A few pictures from SF

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: hate2work
Originally Posted By: moribundman
Mount Sutro: 909 feet
Mount Davidson: 925 feet
Twin Peaks: 910 feet/904 feet

Who can tell me how far the ocean's horizon line is at 925 feet above sea level? Presume a clear view and discount refraction.
wink.gif



Approx 36.5 miles.


Close enough for me!
 
Peter Parker gets the coolest shots!

That picture was taken from the North Tower.
 
Originally Posted By: hate2work
Originally Posted By: moribundman
Mount Sutro: 909 feet
Mount Davidson: 925 feet
Twin Peaks: 910 feet/904 feet

Who can tell me how far the ocean's horizon line is at 925 feet above sea level? Presume a clear view and discount refraction.
wink.gif



Approx 36.5 miles. I wonder how tall Sarah Palin's house had to be to see Russia?
grin2.gif



That would be approximately 36.5 nautical miles.
 
Originally Posted By: XS650
That would be approximately 36.5 nautical miles.


In parsec the figure is a lot smaller!
LOL.gif


Going with the lazy approximation, I get square root of 925 feet (above 0) x 1.225 miles = 37.25 statute miles distance to the horizon.
 
Originally Posted By: moribundman
Originally Posted By: hate2work
Not true at all. Obviously you've never used a hammer.


Like most analogies, mine doesn't fit exactly either, because a camera and a hammer are not the same kind of tool. Did you get my point, though? If not, let me quote famed photographer Andreas Feininger, who said the following:

Quote:
Photographers — idiots, of which there are so many — say, “Oh, if only I had a Nikon or a Leica, I could make great photographs.” That’s the dumbest thing I ever heard in my life.


By the way, the above applies to all images.
wink.gif


I always react allergic to the question, "What camera did you use?" If I were to show you an image that is of outstanding technical brilliance, for example a stunning 12 foot print with no distortion, no chromatic aberration, yes, then I would understand and accept the question. For tiny, low res snapshot pictures, as shown on Web sites, what camera is used is utterly irrelevant, as long as it is an adequate camera for the job. Any point&shoot camera fits the bill. Such small images can't be judged based on their technical merits. That's why the posed question makes no sense.


wow, all you had to do was accept a compliment gracefully...
 
Originally Posted By: crinkles
wow, all you had to do was accept a compliment gracefully...


I accidentally clicked on your hidden reply, so I read it.
48.gif


You fail to grasp what's bothering me. To say, "Nice pictures, what camera are you using?" is the opposite of a compliment. I would never insult anybody by asking them what camera they were using, unless the images in question stand out due to some technical merits that are obviously related to the particular equipment used, for example, infrared pictures of dust mites taken with an electron microscope.
 
I do get it Mori. if this was an art photography class i'd agree, but, we are jsut average joes enjoying a few piccy's.

by the way you are not and have not been on my ignore list for months.
 
Originally Posted By: crinkles
I do get it Mori. if this was an art photography class i'd agree, but, we are jsut average joes enjoying a few piccy's.

by the way you are not and have not been on my ignore list for months.


edit - my fuji cheapo digital could not take a photo to impress my own mother.
 
Originally Posted By: XS650
Originally Posted By: hate2work
Originally Posted By: moribundman
Mount Sutro: 909 feet
Mount Davidson: 925 feet
Twin Peaks: 910 feet/904 feet

Who can tell me how far the ocean's horizon line is at 925 feet above sea level? Presume a clear view and discount refraction.
wink.gif



Approx 36.5 miles. I wonder how tall Sarah Palin's house had to be to see Russia?
grin2.gif



That would be approximately 36.5 nautical miles.


Aren't you thinking of the arc length of the ocean's surface to the horizon? I'm talking about a straight line of sight to the horizon from 925 feet in the air.
 
Originally Posted By: moribundman
You fail to grasp what's bothering me. To say, "Nice pictures, what camera are you using?"


I get the same way after finishing an audio recording, and someone says "Hey, that sounds great - What kinda mics did you use?"
 
You guys are lucky to have all that cool stuff over in San Francisco. Mostly just corn and beans here.
55.gif
(
frown.gif
56.gif
)
 
I like the last two. I especially like the slight amount of detail the reflection in the car window gives. HDR could give that kind of shot an interesting look.

Do you use RAW or just work with jpg out of the camera?
I prefer the control of RAW for anything artistic but for quick shots I just use jpg.
 
Originally Posted By: tom slick
I like the last two. I especially like the slight amount of detail the reflection in the car window gives. HDR could give that kind of shot an interesting look.

Do you use RAW or just work with jpg out of the camera?
I prefer the control of RAW for anything artistic but for quick shots I just use jpg.


I gave the image the tonal range and color balance I liked. Since it's for Web use, I shot a JPG. I rarely use RAW. RAW is useful for fixing exposure mistakes. Amateurs (little Ansel Adamses) obsessed with tweaking their highlight and shadow detail get off on that. HDR becomes easily a gimmick. I don't care for gimmicks.
 
Originally Posted By: tom slick
I like the last two. I especially like the slight amount of detail the reflection in the car window gives. HDR could give that kind of shot an interesting look.

Do you use RAW or just work with jpg out of the camera?
I prefer the control of RAW for anything artistic but for quick shots I just use jpg.


it;s not about the RAW or JPG, but about the artistic qualities of the photo. have we learnt NOTHING
 
I just learned more about photography than I really want to know, actually. Where's my "delete" button?
LOL.gif
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

M
  • Locked
Peace Boat
Replies
3
Views
1K
LTVibe
Back
Top