>>>i met a movie director in the intelligence biz. he had a "book" of actors with security clearances. he said he did great work, had a lot of fun doing it and that none of us in the room would ever see his work. most people in the world wouldn't see it because the clearance level required to view it was quite restrictive. it's just interesting how much work goes on that no regular folks will ever see. the war on terror is much like that; many secret operations by people who will never be known. the world is much larger than we usually ever think about, heh?>>> Well, I will avoid the politics and simply say this: I work for clients with procedures to protect. Therefore, my NDA usually disallows public viewing. Simple as that. This AM, I photographed a laser system.
>>>reductio ad absurdam? sour grapes? >>> Gosh, it would explain quite a bit.
>>>what's a hypergon? It is an extremely wide angle lens, incorporating a "star fan." An air bulb makes the fan rotate to provide equal exposure to the edges of the negative. Scarce, but interesting. It will do things you cannot do with other lens types. (I said) "By the way, I AM NOT accusing anybody of posting images they did not create."
>>>it doesn't matter that you say that; you'll still be accused of it.>>> You miss my point. I wanted to avoid the suggestion that anyone on the list would steal an image and pass it off as her or her own. (I said) "It is easy to be something you are not on the web. I understand this all too well" >>>"the great thing about the internet is that no one knows you're a dog," heh?>>> Woof. (I said) "Earlier today, I was looking at a negative showing an empty ballroom. The people are "invisible," even though they were there when the image was made. I could post that image and then lie about it. I can tell you exactly how the picture was made, yet I would be doubted because I did not post the image." >>>i've always wondered about that and just assumed it was the result of a very long exposure, no? as a child growing up in washington, dc i always marveled at the lack of people in the picture postcards of the monuments and buildings that i saw that ALWAYS had people around them. when i got into photography i figured it was a pinhole sort of thing. but, really, i am curious how you would do that in the ballroom?>>> Exactly correct. VERY long exposures. The first such image I saw was in our files. It showed a dance floor sans people made somewhere around 1930 or so. My negative shows some ghosts, but it is still a nice image. There are problems when people remain stationary or when light catches something shiny, so in many cases, you will see "ghosts."
>>>i'm with you on the old technology. i argue with the woman with whom i teach that digital imaging is just that, "digital imaging", not photography. (i've noticed that many of the proponents of "digital imaging" talk about it like it's better than photography. they have passion in their voices and react as if being attacked. this, even after i've carefully pointed out that i own a digital camera, a purchased copy of photoshop and point out that as sexy as 4x5 negs are they are just overkill when your output is for a computer monitor; a matter of the right tool for the job. i never say that one is "better"; just that they are different. i must admit a little sadness that "photography" has become so "democratic". i imagine that oil painters must have felt the same way when photo came into being.)>>> I agree with the "overkill" when the images are destined for the web. I do think film is better, but that is just my opinion. I disagree that digital is not photography. It is just not my cup of tea. Bob ... Get more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.com |
