[SI] Night Shots is posted!

On Sun, 2 Jan 2011 19:20:46 -0800 (PST), otter
wrote:

On Jan 1, 4:36*pm, Robert Coe wrote:
On Sun, 26 Dec 2010 09:29:31 -0500, Robert Coe wrote:

: On Fri, 24 Dec 2010 16:29:11 -0500, Bowser wrote:
: : On Fri, 24 Dec 2010 12:43:49 -0500, Robert Coe wrote:
: :
: : On Fri, 24 Dec 2010 08:42:48 -0500, Bowser wrote:
: : : Vampires rejoice, Night Shots is posted and available for viewing:
: : :
: : :http://www.pbase.com/shootin/nightshots
: : :
: : : If you're curious about the Shoot-In, and would like to submit photos,
: : : you can find all the into he
: : :
: : :http://www.pbase.com/shootin/rulzpage
: : :
: : : This is not a competition and there are no prizes, just the on-line
: : : comments from participants and viewers.
: : :
: : : Curious that the shooter who requested that this mandate be postponed
: : : didn't submit a shot...
: :
: : If you mean me, I'm working on it. I sent my three this morning, and I
: : promised Martha I'd submit one of hers. And she's still hoping to finally
: : get out tonight for a couple of Christmas light pix.
: :
: : Frankly, I got a bit blindsided. I didn't really look at the calendar,
: : and at first I thought you had postponed it a full week, until the Sunday
: : *after* Christmas. So a few days ago, when I discovered my error, it was
: : "Oh, ****!" time. *;^)
: :
: : OK, I convened an emergency meeting of the Shoot-In Advisory Group
: : Team Committee Board who have unanimously agreed to allow Martha's
: : late submission.
: :
: : ;-)
:
: She finally got to go on her "Christmas lights" photo shoot last night, and
: I sent her last two pictures in. Thanks for your patience!

Well, for whatever reason, none of Martha's three pictures ever got posted. We
did the best we could at a very busy time of the year, but I guess we came up
short. Sorry, folks.

Bob

Bob,
Maybe the SI coordinator was also very busy, and perhaps away from the
news group for a while. As I recall, though, the Committee Board did
rule in Martha's favor. Have you tried sending a personal email? Or
perhaps editing the subject of the thread to draw attention? Here,
let me try that for you.

The Board has once again ruled in favor, and the additional shots have
been posted. Sorry for the delay, I've been out of touch lately.

http://www.pbase.com/shootin/nightshots

On 11.01.03 8:21 , Bowser wrote:

I've been out of touch lately.

I'll be gentlemanly about that one ...

--
gmail originated posts filtered due to spam.

otter wrote in news:49fe6a43-10f8-4b0b-aef7-
:

On Dec 24, 8:54*pm, otter wrote:

Tom Yost: *I like the San Diego Trolley colors and composition. *A
little on the dark side.

Hey Tom, do I have your permission to play with this picture in
photoshop?

Please do! I would be interested to see what you come up with.

Sorry for the late response, my ISP (cox) has dropped usenet, so I usually
read/post from work and I've been out of the office for the holiday.

Thanks to all who have commented. These are my first contributions to the
shoot-in and actually first I've ever had my photos submitted for critical
scruntiny... Hey, my mom thinks they are great! ;-)

On 2011-01-03 13:21:54 +0000, Bowser said:

...
The Board has once again ruled in favor, and the additional shots have
been posted. Sorry for the delay, I've been out of touch lately.

http://www.pbase.com/shootin/nightshots

Thanks for you images, Martha, definitely worth the wait.

1: Intriguing. Two things have me puzzled: the inverted reflections of
the candle flames and the halos around the flames.

2 & 3: The shadow areas in these JPEGs are spot-on. I've viewed them on
my monitor both with and without it's colour-correction profile:
impressive either way. I bet they would look stunning on a good CRT or
plasma screen, especially image 3.

As you and Bob are always busy and I have too much time on my hands,
please feel free to lend me a good plasma screen so I can fully
appreciate you excellent photography ;-)

--
Pete

On Mon, 03 Jan 2011 09:05:11 -0500, Alan Browne
wrote:

On 11.01.03 8:21 , Bowser wrote:

I've been out of touch lately.

I'll be gentlemanly about that one ...

Spoken like a true polite Canadian.

Bowser wrote:
The Board has once again ruled in favor, and the additional shots have
been posted. Sorry for the delay, I've been out of touch lately.

http://www.pbase.com/shootin/nightshots

I like the candelabra. Nice soft glow and just enough background.

On 11.01.03 17:13 , Bowser wrote:
On Mon, 03 Jan 2011 09:05:11 -0500, Alan Browne
wrote:

On 11.01.03 8:21 , Bowser wrote:

I've been out of touch lately.

I'll be gentlemanly about that one ...

Spoken like a true polite Canadian.

Can be remedied quickly.

--
gmail originated posts filtered due to spam.

