Craig Lamson

While I do not care to turn another JFK related thread into a 'Jack White moon session' ... dgh: surely you jest? I sincerely have my doubts about it being scotch tape. I recall when the Apollo 13 crew had their air tank problem and how they were forced to invent a rig to fix the situation - they had used duct tape. One other thing, your moon-flag photos are different. Note the angle difference and the dark spot at the upper right of the flag. In other words, these are two different photo sessions. That would certainly account for the changing light conditions. Have you examined this series of pictures for information about the lighting? How do you know where the sun was located? Bill Miller A faked photo is a faked photo...whether JFK or Apollo...and the govt specializes in creating them. Maybe Miller and Lamson can explain this one. NASA refused. Jack Take it to another thread Jack..in fact this has been explained elsewhere on this forum.

Agreed. Jack sadly appears to be paranoid and/or confused. Andy...I am surprised that an educator would make such a statement WITHOUT DOING HIS HOMEWORK. Here is your assignment: Jack's websites: http://library.uta.edu/findingAids/AR407.jsp http://www.911studies.com/911photostudies109.htm http://www.911studies.com/911photostudies1.htm http://www.aulis.com/jackstudies_index1.html http://www.aulis.com/skeleton.html http://users.skynet.be/copweb/jfk/A%20Trib...ack%20White.htm http://www.fortwortharchitecture.com/oldftw/oldftw.htm also... http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/081269547...ce&n=283155 http://www.jfkresearch.com/armstrong/ Get back to us after doing your homework. There will be a test. Jack LOL! Just a few weeks ago on this forum Jack White told us he had no website, and now in his last post he lists NINE WEBSITES under the heading...Jacks Websites. Clearly Andy was right on one count...Jack is confused.

Two different images Jack. Deal with the iniital question THEN we can get back to this one (which by the way has been handled over on the Apollo thread) In your inital post the photographer/astronaut is NOT standing in the shade. How do we know? First based on an understanding of the LM and second...SUNLIGHT IS STRIKING THE LEN! If sunlight is reaching the lens then it is also reaching the suit of the astronaut. End of story. You do understand this righ? Sheesh Jack! There are specular highlights ALL OVER the gold mylar being caused by the reflectivity of the lunar surface. Couple that with EXPOSING FOR THE LIGHT LEVEL IN THE SHADE and you have your answer. Also since you have not posted the image number how do we know the astronaut is in the shade? Added on edit: OK I went out and found the image in question, AS17-140-21370 Jack has this image number incorrect on his Aulis page. Anyway, what Jack is not telling you is that he cropped this image very tightly, REMOVING the parts that show the astronaut WAS NOT in the shade. What is important is that the lunar surface and the EXPOSURE setting that illuminates the shadow side of the LM

Mark Stapleton wrote: "Craig, I'm glad you stated that you want to empower us to succeed. That's great. Thanks. I have a question for you. I don't like putting Forum members on the spot like this. One can usually guess where someone stands on the larger question of who killed JFK by the tone and content of their posts over a given period of time but I've never read any substantive post from you indicating where you stand on this larger question. You seem to play your cards close to your chest. Lots of put downs of other members, but nothing indicating where you stand. Well, what's your opinion? This is an assassination forum, after all. Personal responsibilty for your own carefully considered opinion is what it's all about, not a free ride on the back of the opinion of others. My current position is that I believe US armaments manufacturers, LBJ and US and Israeli military intelligence conspired to kill JFK, with possible assistance from moneyed interests, maybe even Howard Hughes. I take personal responsibilty for this view. Who do you think killed JFK?" Actually I've made statements similar to this one on this forum when asked. I don't really have an opinion on who killed JFK. If I had to lean one way or the other I'd put my money on Oswald but I've not spent enough time dealing with all the crap to have developed an informed opinion. I'm not actually all that concerned with the continuing investigation as to who "might" have done it because I don't think it has any real relevance anymore. I also believe that if it somehow it was proven that the government/military/big oil/ castro/etc were the real killers nothing would change. My interest in JFK is the photos, since photography is my background. I find it simulating and very entertaining. I actually was "forced" to deal with the JFK images due to my past membership at the DellaRosa Forum. I joined that forum to deal with the sillyness of the "Apollo was faked " works of Jack White. Needless to say they were not too thrilled that I and a few others were poking holes in their man White's BS. So it was deal with JFK or leave, so I took a look at the "photo research" in the JFK case. In the process I became involved with a number of other JFK researchers from both sides of the case and we did some projects togeter, which have been published on the web. Beyond I find reading the daily fare here is amusing to say the least. I take personal responsibility for this view.

