Nicely Posed in the Snowstorm

On Mon, 08 Feb 2010 17:00:08 -0600, Observant One wrote:
: On Mon, 08 Feb 2010 17:14:53 -0500, M-M wrote:
:
: In article ,
: George Kerby wrote:
:
: http://www.mhmyers.com/d80/DSC_21427w.jpg
:
:
: Being a native Houstonian, I never realized the soft reflectivity factor of
: snow, since it is so rare here. I assume that is what is providing the light
: on the birds' bellies. Very interesting.
:
: That, but a little Photoshop helped also
:
: Interesting also that when you take a photo of snow on a sunny day, it
: comes out blue- reflecting the sky.
:
: Composition is pretty bad overall, but with some strong cropping you could
: still get a decent composition out of it because the birds posed themselves
: fairly nicely.
:
: But why is it so blurry? Shot through a few panes of glass or something?
:
: Looks more like the DOF is so shallow that only the mid-point of the twig
: the male cardinal is sitting on is the part in focus. Aren't those giant
: sensors and huge apertures wonderful?
:
: Just checked the EXIF. Sheesh, f/5.6 and you still couldn't get both birds
: in focus. Yeah, I'll pass on those kinds of cameras, thanks anyway. When
: I'm shooting wildlife I have to make sure I have a useful image when I get
: back home.

Guffaw!!

If simpleton trolls like you didn't exist, we might have to invent one now and
then, just to remember what a hearty belly laugh feels like in these trying
times.

Bob

On Mon, 08 Feb 2010 19:57:23 -0600, Observant One wrote:
: On Mon, 08 Feb 2010 20:40:40 -0500, M-M wrote:
:
: In article ,
: Observant One wrote:
:
: Shot through a few panes of glass or something?
:
:
: That and the heat coming out of the house.
:
: Why was there heat coming out of the house? Shooting through an open
: window? If so, then you can't blame the glass. If it was closed then you
: can't blame the heat. Which is it? ...

He wasn't "blaming" anything, you stupid twerp. His is a better picture than
any you ever took, and you damn well know that we all know it. ;^)

Bob

On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 21:28:43 -0500, Robert Coe wrote:

On Mon, 08 Feb 2010 17:14:53 -0500, M-M wrote:
: In article ,
: George Kerby wrote:
:
: http://www.mhmyers.com/d80/DSC_21427w.jpg
:
:
: Being a native Houstonian, I never realized the soft reflectivity factor of
: snow, since it is so rare here. I assume that is what is providing the light
: on the birds' bellies. Very interesting.
:
: That, but a little Photoshop helped also
:
: Interesting also that when you take a photo of snow on a sunny day, it
: comes out blue- reflecting the sky.

Snow scenes tend to be so monochromatic that one can often set the white
balance to almost any value and still get an interesting result. (Not the case
with your cardinals, of course.)

Bob

Adequately proving that you've never used any camera in your lifetime. In
sunlight the sunlit patches of snow will be tinted to 6500 Kelvin, those in
shade tinted by the blue sky, nearer to 9300K. If they are not balanced
properly it will not look correct. The same two shades of white are also
used by every painter who has ever painted a snow-covered house, field, or
mountain. During sunrise and sunset then you also have to include hues of
red, purple, and even greens. No different than clouds in a sunset due to
the subtle shades occurring in the alpenglow and alpen-scheine bands in the
sky, clouds present or not.

Go back to whatever other discussion groups where you can still pretend
that you are fooling people with your "expertise". You'll be happier there,
rather than you constantly being revealed as an ignorant troll in this one.

On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 21:33:14 -0600, Cal Rollins
wrote:

On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 21:28:43 -0500, Robert Coe wrote:

On Mon, 08 Feb 2010 17:14:53 -0500, M-M wrote:
: In article ,
: George Kerby wrote:
:
: http://www.mhmyers.com/d80/DSC_21427w.jpg
:
:
: Being a native Houstonian, I never realized the soft reflectivity factor of
: snow, since it is so rare here. I assume that is what is providing the light
: on the birds' bellies. Very interesting.
:
: That, but a little Photoshop helped also
:
: Interesting also that when you take a photo of snow on a sunny day, it
: comes out blue- reflecting the sky.

