodak disposible camera. Good quality for $6 at WalMart. I've been
thinking about going digital. What camera would you recommend for under
$50?

Scotty



"Capt. Mooron" wrote in message
...
It certainly wasn't a Nikon F4 with a data-back... that's what I use.
Plus
ten grand in lenses. everything from a 17 Fisheye, 500 Catadioptric up to
a
500 to 2000 telephoto zoom at F11 [okay it's really a 250 to 1000 at F5.6
but with the Nikon 2x teleconverter....] Flashes and slaves... it makes
the pros drool in envy.

CM

"Bobsprit" wrote in message
...
| Good lord, Wally. Give it up. You know nothing about photography. You
| lost. Going sailing...enjoy your work-day!
|
| You mean you really did put a cheap teleconverter on the Nikon??
|
| Tell us again what you think was used to take the pic....
|
| RB

There's No Way Around It!
 

Who is that butt ugly woman driving? Must be Horass...

"Capt. Mooron" wrote in message
...
You're passing off a one time lucky shot as talent... in your case it's
luck.


"Bobsprit" wrote in message
...
| You talk a good
| photo, Bob, but you can't produce one.
|
| When you can shoot like this, get back to us!
|
| http://members.aol.com/bobsprit/images/stargray.jpg
|
| Now, think DOV and consider how I got this shot with a Nikon F series
body
with
| a standard 50mm lens.
| Yeah, you know photography!
|
| Bwahahahahaha!
|
| RB
|
|

There's No Way Around It!
 

"Scott Vernon" wrote in message
...
| I use a Kodak disposible camera. Good quality for $6 at WalMart. I've
been
| thinking about going digital. What camera would you recommend for under
| $50?

The HP635 with the docking port... it's $259 Cdn... that's about $50 bucks
USD. I use a Kodak DC290 for work photos.... but it was $1500 two years ago
when I bought it. Most of the pics on my webshots site are done with the
Kodak digital.

If you're serious about a low cost good quality digital that can take 30
sec. video clips and good stills... you can't go wrong with the HP 635. We
got the docking port that allows push button downloads to a computer with
USB or you can view both video and stills on the TV with a remote control.
It's a nice little unit... cost with the docking port was $400+ Cdn.
including tax.

CM

There's No Way Around It!
 

A camera. If it was a 35mm camera, then the angle of view looks a little
wide to have been a 50mm standard lens.

I hate to break it to you, but it's not taken with a still camera of any kind.
Anyone who looks at that pic and knows what cameras can do would know that.
Sony TRV-900, sliced using Final Cut Pro.

RB

There's No Way Around It!
 

Capt. Mooron wrote:

It certainly wasn't a Nikon F4 with a data-back... that's what I
use. Plus ten grand in lenses. everything from a 17 Fisheye, 500
Catadioptric up to a 500 to 2000 telephoto zoom at F11 [okay it's
really a 250 to 1000 at F5.6 but with the Nikon 2x teleconverter....]
Flashes and slaves... it makes the pros drool in envy.

I have a Digital Ixus. It's very small and very light.

Anyway, after I drew him into that little skrmish, I see Bob has tripped
over his desire to profess his wisdom of photography by admitting that he
was lying about it being an F4.


--
Wally
www.makearatherlonglinkthattakesyounowhere.com
Things are always clearer in the cold, post-upload light.

There's No Way Around It!
 

Bobsprit wrote:

I hate to break it to you, but it's not taken with a still camera of
any kind. Anyone who looks at that pic and knows what cameras can do
would know that. Sony TRV-900, sliced using Final Cut Pro.

Welcome aboard. Don't flop about too much.


--
Wally
www.makearatherlonglinkthattakesyounowhere.com
Things are always clearer in the cold, post-upload light.

There's No Way Around It!
 

would know that. Sony TRV-900, sliced using Final Cut Pro.

Welcome aboard. Don't flop about too much.

Kinda desperate, aint ya!
Sorry to have embarassed you so badly! You STILL couldn't tell the diff between
a still and a video frame!

RB

There's No Way Around It!
 