It is not a direct result of capitalism you bonehead, it is a dirct result of workers agreeing to support each other through insurance donations. Whose wealth am I stealing, I have worked bloody hard for more than 35 years, and brought up two children who now in their turn work bloody hard. Oh am fed up argueing the toss with a neathandal like you. What horsehockey. Who and what provides the JOBS for those workers. WHO or WHAT risked personal capital to CREATE to companies and products that provides the WORKERS A PLACE TO WORK! Sheesh..its capitalism. I''m having a ball watching "the progressives like you "stick you foot in you mouth". Whos wealth are you stealing? Those you have forced to pay against their will. Or are you going to try and tell me EVERYONE agrees? What are you so scared of Craig. You reek of it from every pore. Scared? of what. A failed way of life? Not hardly. Its you who should be scared of of your mind. As I dont live in a Socialist country I guess I will never find out. What kind of ultra right winger actually thinks Britains political system is Socialist, Blair worships at the cradle of the Market almost as much as Bush. Do your homework Oh there is PLENTY of socialism in your country. You should be very happy Blair understands the value of the market...after all its the fuel for your socialist "safety net". Without it your net is gone.

You really dont have a very high opinion of your fellow Humans do you Craig? Every single one of them out to screw you, do you down, live the high life on your precious tax Dollars. Given the precarious nature of Capitalism I am very glad we have a safety net, (imperfect as it is) Long may it continue to offer basic protection to me and my children. and by extention everybody else's children as well. No I have a VERY high opinion of my fellow human beings. I WANT them to succeed. I want to EMPOWER them, not destroy thier will, which is what happens to those in a welfare state. Your "safety net" is a direct result of capitalism. Exactly where do you think the money comes from? The Socialist fairy? What will you do when those who create the weath you gladly steal decide enough is enough? You are the perfect example of the failure of socialism. Instead of taking the personal responsibality to provide for the "basic protection" of you and your children, you expect SOMEONE ELSE to surrender their person property to support you! You are the perfect political pawn....beholden to others, not responsibile for yourself. How sad. And on the government dole to boot! No wonder you like the system...it frees you from personal responsibilty and frees you from being a failure. Socialism has always been a failure. It will fail for you too. .

