Reverse Engineering a Photo
Jan 24, 2015 12:52:32 #
Nightski wrote:
Graham Smith tried to make me feel better by editing it. LOL So I suppose he left his metadata on it.
It's in the file name :-D
Jan 24, 2015 12:52:58 #
LundyD43 wrote:
At f/32, I'm sure diffraction was a factor - maybe the most significant one - in blurring the tiny ice crystals. Also, with a six second exposure, there's a good chance SOMETHING moved, even with a good tripod. So my guess is a combination of diffraction and either tiny camera or subject movement.
Something did move ... it would be interesting to see how much diffraction entered in if it hadn't moved .. but why? I was out there shooting the same thing for three days in -10F weather and kept coming up with the same thing. I just couldn't figure it out because I had shot some ice the week before and the crystals were tack sharp. I just didn't like the compostion as well as I did with this one.
Jan 24, 2015 12:53:33 #
Graham Smith wrote:
It's in the file name :-D
I'm sorry Graham .. I hope I didn't embarrass you.
Jan 24, 2015 12:54:00 #
Jan 24, 2015 12:54:09 #
SonnyE wrote:
OK, my guess would be you got "Sonnyitus". :shock:
One of the tell-tale signs is the picture comes out wrong, but the reason is very elusive. ;)
I'd say you were shivering.
One of the tell-tale signs is the picture comes out wrong, but the reason is very elusive. ;)
I'd say you were shivering.
I was shivering .. but I wasn't touching my camera set up.
Jan 24, 2015 12:55:04 #
birdpix wrote:
Was the ice itself moving?
I did ask myself that, but then I figured out what I did.
Jan 24, 2015 12:55:43 #
Nightski wrote:
I think it's very helpful to i reverse engineer /... (show quote)
Was it on a tripod with vibration reduction still on? such as the picture I am attaching
Jan 24, 2015 12:55:56 #
Nightski wrote:
I'm sorry Graham .. I hope I didn't embarrass you.
Me embarrassed? You will have to try a lot harder if you want to do that :lol:
Jan 24, 2015 12:56:24 #
Nightski wrote:
I think it's very helpful to i reverse engineer /... (show quote)
Right off, I would say you should not have used f/32 - you don't get as sharp an image using f/32, but you do get defraction.
Jan 24, 2015 12:56:44 #
johnmowry
Loc: Northern Indiana, USA
Interesting concept for a thread. At first I thought it was camera motion, but then I noticed a faint geometric (mostly rectangular) pattern in the undetailed areas. Maybe you left the pixels in the developer too long?
John
John
Jan 24, 2015 12:57:34 #
Jan 24, 2015 12:58:11 #
Jan 24, 2015 12:58:44 #
birdpix wrote:
Did you have image stabilization turned on?
You guessed it!! Yay birdpix!! good one! :-D
Jan 24, 2015 12:58:52 #
Jan 24, 2015 13:01:12 #
Terrym9 wrote:
Was it on a tripod with vibration reduction still on? such as the picture I am attaching
Yes Terry .. very good. Isn't that maddening! I did about five forehead palms when it came to me what I was doing. The ice had the perfect form that day. I had been playing with it for weeks. It has to be cold enough to get those nice crystals. Oh I was mad!
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.