A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Digital Photography » Digital Photography
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Digitally altered images.....



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old November 1st 16, 06:56 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
PeterN
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,039
Default Digitally altered images.....

On 10/31/2016 5:30 AM, David Taylor wrote:
What about the image he


http://www.esa.int/spaceinimages/Ima...a_over_Iceland


the full resolution version:


http://www.esa.int/var/esa/storage/i...er_Iceland.jpg


Digitally altered or genuine?


Is the subject digitally
altered, except for cropping?

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/_DSC3189.jpg



--
PeterN
  #12  
Old November 2nd 16, 03:18 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Ron C
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 415
Default Digitally altered images.....

On 10/31/2016 8:47 PM, Ron C wrote:
On 10/31/2016 4:48 PM, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
Ron C wrote:
On 10/31/2016 2:35 PM, David Taylor wrote:
On 31/10/2016 16:13, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
[]
Why would you suspect it is "altered"? Looks perfectly normal...

Maybe you are not familiar with Auroral displays?

Yes, I am familiar with auroral displays, but this one looked rather
unusual.

The sequence of shots is awesome.


There is no sequence, just one single exposure. The web
site lists 3 seconds, at ISO 1600, using a 14mm f2.8
lens using a Canon 5Dmii camera.

That looks to be exactly the case too. The moon and the
landscape are all perfectly sharp. There are stars
showing in the sky, and they are just barely "out of
round", as one might expect with a 14mm lens and a 3
second exposure.

He doesn't say what the aperture is, but my guess is at
or nearly at wide open.

It appears that his camera configuration is very close to
optimal! Any faster on the shutter speed and a fast moving
Auroral display will actually blur. There is a limit to the
useful ISO with a 5Dmii camera, so it is very hard to fault
the exposure.

It's a very nice shot!

http://imglf1.ph.126.net/8p5mCBTbJyc...3235368452.jpg


For what it's worth:
Sorry for being so terse. I was in the middle of some intense
trick-or-treat door answering (I do a whole big production)
plus had an injured cat to tend too. [Not that anyone here
might care.]
Anyway, glad to have found and provided that pointer to
more on that photo.
==
Later...
Ron C
--

  #13  
Old November 2nd 16, 03:49 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Floyd L. Davidson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,138
Default Digitally altered images.....

Ron C wrote:
On 10/31/2016 8:47 PM, Ron C wrote:
On 10/31/2016 4:48 PM, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
Ron C wrote:
On 10/31/2016 2:35 PM, David Taylor wrote:
On 31/10/2016 16:13, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
[]
Why would you suspect it is "altered"? Looks perfectly normal...

Maybe you are not familiar with Auroral displays?

Yes, I am familiar with auroral displays, but this one looked rather
unusual.

The sequence of shots is awesome.

There is no sequence, just one single exposure. The web
site lists 3 seconds, at ISO 1600, using a 14mm f2.8
lens using a Canon 5Dmii camera.

That looks to be exactly the case too. The moon and the
landscape are all perfectly sharp. There are stars
showing in the sky, and they are just barely "out of
round", as one might expect with a 14mm lens and a 3
second exposure.

He doesn't say what the aperture is, but my guess is at
or nearly at wide open.

It appears that his camera configuration is very close to
optimal! Any faster on the shutter speed and a fast moving
Auroral display will actually blur. There is a limit to the
useful ISO with a 5Dmii camera, so it is very hard to fault
the exposure.

It's a very nice shot!

http://imglf1.ph.126.net/8p5mCBTbJyc...3235368452.jpg


For what it's worth:
Sorry for being so terse. I was in the middle of some intense
trick-or-treat door answering (I do a whole big production)
plus had an injured cat to tend too. [Not that anyone here
might care.]
Anyway, glad to have found and provided that pointer to
more on that photo.
==
Later...
Ron C


Yes! Thank you very much. The sequence is far more interesting that just
the one image, nice as it was.

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/
Utqiagvik (Barrow, Alaska)
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Nikon photo contest duped guy who altered image PeterN[_6_] Digital Photography 2 February 4th 16 04:37 PM
Digitally Depressed ~~NoMad~~ Digital Photography 4 December 4th 05 02:51 PM
Tallinn, yours digitally Jouko Vierumäki Digital Photography 2 February 5th 05 10:23 AM
senior portraits, digitally George Digital Photography 8 October 7th 04 05:32 AM
Recovering altered jpegs John Tomasi Digital Photography 34 August 19th 04 08:47 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:59 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.