And the conservative is hellbent on making sure it stays just that way - unfair. Conservatives always have the attitude: I'm ok, the hell if I care about you. They oppossed an end to slavery and we'd have it still if it were up to conservatives. They oppossed women's rights or rights for non-whites and we'd have it still if it were up to conservatives. They oppossed the eight hour day and all other labor laws and we'd have them still if it were up to conservatives. et al........ad nauseum They oppose any kind of social services, welfare, safety nets, help for those in need, progress - domestic and foreign. They always always seem to like conflict, war, injustice - as long as they are on the 'winning' end of it. Exploitation....always been that way...no reason to change it if it 'aint broke. I've got enough or lots of money - so why bother me about those that do not....they made 'their choice' I helped make for them. It is 'broken'.....has long been...slowly we fight the Neaderthal in humans and make some slow progress. It is not that a lack of life being fair is the continuous factor - but selfishness, ignorance and a lack of altruism. We all once lived in the sea - things can change.....try it sometime. Change - positive change [Lemkin] You paint with such a wonderful broad brush, too bad you loaded it with BS before it hit the canvas. Take another sip of the koolaid Peter, you appear thirsty. [Lamson] ------ I am not in the least changed in my opinion as being correctly and virtuously representing the majority on the planet - more so when the 'reply' is a one-liner put-down without substance. How do you define: Justice, morality, fairness, equality - or are they just abstractions you don't care to be bothered about because you've 'got yours'. Might is not right. Riches make not morality. Fairness is for all not just you and your buddies. Etc. I'll let the majority on the planet [get it demos..democracy] decide - and history. There have always been those who oppose progress toward a better, more equal, more just, more fair, more progresive world...they are always the minority, sadly more often in control - or in their circles. They often spout 'democracy' but really like oligarchy or rigged heirarchy of some sort. Maybe you'll change, but even if you don't you are in a minority in America and a miniscule minority worldwide. The opposite is the religion of greed, domination, inequality, control, manipulation, cynicism. Your 'reality' is continuation of an artificial nightmare for most at the hands of the few, if we do not try to change it. IMO - My 'broad brush' is only broad in that it encompasses everyone - even the planet and all its nature of which we are not masters, but an integral part. The domination paradigm has gotten us exactly where we are and should not be - and won't be 'zip' if we don't soon change. -Lemkin --------- I find credible you believe your claim that 'greed is good' and that 'I hope my Haliburton stock price goes up' and that you don't much care about what those trying to change things in a postive way are doing...so my question. Why are you here in this Forum then?...why not watch your stocks and indulge in your toys and bounty of the greed.....do you have an agenda or job here bothering/thwarting/wasting time of those who are [by your own admission] deluded idealists at best.....I think so. Or are you afraid we might make some positive discoveries and actions - they might even effect your Haliburton stock prices? Then your successful 'competition' won't be so rigged? Why I am currently out of the country would be beyond your ken and I didn't know that only 'good' Americans stayed at home (perhaps you should tell that to some of the military, intelliegence operatives, corporate globalizers/colonialists, World Bank criminals, etc.) ...and...I'll be back. Your world, sadly, seems to resemble a Darwinian cockfight. Money and Power the only measuring stick. Competition not cooperation or help the only 'good'. How sad. It is this lack of moral/ethical/alturuistic enlightenment that has brought humanity (and the USA leading the charge) to where it is today. I'll bet your religion doesn't peddle this viewpoint. Or is this viewpoint your 'religion'. Someone like a MLK or Nelson Mandella and many others I could mention are my kind of heroes....they tried to make things better and help others...they were not into just self accumulation of things for themselves. I'd love to hear who your heros are....Ken Lay? Dick Chaney? Rumsfeld? Papa Doc Dubalier? Pinochet? So, take your tiny brush and paint a cynical world of continued exploitation, inequality, wide discrepancy between rich and poor. Sounds nice.....fair, just, even pious. I hope you can convince the poor in Haiti [for example], who recently had their democratically elected President Aristide kidnapped and removed by the USA - and who have been expoited and kept poor by us for centuries (even supported the death squads), to buy shares in Haliburton so they can share in your 'enlightened vision'. I guess they just don't know how to compete or made their choices. They chose Aristide and not the FRAP [CIA-run death and disorder squads]. They didn't choose poverty - we have made sure they get it though. NB- my retired parents before they died spent their OWN money to volunteer at the Albert Schwitzer Hospital in the jungles of Haiti when they could have spent it on themselves in retirement in the USA...I guess you think they were deluded and wasting their time and upsetting the natural world order. They also, by chance, met a CIA man there who was running a hotel [as cover] and supporting our control and havoc in Haiti. Your world, IMO, is upside down. You'd support the 'hotel owner', me thinks....as he keeps your Haliburton stock up and the people down. I could make a comparable analysis in most countries and of the peoples we exploit and keep subservient for your dividends and the Empire....oh, but thats my broad brush again....maybe the broad brush is the broad reach of the Empire or the breadth of the evil behind it. Again I'd love to hear why you haunt this Forum from your 'hotel' rather than just ignore the deluded, insane or naive who try to make positive change or investigate the non-existant hidden forces preventing them. Maybe you're aware your 'ever was thus' is only because of continued suppression, lies and oppression - and if it this blockage is thwarted by exposure and reversed, progress can be made - and that scares you or those with which you 'stand' or find affiliation at the top looking down in the unfair world order. The AS Hospital in Haiti is run by a Mellon - yes that Mellon family. The rest of the family won't talk to him..he took his money and did some good with it...built that hospital with his own money...he has none more now. In his late 80s he toils there still. What have you done lately for the positive good of the world, may I ask. Feel free to answer in broad strokes. Peter, you are the perfect example of the losers of the world. Caught by your own words, rather than deal with that you launch into "what is your agenda? Why are you here? blah, blah, blah. I think I hit the real nerve here Peter. You simply don't have what it takes to make it in a place where you must compete to survive. Yoiu cant make it in a competitive world so you want the world to operate down on your level. How sad. DO you really enjoy being a lemming? No Peter, you are a nutjob. Why am I here? Entertainment of course. Noting is funnier than reading the drivel from a bunch of leftist idealists. Even more fun to watch them spin thier yarns about every CT you could imagine. Its comedy at its finest! I mean wher else could I find such wonders as Simkins very slanted views of America? Or Your daily diatribes about the topic of the day, always ending with the evils of America . No..this place is a HOOT! Please Peter, continue to live in your fantasy world. I'll live in reality.