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message
...
I?


Maybe I meant Horvath?? I can hardly tell the difference between you these
days!



Regards


Donal
--

There's No Way Around It!
 

Bobsprit wrote:
would know that. Sony TRV-900, sliced using Final Cut Pro.

Welcome aboard. Don't flop about too much.

Kinda desperate, aint ya!
Sorry to have embarassed you so badly! You STILL couldn't tell the
diff between a still and a video frame!

I've never owned a video camera or even done video.


--
Wally
www.makearatherlonglinkthattakesyounowhere.com
Things are always clearer in the cold, post-upload light.

There's No Way Around It!
 

Sorry to have embarassed you so badly! You STILL couldn't tell the
diff between a still and a video frame!

I've never owned a video camera or even done video.

I doubt you've done much photography of any kind.
FYI, that pic was also taken with a Camedia. Set to automatic, and clamped to
the pulpit rail with a Gitzo extender. No big deal.
A video slice WOULD show blur and artifacts, dopey.
Good grief...what a pounding you're taking!

RB

There's No Way Around It!
 

Bobsprit wrote:
Sorry to have embarassed you so badly! You STILL couldn't tell the
diff between a still and a video frame!

I've never owned a video camera or even done video.

I doubt you've done much photography of any kind.
FYI, that pic was also taken with a Camedia. Set to automatic, and
clamped to the pulpit rail with a Gitzo extender. No big deal.
A video slice WOULD show blur and artifacts, dopey.

Sheesh! What an idiot! You're calling me "dopey" after I *didn't* make the
statement you're opposing! I didn't say video *would* have caused blurring,
fool!

What is the 35mm-equivalent focal length of this Camedia?


Good grief...what a pounding you're taking!

Take a look at your own manufactured 'victory' and keep pounding yourself.


--
Wally
www.makearatherlonglinkthattakesyounowhere.com
Things are always clearer in the cold, post-upload light.

There's No Way Around It!
 

Sheesh! What an idiot! You're calling me "dopey" after I *didn't* make the
statement you're opposing! I didn't say video *would* have caused blurring,
fool!

If you had a clue or brains to form a clue, you'd have realized that it
couldn't have been a video frame.
Sorry, you've now been overexposed as an idiot!

Bwahahahahaha!

RB

There's No Way Around It!
 

He's the one with breasts.

"Donal" wrote in message
...

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message
...
I?


Maybe I meant Horvath?? I can hardly tell the difference between you
these
days!



Regards


Donal
--

There's No Way Around It!
 

"Bobsprit" wrote in message

| FYI, that pic was also taken with a Clamedia.

What a load of Clap... er I meant Crap!

CM

There's No Way Around It!
 

agreed most people over spend when 1 mega pix. is good
enough for the average user, not unless your into
major photo editing.

NH_/)_

"Scott Vernon" wrote in message
...
I use a Kodak disposible camera. Good quality for $6 at WalMart. I've
been
thinking about going digital. What camera would you recommend for under
$50?

Scotty



"Capt. Mooron" wrote in message
...
It certainly wasn't a Nikon F4 with a data-back... that's what I use.
Plus
ten grand in lenses. everything from a 17 Fisheye, 500 Catadioptric up
to
a
500 to 2000 telephoto zoom at F11 [okay it's really a 250 to 1000 at
F5.6
but with the Nikon 2x teleconverter....] Flashes and slaves... it
makes
the pros drool in envy.

CM

"Bobsprit" wrote in message
...
| Good lord, Wally. Give it up. You know nothing about photography.
You
| lost. Going sailing...enjoy your work-day!
|
| You mean you really did put a cheap teleconverter on the Nikon??
|
| Tell us again what you think was used to take the pic....
|
| RB

There's No Way Around It!
 

Who is that butt ugly woman driving? Must be Horass...

Is it Katy ?

NH_/)_

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message

There's No Way Around It!
 

Katy is beautiful. It's Horass for sure.

"NH_/)_" wrote in message
om...
Who is that butt ugly woman driving? Must be Horass...

Is it Katy ?

NH_/)_

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message