Forced Perspective Photography
Mar 16, 2023 22:44:44 #
Sidwalkastronomy
Loc: New Jersey Shore
Why don't you post the facts you are using to come up with your astronomy comment.
LIST THEM, Let's go tough guy
You can't cause you're a troll
LIST THEM, Let's go tough guy
You can't cause you're a troll
Mar 16, 2023 23:37:13 #
Sidwalkastronomy wrote:
Why don't you post the facts you are using to come up with your astronomy comment.
LIST THEM, Let's go tough guy
You can't cause you're a troll
LIST THEM, Let's go tough guy
You can't cause you're a troll
Show me just one example of me actually trolling. Not only does none exist, but you dont know what trolling is. Its just a word that you inappropriately parrot whenever youre the Pot calling the Kettle Black. Go back to fondling your scopes collection.
Mar 16, 2023 23:47:25 #
Sidwalkastronomy wrote:
Why don't you post the facts you are using to come up with your astronomy comment.
LIST THEM, Let's go tough guy
You can't cause you're a troll
LIST THEM, Let's go tough guy
You can't cause you're a troll
Your archive shows youre not actually an astronomer but merely a hardware geek. An astronomer doesnt produce sillyassed stuff such as seen below.
Mar 17, 2023 00:18:26 #
Sidwalkastronomy wrote:
I notice you never answer my questions about your language and spelling. Why is that user BJ?
I dont reply to irrelevant questions.
Mar 17, 2023 00:28:00 #
Sidwalkastronomy wrote:
You search my post, you have no life.
Altho you make a pizzpoor first, second, and third impression, I would not criticize anyone without browsing their archive to confirm that impression. As you pointed out, browsing your stuff is a waste of lifes minutes, but its the fair and honest way to assess your apparent pinheadedness.
Mar 17, 2023 00:42:06 #
User ID wrote:
Even if the OP has no clue about SLR viewfinders, dont you think he would judge results by the playback screen ?
This is UHH so I could be dead wrong about that, but I do think its halfway semisafe to expect he judges actual output rather than the SLR focusing screen image ...
This is UHH so I could be dead wrong about that, but I do think its halfway semisafe to expect he judges actual output rather than the SLR focusing screen image ...
Well since he was talking about what was in focus when he was viewing the red dot focus point it sounds like he’s looking through the viewfinder.
Mar 17, 2023 00:52:43 #
SuperflyTNT wrote:
Well since he was talking about what was in focus when he was viewing the red dot focus point it sounds like he’s looking through the viewfinder.
Yes theres that. I would expect hed be judging results ... but that could be a stretch too far. No news from the OP :-(
Mar 17, 2023 00:56:21 #
Timmers wrote:
And yet another of the "old wives tales"... (show quote)
Really? That’s exactly what it’s for. It actually stops down to the actual shooting aperture, showing what will be in focus. Lenses don’t even have DOF scales any longer.
Mar 17, 2023 01:22:16 #
SuperflyTNT wrote:
Really? That’s exactly what it’s for. It actually stops down to the actual shooting aperture, showing what will be in focus. Lenses don’t even have DOF scales any longer.
Problem is that modern SLR screens dont respond properly. They show too much DoF compared to "reality". Switching to magnified live view would get around that. If you disable "exposure effect" it wont get dim like the SLR finder.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A cheap old fully manual lens is really convenient for LV use. The Nikkor 20/4.0 is easy enough to find, short enough for APSC and adaptable to EOS SLRs.
Nikon to EOS plate is that very narrow silver ring right up against the camera. About 2mm thick and costs about $25.
(Download)
Mar 17, 2023 06:40:34 #
mrchunko wrote:
I would like to tinker a bit with forced perspecti... (show quote)
By obscured do you mean badly out of focus? And is the problem based distance or is it the top or bottom that is obscured?
I'm interested since I have a tilt adapter that I've never found of any use. Tilting just blurrs the top or bottom of the image. Actually adjusting perspective seems to require a tilt-and-shift lens.
Mar 17, 2023 07:24:19 #
Timmers
Loc: San Antonio Texas.
SuperflyTNT wrote:
Really? That’s exactly what it’s for. It actually stops down to the actual shooting aperture, showing what will be in focus. Lenses don’t even have DOF scales any longer.
To great truths we must say, that all zoom lenses never have had depth of field scales upon them even at the time when fix focal length lenses had depth of field markings. That is true, and there are quite a lot of modern (digital) lenses do not have depth of field scales marked on them.
All that is true, just like the reality that many of the digital lens that are only years old are no longer 'working', I know I have had many of these lenses. I prefer to use the old glass like my 8.5CM f1.5 Leica Summarex from 1933. A grand lens with an extremely accurate depth of field scale, and at f1.5 I do focus through the viewing system of my Sony A7 mirrorless body.
Then again, on manual, the camera is a delight to use the R28mm f2.8 Leica lens at f8 or f11 and I do use the depth of field scale and f stop ring to set the hyperfocal distance so that outdoors and in the lighting studio, I never bother to 'focus' the lens as I know that everything between two points (3 feet from the camera to +15 feet will be sharp.
To us who have mastered our craft it is a way of producing images that we don't have to wounder about 'sharpness', we just make comfortable images. So please, do what you do, and leave me to enjoy making great images, like the great artists who have come before me. I'm content to "have stood on the shoulders of giants"*.
*Isaac Newton
“If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of Giants.”
OR
“I can calculate the motion of heavenly bodies but not the madness of people.”
Mar 17, 2023 08:45:39 #
Sidwalkastronomy
Loc: New Jersey Shore
User ID wrote:
Your archive shows youre not actually an astronomer but merely a hardware geek. An astronomer doesnt produce sillyassed stuff such as seen below.
That's a fine photo of the moon.
I don't do astrophotography of DSO's, I don't have the skies for it, or desire to spend the cash to get anywhere near the results I would like. I have a ROR observatory but it's for lunar and double stars due to light pollution.
You still haven't posted your facts that your saying I'm a bad astronomer. You posted one of my full moon photo that came from the camera no post processing or cropping.
With today's cameras you can use a mild zoom, crop, and post your way to a similiar results. This was an unaltered shot.
Please list your facts about me and astronomy, love to see them. The fact you make derogatory statements about me so PLEASE back them up. You can't so that makes you a troll, plain and simple.
Here photo my favorite SUNRISE.
Mar 17, 2023 08:51:33 #
Sidwalkastronomy
Loc: New Jersey Shore
User ID wrote:
I dont reply to irrelevant questions.
You are a troll and not producing facts to back up your statements. Let's see them
Mar 17, 2023 08:52:53 #
Sidwalkastronomy
Loc: New Jersey Shore
Timmers wrote:
To great truths we must say, that all zoom lenses ... (show quote)
I had dof marks on my old zooms
Mar 17, 2023 09:47:19 #
Timmers wrote:
So please, do what you do, and leave me to enjoy making great images, like the great artists who have come before me. I'm content to "have stood on the shoulders of giants"*.
🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣
Now that’s hilarious. You’re certainly full of yourself. I’ve seen your mediocrity.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.