Opinions on a photo,please?

reply to post by ArMaP


You can easily have emulsion in the film photography, when you apply it into the paper with liquid, but never heard of " scanning from to negative to digital emulsion ", do you have any examples to present me?

here is a video about liquid emulsion... www.youtube.com...

I studied photography, but the age that digital was not very wide spread... The digital cameras at that time were 2megapixel ! So even if I use exclusively digital at this point, I never seen that in a digital, or negative to digital scanning.

It looks like burned though, they pop out, they dont fit with the image. So its possibly a scratch or dirt...

See, pictures like this, I always cry 'bird'.

There are plenty of examples of high flying birds 'blurring' past the camera as the shot is taken. unnoticeable at the time of course and upon examination, looking like a strange artefact in the developed picture.

I seen a newspaper article shouting about a UFO sighting in the UK yesterday... in my mind, it was clearly a 'blurred bird".

reply to post by equinoxphil

Well,anything's possible-it could even be a blurred bird,i still haven't gotten around to looking at drones,i have to share my pc with my kids,will have a look around the net later,thanks for your input:-)

reply to post by Raxoxane


Hi I used your zoomed in image of the object duplicated it side by side a drew a red line around that area I am talking about.

Keep in mind this is a picture taken by a blackberry phone of a distant object a few pixels in size.



The left hand side shows a dotted line which I think is the top edge of the aircraft the bottom is in shadow which is consistent with the position of the sun in your picture. If you use the colour picker tool in a paint/editing package the area above and below the dotted line are a slightly different shade of grey which tricks the brain it making the circular shape from one end of the shadow area to the other.

Ploutonas
You can easily have emulsion in the film photography, when you apply it into the paper with liquid, but never heard of " scanning from to negative to digital emulsion ", do you have any examples to present me?

Did I say that?

I studied photography, but the age that digital was not very wide spread... The digital cameras at that time were 2megapixel ! So even if I use exclusively digital at this point, I never seen that in a digital, or negative to digital scanning.

Sorry, I don't understand what you mean by that.

reply to post by ArMaP


You did said something here... So you implying that the negative scanning process of the film had flaws, or the paper reacted bad with the scanner..

yeah never seen that...

reply to post by _BoneZ_


You have to be kidding here right? I shoot only digital using a wide range of cameras. Let me know what you want to see blurred!

ETA: Whether it be film or sensor, both do the same thing...Capture light. Blurring is caused (or not) by the apparatus ahead of the medium that being in this case the shutter speed used. If it takes a bird one second for a bird to fly from edge to edge of your captured frame and your shutter is open for a full second, the bird will move/blur across your film/sensor. Aircraft propellers become frozen when your slicing that same second into many thousandths. I really think your idea of digital cameras not producing blur is biased by not understanding the process coupled with a proliferation of automatic cameras which do not allow control of shutter, aperture and ISO settings which you are interpreting as what digital can or cannot do..

minkmouse
reply to post by _BoneZ_

 

You have to be kidding here right? I shoot only digital using a wide range of cameras. Let me know what you want to see blurred!

Yeah i looked at the raw data its been edited on paint now if the op wants to let us see the original taken on a blackberry we can discuss.

dragonridr

minkmouse
reply to post by _BoneZ_

 

You have to be kidding here right? I shoot only digital using a wide range of cameras. Let me know what you want to see blurred!

Yeah i looked at the raw data its been edited on paint now if the op wants to let us see the original taken on a blackberry we can discuss.

[/quote

Hi dragonridr,the first pic I posted is the original from my cell,the "gothic effect" one below that,was put through the Blame filter of the Photo Studio Pro app,the crops are from original photo-sorry you guys but about actual cameras I have no experience,not owning a decent one I have to use my BB's camera,which is not much of a camera to speak of-and the shutter speed is of course feeble-i will take a shot of some-one taking their first bite of a toasted cheese+ham+by the time the time the shot is "settled" they have finished the sandwich:-D I joke but its a pain in the ass-well one day I will propably have a Nikon or something decent.
Please let me know,what woulld you like me to add to the pics I posted,what I posted here is pretty much what I have,and btw I use Microsoft office 2010 to crop,I have'nt even figured out the cropper on Paint,that I use only for a more professional finish by adjusting the brightness+contrast just a tad,also it has some nifty special effects for the surrealism genre..I have to say,with all the filters Photo Studio Pro has,plus the normal adjistments for b rightness,contrast,saturation,etc it is the editing platform I use most,as I seldom do surrealism genre,and Paint has tools for that.

