Re: Selfies

["Eichhorn, Roger" <eichhorn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

The only way that those beams would be visible is if light was scattered from them.  And, it would be blue in hue, scattered by the oxygen molecules as I recall.  As every  photographer should know that's why the sky is red near sunset.  It might be, if the flashlight had an LED source tuned to blue, that over time, enough light would be scattered to make the beam visible.  I don't think it would be with an incandescent source, but I don't have clear enough air to test it.  But then, maybe I do inside my house.  But then, any evidence of this would probably not be regarded as appropriate for this list.

roger

Sent from my iPad

On Jan 14, 2014, at 7:27 PM, "Randy Little" <randyslittle@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Roger what I posed is what the list was started as.   That was my only point.   I didn't write that THAT LIST CREATORS DID.   Russ Kraus and Andrew Davidhazy.  

I'm not bashing what you said at all.  Which is why I asked how you felt about the any possible addition and if you felt that effected the image.    I also then stated that I believe those lights are not added.  I don't know I wasn't there.  

Randy S. Little
http://www.rslittle.com/

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2325729/

On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 8:14 PM, Eichhorn, Roger <eichhorn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

I missed the "technical not the purpose of the list" in my reply.  The founder of the list is renowned for his contributions to the "technical" aspects of photography and has often sent us searching for his contributions.  I disagree with your assertion, but perhaps the list has morphed in such a way to exclude it.

roger

Sent from my iPad

On Jan 14, 2014, at 7:05 PM, "Eichhorn, Roger" <eichhorn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

I guess I'm an interested "other" and should just shut up and let you artists trash each other as you do so ably.  

roger

Sent from my iPad

On Jan 14, 2014, at 6:49 PM, "Randy Little" <randyslittle@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

I would have to say Roger that I don't believe them to be added.  

Andrew technique doesn't' discount technical but its not the purpose of the list.  

The PhotoForum is an educational network and databank established to serve the photographic and imaging communities in general with a medium for exchange of ideas and with an accessible databank of informational files about a wide variety of photo/imaging subjects.

A major goal of this network is to serve as a communications link for photo educators, and interested others, dedicated to discussion of photography and imaging including aesthetics, processes, history, digital imaging, instructional strategies, criticism, equipment and techniques, especially, but not exclusively, as these apply in an educational setting.

Randy S. Little
http://www.rslittle.com/

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2325729/

On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 7:42 PM, Jan Faul <jan@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Ahem. This began with an accusation of a detail being faked. how is that educational?

On Jan 14, 2014, at 7:34 PM, asharpe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

Because, Jan, we are perhaps "interested* in how the picture was created,
from a technical perspective, including your favorite minutiae. If this
*photography* group was simply an Art Appreciation group, I could
understand your lament, but actually, it is a group of *technical*
photography folks, who are indeed interested in a lot more than the
feeling and mood of a photograph. Certainly, from an art perspective,
those are very interesting, and warrant a lot of attention and discussion.
But to claim that discussions of small details are not germane to this
photography group is rather missing the entire point of this email list.


Andrew



On Tue, January 14, 2014 4:17 pm, Jan Faul wrote:

Just offhand, I would say he is equipped with a remote shutter release,

and also he’s done this more than a few times and is obviously no rank

amateur. He’s got a style, he knows his equipment, and he’s looking for

shots of a certain style.

I don’t understand why you guys fail to see the big picture and can only

complain about the itty bitty points an minutiae. Is it jealousy or what?

On Jan 14, 2014, at 7:05 PM, Eichhorn, Roger wrote:

Haunting photos, but doesn't the flashlight beam in some of them have

to be faked?   The air seems clear and how much blue will be in a

flashlight to scatter in the air unless it's an LED or Hg lamp.  And he

sat perfectly still while the star trail was being exposed?

r.

Sent from my iPad

On Jan 14, 2014, at 5:40 PM, "Jan Faul" <jan@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

http://news.yahoo.com/photos/photographer-puts-everyday-selfies-to-sh

ame-1389719641-slideshow/

Art Faul

The Artist Formerly Known as Prints

------

Art for Cars: art4carz.com

Stills That Move: http://www.artfaul.com

Greens: http://www.inkjetprince.com

Camera Works - The Washington Post

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/photo/battlefieldparks/front_qt.htm

ArtNet: http://www.artnet.com/artists/jan+w.-faul/

.

Art Faul

The Artist Formerly Known as Prints

------

Art for Cars: art4carz.com

Stills That Move: http://www.artfaul.com

Greens: http://www.inkjetprince.com

Camera Works - The Washington Post

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/photo/battlefieldparks/front_qt.htm

ArtNet: http://www.artnet.com/artists/jan+w.-faul/

.