The problem is that in such a system as you idealize here, there are necessarily going to be people left behind and left without, and not because of some lack of effort on their part. There will be people and families who simply can't cut it in such a "strong and vibrant" system. This is just as much a fact of life as the corruption that you accept as a fact of life. It's fine to be a realist, I try to be one too, but one shouldn't be selective about it. I know there are charities and all that for folks who can't cut it. But it's an absolute disgrace IMO that the U.S. can spend hundreds of billions of dollars a year on the military, but can't provide its citizens, in this the most prosperous nation on earth, with free health care when they need it. Even folks who aren't poor are having trouble buying medication they have to have, because of the way the drug companies in this "strong and vibrant" system are gouging them simply because they can do it. You are right that there will always be those that have and those that dont. I fully understand that. I'm not against safety nets, I'm against wholesale support. We do supply a huge number of our citizens with health care ( and its not "free"). But that said not eveyone "needs" it. A good many choose simply not to purchase coverage making other choices instead. Its about personal responsibility. Some people make good choices and others don't. Hey, life is not fair...never has been. Thats reality. If you don't like the way the Pharmas price their products you are free to start your own company to develop, produce and market drugs at a price point that makes you happy. Beat then at their own game...of course in no time someone is bound to whine about it and suggest that the government "fix" it. It seems that the US is very different from the rest of the developed world. Conservatives in other advanced economies fought hard against the introduction of a safety net (welfare state). They called it socialism (I believe you call our National Health system – socialized medicine). This system, created for the first time in Sweden in the 1930s, and followed by the rest of the advanced countries after the Second World War, was in every case, extremely popular, and no government has been able to remove it. In the UK for example, the Conservative Party, led by Winston Churchill, fought the introduction of a welfare state (the main reason why Churchill was ousted from office in 1945). However, they had to accept defeat and since 1951 have accepted the principal of the welfare state, although they have tried to undermine it by a lack of spending and the privatization of certain aspects of the service. If that is the case, why has the United States not followed our example? Well according to a recent posting by Nathaniel Heidenheimer, according to public opinion polls in the US, a large majority of the population would like to see a European styled welfare state. The problem for Americans is that they do not live in a democracy. Their only choice in elections is between two parties who are totally opposed to any reforms that would result in the redistribution of wealth. This is in itself a result of allowing the political process of being dominated by a ruling elite made up of very wealthy individuals. They fund and therefore control these two political parties. This was always likely to happen with the introduction of democracy. In virtually every case, countries took measures that would stop this from happening. The US, probably because of the high levels of political illiteracy in the country, failed to do this. Also, in other advanced countries, people do not only vote for what appears to be financially beneficial to them. For example, people like me vote for policies that hurt as financially. We do this for two main reasons. One because we think it is morally just that people who earn the most, should pay a higher proportion of their income in tax. For example, I actually prefer that some of my income is used on helping people living in poverty. Secondly, people believe it makes political sense. Large gaps in wealth causes resentment and leads to criminal activity. The more equality that exists in a country, the more harmonious the society. That is why people in Europe consider it so hypocritical when Americans go on so much about being Christians. It seems that Americans like you have never read the New Testament. Or if you have, you definitely have not understood it. Perhaps the real reason American have "not followed Europes lead" is that some of us can see the utter failure of the "welfare state". I for one am very happy we have not gotten into the sewer of socialism. YMMV. Is it any wonder that a welfare state is popular? Why not. The burden of making good personal choices and having personal responsibility has been lifted. People are free to totally screw up their lives with no cares. Don't work, no problem, make someone else pay. No apartment, no problem, the rich can pay your way. Lotta babies and not dad...no problem. Yep that looks like the ideal system to build a stong country. Thanks but no thanks.