Snow scenes tend to be so monochromatic that one can often set the white
balance to almost any value and still get an interesting result. (Not the case
with your cardinals, of course.)

Bob

Adequately proving that you've never used any camera in your lifetime. In
sunlight the sunlit patches of snow will be tinted to 6500 Kelvin, those in
shade tinted by the blue sky, nearer to 9300K. If they are not balanced
properly it will not look correct. The same two shades of white are also
used by every painter who has ever painted a snow-covered house, field, or
mountain. During sunrise and sunset then you also have to include hues of
red, purple, and even greens. No different than clouds in a sunset due to
the subtle shades occurring in the alpenglow and alpen-scheine bands in the
sky, clouds present or not.

Sample of snow colors in sunlight and shade, captured around 9am.

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4052/...99948fca_o.jpg

If your photos are not representing snow in those warmer and cooler hues in
sunlight and shade, then you should look up "white balance settings" in
your camera manual. Because it's obviously something that you have
overlooked or failed to implement correctly. These problems of all gray or
all blue snows are mostly caused by rank-amateurs due to leaving the camera
set on their snapshooter's auto-everything dependency. Using auto
white-balance will tend to wipe out the important colors or shift them in
error, just as it will do the same for sunrises and sunsets.

The only times where there is an exception is in the deeply packed snows of
glaciers and icebergs where the natural blue color of water will be
strongly apparent when light is passing through it. Contrary to the colors
of surface snows with light only reflecting off of it.

To further educate the foolish trolls that will no doubt make their typical
idiotic comments ... no that is not sensor noise nor hot-pixels in the
example photo, that is the sunlight glinting off of snowflakes. A large
percentage of them lost due to downsizing. The individual pixels of
glinting snowflakes being combined into non-glinting neighbor pixels.

Cal Rollins wrote:
[whatever]

You are never running out of new fake names, are you?

jue

On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 20:50:46 -0800, Jürgen Exner
wrote:

Cal Rollins wrote:
[whatever]

You are never running out of new fake names, are you?

jue

Show us your birth-certificate, you useless **** of a troll. Let us all
know when you plan to *ever* contribute *any* valid information about
photography. We'll alert all those that have long since put you in their
kill-filters years ago.

On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 22:46:09 -0600, Cal Rollins
wrote:

On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 21:33:14 -0600, Cal Rollins
wrote:

On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 21:28:43 -0500, Robert Coe wrote:

On Mon, 08 Feb 2010 17:14:53 -0500, M-M wrote:
: In article ,
: George Kerby wrote:
:
: http://www.mhmyers.com/d80/DSC_21427w.jpg
:
:
: Being a native Houstonian, I never realized the soft reflectivity factor of
: snow, since it is so rare here. I assume that is what is providing the light
: on the birds' bellies. Very interesting.
:
: That, but a little Photoshop helped also
:
: Interesting also that when you take a photo of snow on a sunny day, it
: comes out blue- reflecting the sky.

Snow scenes tend to be so monochromatic that one can often set the white
balance to almost any value and still get an interesting result. (Not the case
with your cardinals, of course.)

Bob

Adequately proving that you've never used any camera in your lifetime. In
sunlight the sunlit patches of snow will be tinted to 6500 Kelvin, those in
shade tinted by the blue sky, nearer to 9300K. If they are not balanced
properly it will not look correct. The same two shades of white are also
used by every painter who has ever painted a snow-covered house, field, or
mountain. During sunrise and sunset then you also have to include hues of
red, purple, and even greens. No different than clouds in a sunset due to
the subtle shades occurring in the alpenglow and alpen-scheine bands in the
sky, clouds present or not.

