Wally's Kodak Moment
 

http://hometown.aol.com/bobsprit/images/ghost&sun.jpg

Have a look at the above pic, Wally. Since you know photography, you'll be able
to explain how it was taken using a Camedia 360L digital camera. It takes NO
filters. The technique used in the pic (shooting directly at sun) is called
smudging. You won't find it online. You either know or you don't.
My guess is...you DON'T!

Capt RB
Master Photographer

Wally's Kodak Moment
 

Bobsprit wrote:

The technique used in the pic
(shooting directly at sun) is called smudging.

Is it?

You won't find it online.

How odd. You'd think that, in this day and age, it would have made it into
an online reference by now.

If you're talking about the 'ray' effect of the sunlight around the
burnt-out area in the middle, then that's the result of diffraction around
the lens aperture. As for the Olympus Camedia claim, I'll take that with the
same bucket of salt that was appropriate to your Nikon F4 and 50mm lens lie.


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

Wally's Kodak Moment
 

If you're talking about the 'ray' effect of the sunlight around the
burnt-out area in the middle, then that's the result of diffraction around
the lens aperture. As for the Olympus Camedia claim, I'll take that with the
same bucket of salt that was appropriate to your Nikon F4 and 50mm lens lie.

Wrong and wrong again, Wally. Look at the pic. The Camera IS a Camedia 360L.
Try again! Show everyone that you have a clue about photography!


RB

Wally's Kodak Moment
 

Bobsprit wrote:
If you're talking about the 'ray' effect of the sunlight around the
burnt-out area in the middle, then that's the result of diffraction
around the lens aperture. As for the Olympus Camedia claim, I'll take
that with the same bucket of salt that was appropriate to your Nikon
F4 and 50mm lens lie.

Wrong and wrong again, Wally. Look at the pic. The Camera IS a
Camedia 360L. Try again! Show everyone that you have a clue about
photography!

Please address...

The technique used in the pic
(shooting directly at sun) is called smudging.

Is it?

You won't find it online.

How odd. You'd think that, in this day and age, it would have made it into
an online reference by now.




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

Wally's Kodak Moment
 

The technique used in the pic
(shooting directly at sun) is called smudging.

The technique is to filter the light source (sun) well beyond the camera's
abilities, using an object at hand.
In this case I used two pairs of sunglasses, shooting through both lenses.
Pretty clever, aye? Won't work well unless you have pretty expensive glasses,
which we do.

RB

Wally's Kodak Moment
 

You won't find it online.

How odd. You'd think that, in this day and age, it would have made it into
an online reference by now.

Yeah...look up "crack gag." Another common studio term you won't read anywhere.
It's an extension of "gag light" and came into use following popular use of
slit scan photography in the late 60's and 70's.
Wally. You know less than nothing. Less than less than nothing in fact!

RB

Wally's Kodak Moment
 

Bobsprit wrote:

"Have a look at the above pic, Wally.
"... It takes NO filters."

Then wrote:

The technique is to filter the light source

??? Beginning to sound a bit like Nil. Try and keep track.

And don't pull a Nil and claim that you "meant" that the CAMERA "takes"
no filters ... poor sentence construction is no excuse for lame
equivocation.

Rick

Wally's Kodak Moment
 

Bobsprit wrote:

"Have a look at the above pic, Wally.
"... It takes NO filters

It takes NO filters is 100% correct. Learn to read, dummy!

RB

Wally's Kodak Moment
 

And don't pull a Nil and claim that you "meant" that the CAMERA "takes"
no filters ... poor sentence construction

My sentence was contructed correctly. Sorry!

RB