Why of course they are specular highlights and the source is the photographer. To be more specfic the very bright white and very reflective (thats what it was designed to do) spacesuit.

davie, you make less sense with each post... And yes your ignorance is overwhelming. The highlight on the side of the car IS a specular highlight. It EXACTLY mirrors the light source. The surface of the car is SPECULAR. Try and wrap your feeble mind around this stuff davie, its very simple, even a old newshound like you SHOULD be able to understand it. And BTW, no big sheets of foamcore in my studio... Davie my clients have a FAR better understanding that you seem to have on the science of lighting. I did get back to you davie about Adams and specular highlights, you stated he never blew a highlight, an amazing statement...you have seen every neg or trans he ever exposed? LOL! What an ass! Nope, showed you a few quick examples from the Adams website, I guess reading is another of your shortcomings. Matte or brushed colored black vehicles? None in my book, just nice shiny black ones. Ligthing got you stumped? ROFLMAO! Later davie.

Sigh... I've already shown you the rest of this photo...sheesh. Will you EVER understand the argument? The ENTIRE shoe in the MILLER image is not white. You cant SEE the entire shoe. You can only SEE a small portion of the black leather uppers of the shoe. Most of the black leather upper that you see has a white highlight. This is elemental Jack. Is it beyond your grasp? Now do you want to UNDERSTAND the argument or will you continue to keep thrusting the "make the entire shoe white" strawman argument forward? IF you want to deal with the issue at hand..that is can a SMALL PORTION of a black shoe be rendered white, fine...that argument is OVER...you lose. All the rest of your position is simply silly.

davie spewed: "You're outted, dude -- When confronted with the bane of studio and location photography -- specular highlights and further, they help in a photos 3d interpretation [read:depth], all I can say is ROFLMFAO! It does the exact opposite, distorts the image... makes no difference what this photo topic happens to be, you're definition above is pure bunk! You owe Jack White a apology." I was a bit rushed this morning, added some posts before heading off to the studio...you know the place where I use specular highlights to define shape, texture and surface reflectivity...the things that help make a 2d representation (photograph) of a 3d object look more 3d. As usual davie your ignorance is overwhelming. Here is a perfect exampe of a specular highlight from a specular surface creating shape and that wonderful 3d effect. Its not ugly, nor does it distort the image...in fact it MAKES the image. I'm not suprised you have suach a limited understanding about light, after all shooting head shots for the evening news, doing the odd industrial training video or sitting in a darkened room pulling switches does little to prepare one for doing exacting lighting. You are just another wannabe. Do I owe White3 an apology? Why? He is totally wrong and so are you. You owe ME an apology davie.

I've not looked to see if Adams went to pure white on highlights but my gues sis that he did IF that isd what he wanted. He WAS the master of the zone system you know. But I've not studied his colletion fo quite some time, maybe I will. In any case YOU have no idea if he does or not. As usual you are simply blowing smoke. Well yea the shoes are BLACk or DARK and have a nice bright reflection, which is the entire pointof he duiscussion. Get up to speed Healy, you are looking like a dork. Who said anything about the highlight on the trunk adding to the highlight on the shoe? Learn to read dork. You're outted, dude -- When confronted with the bane of studio and location photography -- specular highlights, and further, they help in a photos 3d interpretation [read:depth], all I can say is ROFLMFAO! It does the exact opposite, distorts the image... makes no difference what this photo topic happens to be, you're definition above is pure bunk! You owe Jack White a apology. Admit it, you stepped on Clyde, be grateful you were'nt wearing golf shoes.... A master photographer should be able to tell ANYONE (especially one that claims b&w photography prfessionalism) if Ansel Adams blew out highlights? Unbelievable, never happened champ. Ansel Adams, master of F5.6/8 b&w photography, even in snow. One of Ansel's lab printing gurus has a studio 2 miles from here, I've hired the "guru" multiple times during the last 8 years for large format [8x10 trannie] shoots, concerning watercolor artwork.... we spent hours discussing his teacher... Uh..you might want to retract your post davie...see my last post and then try here: WHy should I be able to tell anyone abouit Adams work? I've not studied it for years. But for old times sake I just checked. And guess what I was right. http://www.anseladams.com/on/demandware.st...og&name=225 LOL! Adams never went to paper white with any tones in his images? LOL! Why would he NOT go paper white in his images if that was what he intended his representation of the scene to be? What a dupe you are davie. OH MY GOD! Ansel Adams ...specular highlights! http://www.anseladams.com/on/demandware.st...StandardCatalog Oh MY GOD II: http://www.anseladams.com/on/demandware.st...StandardCatalog OH MY GOD III: http://www.anseladams.com/on/demandware.st...StandardCatalog

