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
|
|