Sample of snow colors in sunlight and shade, captured around 9am.

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4052/...99948fca_o.jpg

If your photos are not representing snow in those warmer and cooler hues in
sunlight and shade, then you should look up "white balance settings" in
your camera manual. Because it's obviously something that you have
overlooked or failed to implement correctly. These problems of all gray or
all blue snows are mostly caused by rank-amateurs due to leaving the camera
set on their snapshooter's auto-everything dependency. Using auto
white-balance will tend to wipe out the important colors or shift them in
error, just as it will do the same for sunrises and sunsets.

The only times where there is an exception is in the deeply packed snows of
glaciers and icebergs where the natural blue color of water will be
strongly apparent when light is passing through it. Contrary to the colors
of surface snows with light only reflecting off of it.

To further educate the foolish trolls that will no doubt make their typical
idiotic comments ... no that is not sensor noise nor hot-pixels in the
example photo, that is the sunlight glinting off of snowflakes. A large
percentage of them lost due to downsizing. The individual pixels of
glinting snowflakes being combined into non-glinting neighbor pixels.

An interesting optical illusion, or a factual representation of the fractal
nature of nature.

When this snow sample photo is inverted and a slight gaussian-blur applied
to it to disguise the pointillistic effect of the individual snowflakes,
except for brighter glinting snowflakes that somewhat remain, it now
becomes indistinguishable from high cirrus clouds photographed with the
available color temperatures of mid-morning sunlight.

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4013/...1c8efa99_o.jpg

Fellow science, math, physics, art, and photography officianados might find
this interesting.

On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 21:33:14 -0600, Cal Rollins wrote:
: On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 21:28:43 -0500, Robert Coe wrote:
:
: On Mon, 08 Feb 2010 17:14:53 -0500, M-M wrote:
: : In article ,
: : George Kerby wrote:
: :
: : http://www.mhmyers.com/d80/DSC_21427w.jpg
: :
: :
: : Being a native Houstonian, I never realized the soft reflectivity factor of
: : snow, since it is so rare here. I assume that is what is providing the light
: : on the birds' bellies. Very interesting.
: :
: : That, but a little Photoshop helped also
: :
: : Interesting also that when you take a photo of snow on a sunny day, it
: : comes out blue- reflecting the sky.
:
: Snow scenes tend to be so monochromatic that one can often set the white
: balance to almost any value and still get an interesting result. (Not the case
: with your cardinals, of course.)
:
: Bob
:
: Adequately proving that you've never used any camera in your lifetime. In
: sunlight the sunlit patches of snow will be tinted to 6500 Kelvin, those in
: shade tinted by the blue sky, nearer to 9300K. If they are not balanced
: properly it will not look correct. The same two shades of white are also
: used by every painter who has ever painted a snow-covered house, field, or
: mountain. During sunrise and sunset then you also have to include hues of
: red, purple, and even greens. No different than clouds in a sunset due to
: the subtle shades occurring in the alpenglow and alpen-scheine bands in the
: sky, clouds present or not.
:
: Go back to whatever other discussion groups where you can still pretend
: that you are fooling people with your "expertise". You'll be happier there,
: rather than you constantly being revealed as an ignorant troll in this one.

I've lived in snowy areas longer than you've been alive, Jack, and you are as
full of **** as a Christmas goose.