What beginning photography guide did you find this stuff in jack? LOL! No pro wrote this thing. Lets do a little lession in the value of speculars, maybe even davie can learn something. I'm not even going to use my work but rather other photography from the web to illustrate my point. Speculars ARE good and do DEFINE SHAPE. How about this one to show shape: http://library.foodphotography.com/library...9-028.-04M.html Or this one where both the highlights AND shadows define shape and texture. http://library.foodphotography.com/library...617-009-09.html or this: http://library.foodphotography.com/library...14-001-01M.html I guess this photographer know nothing, just look at all of those specular highlights... http://www.foodportfolio.com/frames/welcome_frame.html OH MY! Specular highlights sure are the bane for this photographer: http://www.loumanna.com/detected.php?page=&pass= Nor this guy ( a friend of mine) http://www.tomkingphotography.com/detected...page=&pass= and on and on and on. The point? Speculars are not somthing to avoid. They are a tool and used well by a lighting professional they are wonderful tools. Only novices and it seems video guys lack the ability and skill to use everything light has to offer and avoid speculars highlights. Jack, davie...buy a clue...

And the conservative is hellbent on making sure it stays just that way - unfair. Conservatives always have the attitude: I'm ok, the hell if I care about you. They oppossed an end to slavery and we'd have it still if it were up to conservatives. They oppossed women's rights or rights for non-whites and we'd have it still if it were up to conservatives. They oppossed the eight hour day and all other labor laws and we'd have them still if it were up to conservatives. et al........ad nauseum They oppose any kind of social services, welfare, safety nets, help for those in need, progress - domestic and foreign. They always always seem to like conflict, war, injustice - as long as they are on the 'winning' end of it. Exploitation....always been that way...no reason to change it if it 'aint broke. I've got enough or lots of money - so why bother me about those that do not....they made 'their choice' I helped make for them. It is 'broken'.....has long been...slowly we fight the Neaderthal in humans and make some slow progress. It is not that a lack of life being fair is the continuous factor - but selfishness, ignorance and a lack of altruism. We all once lived in the sea - things can change.....try it sometime. Change - positive change [Lemkin] You paint with such a wonderful broad brush, too bad you loaded it with BS before it hit the canvas. Take another sip of the koolaid Peter, you appear thirsty. [Lamson] ------ I am not in the least changed in my opinion as being correctly and virtuously representing the majority on the planet - more so when the 'reply' is a one-liner put-down without substance. How do you define: Justice, morality, fairness, equality - or are they just abstractions you don't care to be bothered about because you've 'got yours'. Might is not right. Riches make not morality. Fairness is for all not just you and your buddies. Etc. I'll let the majority on the planet [get it demos..democracy] decide - and history. There have always been those who oppose progress toward a better, more equal, more just, more fair, more progresive world...they are always the minority, sadly more often in control - or in their circles. They often spout 'democracy' but really like oligarchy or rigged heirarchy of some sort. Maybe you'll change, but even if you don't you are in a minority in America and a miniscule minority worldwide. The opposite is the religion of greed, domination, inequality, control, manipulation, cynicism. Your 'reality' is continuation of an artificial nightmare for most at the hands of the few, if we do not try to change it. IMO My 'broad brush' is only broad in that it encompasses everyone - even the planet and all its nature of which we are not masters, but an integral part. The domination paradigm has gotten us exactly where we are and should not be - and won't be 'zip' if we don't soon change. No Peter, your BROAD BRUSH, was directed not at EVERYONE but rather directed to one group, conservatives. And as such you painted everyone with conservative values with the same color. That is pure crap. Of course those like you are simply used to spewing crap like this. Its how you operate. Your many post on this forum attest to that fact. Its a big world, I'm sure you can find a place that fits your ideals. I can understand why the USA in not a place you would feel comfortable. You dont seem to have what it takes to compete.