On Jan 3, 7:21*am, Bowser wrote:
On Sun, 2 Jan 2011 19:20:46 -0800 (PST), otter
The Board has once again ruled in favor, and the additional shots have
been posted. Sorry for the delay, I've been out of touch lately.

http://www.pbase.com/shootin/nightshots


I like Martha's shot of the barn or garage or whatever it is.
Including the icy road in the foreground makes this image.


--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

On 2011-01-02 03:51:57 +0000, Paul Furman said:

Pete wrote:
Eric Stevens said:
Pete wrote:

http://www.tinyurl.com/2w2uvdy

I found that a very interesting picture. All of the lines of
light-reflection on the water are slightly curved. I don't think that
this can be due to any form of lens distortion as as the curvature
appears to be uniform across all cases. The explanation is, I think,
that the surface of the water is a slightly curved mirror. What we are
seeing is the effect of a (tidal?) current affecting the height of the
water surface. Bernoulli's theorm says the water level should be
slightly lower where the tide is flowing fastest and thanks to your
photograph we can see this on the surface of the harbour.

The image in the link above was taken when the tidal water was flowing
from left to right (downstream); the tide was dropping at the rate of
0.44 m per hour.

Confirmed :-)

After almost endless web searches I conclude that the curved
reflections are unlikely to be caused by the Bernoulli effect because
the velocity of the current reaches only 1 knot in this part of the
channel.

One possibility is that the wind caused the water level to change near
the sho the wind at the time was NNW 2 to 6 knots (it was aligned
downstream) and the camera was pointing towards NE. From what I've read
it would need an onshore wind (coming from the NE) to make the water
level rise near the shore. The velocities seem too low to cause the
curved reflections. However, shots taken from the same point on other
nights show either no curvature or similar curvature.

Another possibility is wave energy propagation from the sea into an
estuary. Could wave diffraction have something to do with this
curvature? A sequence of shots taken with shutter times from 1 to 30
seconds show no difference in the curvature when present or
straightness when absent.

In future, I'll record both tidal and wind data in the EXIF comment
field. If I had the stamina I'd take time lapse sequences between high
and low tides on different occasions. Evidently, water is not as flat
as one might expect.

--
Pete

On Fri, 7 Jan 2011 19:05:30 +0000, Pete
wrote:

On 2011-01-02 03:51:57 +0000, Paul Furman said:

Pete wrote:
Eric Stevens said:
Pete wrote:

http://www.tinyurl.com/2w2uvdy

I found that a very interesting picture. All of the lines of
light-reflection on the water are slightly curved. I don't think that
this can be due to any form of lens distortion as as the curvature
appears to be uniform across all cases. The explanation is, I think,
that the surface of the water is a slightly curved mirror. What we are
seeing is the effect of a (tidal?) current affecting the height of the
water surface. Bernoulli's theorm says the water level should be
slightly lower where the tide is flowing fastest and thanks to your
photograph we can see this on the surface of the harbour.

The image in the link above was taken when the tidal water was flowing
from left to right (downstream); the tide was dropping at the rate of
0.44 m per hour.

Confirmed :-)

After almost endless web searches I conclude that the curved
reflections are unlikely to be caused by the Bernoulli effect because
the velocity of the current reaches only 1 knot in this part of the
channel.

One possibility is that the wind caused the water level to change near
the sho the wind at the time was NNW 2 to 6 knots (it was aligned
downstream) and the camera was pointing towards NE. From what I've read
it would need an onshore wind (coming from the NE) to make the water
level rise near the shore. The velocities seem too low to cause the
curved reflections. However, shots taken from the same point on other
nights show either no curvature or similar curvature.

Another possibility is wave energy propagation from the sea into an
estuary. Could wave diffraction have something to do with this
curvature? A sequence of shots taken with shutter times from 1 to 30
seconds show no difference in the curvature when present or
straightness when absent.

In future, I'll record both tidal and wind data in the EXIF comment
field. If I had the stamina I'd take time lapse sequences between high
and low tides on different occasions. Evidently, water is not as flat
as one might expect.

I hadn't meant to start you on this but seeing you are underway I will
join you. :-)

I hadn't thought of the curvature as being due to the wind so much as
it is due to tidal effects. 1 knot of tide flow is likely to cause a
depression of about 1" in the local water level. 2 knots is worth
about 4" etc.

Apart from that, whenever there is flow, friction requires that there
be a slope in the local hydraulic grade line. So, if there are fast
and slow local tidal currents the surface of the sea will be neither
flat nor level. It is with the aid of this slightly wiggly mirror that
your photograph reflects the ships and the lights on the far side of
the harbour.

In your case, the surface of the sea is acting as a slightly curved
mirror. The important part of the curvature causes the reflected light
path to be concave to the left (?). I'm having to say this from memory
as the site is currently down. That says to me that relative to the
far side of the harbour, the near side of the water flow is slightly
tilted with the left side being high. This will be due to the very
slight gradient required to induce water flow from left to right.

What the current is doing on the far side of the harbour is a mystery
to me but I expect that local yachtsmen will be familiar with it.



Eric Stevens