Bob

"Robert Coe" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 21:33:14 -0600, Cal Rollins
wrote:
: On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 21:28:43 -0500, Robert Coe wrote:
:
: On Mon, 08 Feb 2010 17:14:53 -0500, M-M wrote:
: : In article ,
: : George Kerby wrote:
: :
: : http://www.mhmyers.com/d80/DSC_21427w.jpg
: :
: :
: : Being a native Houstonian, I never realized the soft reflectivity
factor of
: : snow, since it is so rare here. I assume that is what is providing
the light
: : on the birds' bellies. Very interesting.
: :
: : That, but a little Photoshop helped also
: :
: : Interesting also that when you take a photo of snow on a sunny day,
it
: : comes out blue- reflecting the sky.
:
: Snow scenes tend to be so monochromatic that one can often set the
white
: balance to almost any value and still get an interesting result. (Not
the case
: with your cardinals, of course.)
:
: Bob
:
: Adequately proving that you've never used any camera in your lifetime.
In
: sunlight the sunlit patches of snow will be tinted to 6500 Kelvin, those
in
: shade tinted by the blue sky, nearer to 9300K. If they are not balanced
: properly it will not look correct. The same two shades of white are also
: used by every painter who has ever painted a snow-covered house, field,
or
: mountain. During sunrise and sunset then you also have to include hues
of
: red, purple, and even greens. No different than clouds in a sunset due
to
: the subtle shades occurring in the alpenglow and alpen-scheine bands in
the
: sky, clouds present or not.
:
: Go back to whatever other discussion groups where you can still pretend
: that you are fooling people with your "expertise". You'll be happier
there,
: rather than you constantly being revealed as an ignorant troll in this
one.

I've lived in snowy areas longer than you've been alive, Jack, and you are
as
full of **** as a Christmas goose.

Ignore the stupidity.

BTW I and some of the guys from my CC made reservations for NECCC at Amherst
in July. Will you be there?


--
Peter

On Fri, 12 Feb 2010 20:55:31 -0500, Robert Coe wrote:

On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 21:33:14 -0600, Cal Rollins wrote:
: On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 21:28:43 -0500, Robert Coe wrote:
:
: On Mon, 08 Feb 2010 17:14:53 -0500, M-M wrote:
: : In article ,
: : George Kerby wrote:
: :
: : http://www.mhmyers.com/d80/DSC_21427w.jpg
: :
: :
: : Being a native Houstonian, I never realized the soft reflectivity factor of
: : snow, since it is so rare here. I assume that is what is providing the light
: : on the birds' bellies. Very interesting.
: :
: : That, but a little Photoshop helped also
: :
: : Interesting also that when you take a photo of snow on a sunny day, it
: : comes out blue- reflecting the sky.
:
: Snow scenes tend to be so monochromatic that one can often set the white
: balance to almost any value and still get an interesting result. (Not the case
: with your cardinals, of course.)
:
: Bob
:
: Adequately proving that you've never used any camera in your lifetime. In
: sunlight the sunlit patches of snow will be tinted to 6500 Kelvin, those in
: shade tinted by the blue sky, nearer to 9300K. If they are not balanced
: properly it will not look correct. The same two shades of white are also
: used by every painter who has ever painted a snow-covered house, field, or
: mountain. During sunrise and sunset then you also have to include hues of
: red, purple, and even greens. No different than clouds in a sunset due to
: the subtle shades occurring in the alpenglow and alpen-scheine bands in the
: sky, clouds present or not.
:
: Go back to whatever other discussion groups where you can still pretend
: that you are fooling people with your "expertise". You'll be happier there,
: rather than you constantly being revealed as an ignorant troll in this one.

I've lived in snowy areas longer than you've been alive, Jack, and you are as
full of **** as a Christmas goose.

Bob

Perhaps you should learn to see the snow as it actually is instead of how
you psychotically wish it looked. There's no **** about it, I posted proof.
Which you and other useless trolls like you conveniently ignore. Put those
blinders on and enjoy your bliss of self-induced ignorance some more, you
****ingly useless pretend-photographer idiot of troll. Wasting the time of
good people who have to go around cleaning up all the piles of
misinformation bull**** that you leave in your useless path through life.

Go back to whatever other discussion groups where you can still pretend
that you are fooling people with your "expertise" (i.e. ****ing bull****).
You'll be happier there, rather than you constantly being revealed as an
ignorant waste-of-life troll in this one.