-it does'nt seem to be available for pc download,so I got Paint,but the vast majority of the time I use my cell+PSPro for any editing.
I don't really have more pics to add,but I could go on pc later+try to lighten the scene,the original photo, a bit with Paint,if that would help.Sorry I cannot join in a conversation about camera technicalities+functions+features,as I am a cell photographer,not being able to afford a decent "real" camera yet,so pardon please,if some photographic terms+talk of processing go right over my head:-)

reply to post by minkmouse


Your a bit late with that

www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by Raxoxane



The photo you uploaded has been edited in fact it was converted as well. The original photo was taken sept 1st at 12:31 it was a tiff file from a blackberry 9320. You convert it to Jpg When you re saved it in paint. You also lightened it and two other filters were used it goes to the paint.com to retrieve them so im not sure what they are. So send the original tiff file to an email address then pull it from there and post it online so we can see that. Once filters and cropping are used information is lost. By the way this explains those streaks everyone thinks is glass i believe you the window was down but you lightened the picture to much thinking it made a better picture.

Ploutonas
You did said something here... So you implying that the negative scanning process of the film had flaws, or the paper reacted bad with the scanner..

Yes, I said something, but nothing like what you said I did. Could you please show me what I really said that made you think that?

Thanks in advance.

reply to post by ArMaP


You wrote:

That NASA photo is an "old style", chemical photo that was scanned to be available online, it was not originally a digital photo.
I linked your msg : The emulsion is the layer of chemicals that allow the image to appear (either on the negative or on the paper), reacting to light and to the chemicals used to develop the photo. A flaw in the way that layer was put on the negative or on the paper (or a slight scratch) will make those areas react in a different way (specially in colour photos), as the layers are incomplete and react in a different way or not at all.

I hope that makes sense.

------------------------------------------------------

So you tell us that the photo was wrongly developed or scanned or the materials they used were bad, correct? Or the paper/negative have scratch's... Its not a scratch for sure and its not a dust on the lens. But never seen that effect in a scanning and if your paper while you develop is faulty, you just re-develop it. Its 2 small spots, so its not the developing in the paper.

And its not from amateur photographers, is from NASA, with billion of bucks in founding... Even though, my "cheap" equipment, never created such an effect.

I could give you a different theory, if we love to debunk it... The lower spot/object, looks like it have dodge and burn used, look around the object, the area is a bit dodged... So its more easier to say, that this spots are manipulation, or short of burns, by heat, meaning the negative is damaged, but not a fault due to development.

reply to post by dragonridr

Oh,ok i see.Right,i did put it on Paint,because then i hit "file' in the left corner and so make copies,from which to crop.I will send the original via email to myself,then save That one to one of my files+upload it from there,in fact i will send 3 of the same pic,to leave room for extras to be cropped,Lemme get on that.
SORRY guys(and gals) for all the trouble with the photo's-and thank you for the interest and input,now lemme go to that file+search the original pic again.

Ploutonas
So you tell us that the photo was wrongly developed or scanned or the materials they used were bad, correct?

No, I was talking about the ways a flaw in the emulsion may make something like that, that's why I talked about the negative and the paper and not just one. I was not talking about that specific photo.

But never seen that effect in a scanning and if your paper while you develop is faulty, you just re-develop it. Its 2 small spots, so its not the developing in the paper.

That's that "scanning" part I don't understand, as I didn't say that it happens during the scanning.

reply to post by Ploutonas

Ok,here are the originals i sent from my one gmail addy to the other-i will post crops again also,in a few minutes.

And here's the crops-sorry guys,this is what i have,with my limited knowledge of the tech side of photography,i can do no more.I uploaded the original pics from my pc files to my email addy,sent to my alternate addy+and from there i saved it in another pc file(also the crops)-and uploaded them to ATS from there-this is the best i can do at the level of knowledge of photographic matters+tech i operate from-thank you for your time,everyone.

Drones(God they are sinister things,to me anyway)
I was looking at designs,most seem to have a plane-like design,here is one of different design i put up for your consideration:

www.theguardian.com...

reply to post by Raxoxane

Also found this pic in my drone searches:

forgetomori.com...

reply to post by Raxoxane

Then there is This,which SEEMS to look exactly like the one in my pics

whofortedblog.com...



edit: crop added: