Pages: [1] 2   Go Down

Author Topic: Girl having fun  (Read 3838 times)

seamus finn

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1193
Girl having fun
« on: March 16, 2011, 02:01:28 PM »



..... Plaša de Catalunya, Barcelona.


 
Logged

Eric Myrvaagnes

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11170
    • http://myrvaagnes.com
Re: Girl having fun
« Reply #1 on: March 16, 2011, 03:52:16 PM »

She has obviously never seen the Hitchcock film "The Birds."
Logged
-Eric Myrvaagnes

http://myrvaagnes.com  Visit my photo website. New images each season. Also visit my new website: http://ericneedsakidney.org

seamus finn

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1193
Re: Girl having fun
« Reply #2 on: March 16, 2011, 04:03:55 PM »


I hadn't the heart to tell her how that worked out, Eric.
Logged

wolfnowl

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5821
    • M&M's Musings
Re: Girl having fun
« Reply #3 on: March 17, 2011, 01:29:23 AM »

Nicely done, Seamus!

Mike.
Logged
If your mind is attuned to beauty, you find beauty in everything.
~ Jean Cooke ~

My Flickr site / Random Thoughts and Other Meanderings at M&M's Musings

Christoph C. Feldhaim

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2509
  • There is no rule! No - wait ...
Re: Girl having fun
« Reply #4 on: March 17, 2011, 02:47:00 AM »

Very nice street shot!
Good work!
But I believe I see some film development artifacts in the left part of the image. Do I ?

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 14679
Re: Girl having fun
« Reply #5 on: March 17, 2011, 05:32:35 AM »

Very nice street shot!
Good work!
But I believe I see some film development artifacts in the left part of the image. Do I ?



No, I think it's reflection on the window.

Rob C

Christoph C. Feldhaim

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2509
  • There is no rule! No - wait ...
Re: Girl having fun
« Reply #6 on: March 17, 2011, 05:55:45 AM »

Ah ... taken from the bus or from inside a cafÚ?

seamus finn

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1193
Re: Girl having fun
« Reply #7 on: March 17, 2011, 06:55:32 AM »


Guys: no film, no windows, no bus, no flash. Camera: Canon EOS 20D. I thought it was slight shadows hitting that part of the street but on second thoughts and after a quick inspection of the original, I'm not too sure now.

Anyway, many thanks for your comments.
Logged

popnfresh

  • Guest
Re: Girl having fun
« Reply #8 on: March 17, 2011, 08:17:14 AM »

Guys: no film, no windows, no bus, no flash. Camera: Canon EOS 20D. I thought it was slight shadows hitting that part of the street but on second thoughts and after a quick inspection of the original, I'm not too sure now.

Anyway, many thanks for your comments.
My guess would be dust and/or residue on the sensor.
Logged

RSL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 8344
    • http://www.russ-lewis.com
Re: Girl having fun
« Reply #9 on: March 17, 2011, 10:25:58 AM »

Great picture, Seamus. I tried downloading the picture and bringing it into CS5 for closer examination and from the look of the pixels on my screen I'd guess it's a pretty extreme crop. But it looks to me as if the problem, if it is a problem, is from shadows cast on the pond and the pond's concrete edges. The interference isn't just at the left edge. It's there in the center and also, to very small extent, on the right. At first glance it looks as if there's an artifact that merges into the bird on the far left, but if you look closer you realize the shadow in the background just happens to fit with the bird's coloring. What does a look at the original in color show?

Patricia Sheley

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 745
Re: Girl having fun
« Reply #10 on: March 17, 2011, 11:38:24 AM »

A few frames before and after show identical or different? I see the diffractions across the entire image. What is hyperfocal distance and aperture. Looks suspiciously like my droplets on the lens shots...
« Last Edit: March 17, 2011, 12:24:10 PM by Patricia Sheley »
Logged
A common woman~

Patricia Sheley

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 745
Re: Girl having fun
« Reply #11 on: March 17, 2011, 11:51:45 AM »

Although I do remember some of the sensor"dust"on previous posts but you should see it identically almost on the images before and after this one.If on your lens you'll probably see some variation.
Logged
A common woman~

Patricia Sheley

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 745
Re: Girl having fun
« Reply #12 on: March 17, 2011, 11:55:46 AM »

Forgot to say I like the moment you saw and captured!
Logged
A common woman~

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 14679
Re: Girl having fun
« Reply #13 on: March 17, 2011, 01:36:19 PM »

Anyway, I'm sure the birds enjoyed the view.

Rob C

seamus finn

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1193
Re: Girl having fun
« Reply #14 on: March 18, 2011, 08:48:55 AM »

Russ, the original shot is 25.2m. For the image posted above, I drew on a much slimmed down Jpeg - hence the pixels you mentioned. There wasn't any extreme crop (you'll be glad to know!). I think you are correct. The problem is part of the scene's 'infrastructure'. Here's a colour version:





Here's possibly (I''m not sure) the next shot taken on the day:

« Last Edit: March 18, 2011, 08:53:58 AM by seamus finn »
Logged

Patricia Sheley

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 745
Re: Girl having fun
« Reply #15 on: March 18, 2011, 09:17:44 AM »

There you go! Not on lens, not on sensor...just the flight of birds. If you look closely you can see wings , head and body parts. The lights and darks match those of the birds caught in focus. The color version shows it in a way the B& W didn't. Like the second shot too. What a nice day and joy filled subjects!
« Last Edit: March 18, 2011, 09:31:15 AM by Patricia Sheley »
Logged
A common woman~

RSL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 8344
    • http://www.russ-lewis.com
Re: Girl having fun
« Reply #16 on: March 18, 2011, 09:35:49 AM »

But what appear to be shadows aren't moving wings. If Seamus keeps the date/time info on his camera up to date the shot was made at about 8:30 p.m. Looking at the long shadows cast by the birds on the ground and considering Seamus's latitude I'd guess the shot was earlier than that, but still late afternoon. Shutter speed was 1/1600 sec, so the most you'd get from a flapping wing would be a bit of blur at the edges. The shadows pretty much have to be actual shadows -- probably from birds flying somewhere above and to the left of the scene.

Whew... Glad to hear you didn't crop (much) Seamus.
« Last Edit: March 18, 2011, 09:37:40 AM by RSL »
Logged

Patricia Sheley

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 745
Re: Girl having fun
« Reply #17 on: March 18, 2011, 10:36:21 AM »

Yes, I see your point.. The other thing that crosses my mind is momentary hand direction from camera falling across lens though seems unlikely at 1600 th. Well clean sensor ...I'm way too A R when it comes to trying to figure out things like this...I guess so that I could replicate the effect if desired somewhere down the road.
« Last Edit: March 18, 2011, 10:40:23 AM by Patricia Sheley »
Logged
A common woman~

seamus finn

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1193
Re: Girl having fun
« Reply #18 on: March 18, 2011, 02:14:35 PM »



Thanks for your interest everybody - you folk are as sharp as a tack.
Logged

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 14679
Re: Girl having fun
« Reply #19 on: March 18, 2011, 03:40:57 PM »

But what appear to be shadows aren't moving wings. If Seamus keeps the date/time info on his camera up to date the shot was made at about 8:30 p.m. Looking at the long shadows cast by the birds on the ground and considering Seamus's latitude I'd guess the shot was earlier than that, but still late afternoon. Shutter speed was 1/1600 sec, so the most you'd get from a flapping wing would be a bit of blur at the edges. The shadows pretty much have to be actual shadows -- probably from birds flying somewhere above and to the left of the scene.

Whew... Glad to hear you didn't crop (much) Seamus.

Don't think shadows, Russ; they look parallel and that is never the case - they always have perspective when on the horizontal. Also, they look equally sharp/soft in the further away lighter band of background; the impression, to me, is of something vertical.

Could it be a ghost image from less than total formatting out of a previous image?

Rob C

« Last Edit: March 19, 2011, 06:35:53 AM by Rob C »
Logged
Pages: [1] 2   Go Up