Yes, I believe Jack mentioned something about the shoe being white. Bill Miller oh? I'd love to see a black or dark colored shoe (under studio lighting conditions) blown out, turned **completely white** -- Or, take the same shoe outdoors and blow it out, **completely white** using old 'sol' as the lighting source -- distance, surface size, and surrounding surfaces need help in blowing out any one object, entirely... What you have in mind? Think Craig got caught up in this one, champ! Specular highlights are a "bane". These day's with digital photography they're, er, 'more' tolerated, in certain photos or film (primarily motion film/video) communities, not only expected, some LD's light for and required by the shoots Creative Director (however, most times the effect is ADDED in post production. Looks like hell and certainly does nothing for "3Dimensional" photo interpretaion... Know anything about 'mids' gamma adjustment and specular highlights? Thanks for your comments davie, you, like Jack have proven you dont know xxxx about light. Not suprising since news photogs and video guys are perhaps the worst guys with a light to be found in the world. If you find the speculars "look like crap and do nothing for the 3d effect" you are a lighting bottomfeeder. You need to learn to light davie, before you shoot your wad. You must like looking like a dork.

I've not looked to see if Adams went to pure white on highlights but my gues sis that he did IF that isd what he wanted. He WAS the master of the zone system you know. But I've not studied his colletion fo quite some time, maybe I will. In any case YOU have no idea if he does or not. As usual you are simply blowing smoke. Well yea the shoes are BLACk or DARK and have a nice bright reflection, which is the entire pointof he duiscussion. Get up to speed Healy, you are looking like a dork. Who said anything about the highlight on the trunk adding to the highlight on the shoe? Learn to read dork.

What object is covering the lower triangle chrome strip?

One would think that even if Jack didn't understand the point that was made above .... that he would at least look at other photographs of Hill's black shoes in direct sunlight and take notice of their reflective properties. Note how light reflection on a black and white photo made the steering wheel look in places. Bill Miller More non sequiturs! Reflections on black shoes do not make the shoes ALL WHITE. They are still BLACK SHOES with reflections. Of course specular reflections appear white WHERE THEY MIRROR THE LIGHT SOURCE AT CERTAIN CURVATURES, but a shoe has various curved surfaces which DO NOT MIRROR THE LIGHT SOURCE... so the rest of the shoe still appears BLACK! I cannot believe these idiotic meaningless claims. Nobody has claimed that shiny surfaces do not have specular reflections! It is a fact that specular reflections are DIRECTIONAL reflecting light only when the reflecting surface is at the proper angle to the camera, and cannot turn an object from one color to another. On a curved surface, not all points are capable of reflecting at the correct angle of incidence. Dumkoffs. Jack You are out of your depth again White...this is too funny! Curved black leather reflecting to white over a large area. The highlight extends beyond a perfect specular. The highlights on the rear chairs are much bigger than the lighsource which was a 12'" reflector about 20 feet from the rear part of the bench. Why Jack? http://www.pbase.com/infocusinc/image/37596415

Give it up Jack, you have lost. Yes, its a broad white highlight on a black shoe, just like the broad highlight that makes the top of the black limo seat WHITE. You can see it right behind the shoe. How do I know this and you don't know this? Because I create lighting effects just like this everyday in the studio and on location. Its the result of spending nearly 3 decades becoming a master photographer. You on the other hand have proven over and over again that you don't have a clue about light nor shadow. Your '50 years of photographic experience" has garnered you less knowlege than a first year photography student. You are the equal of Grandma walking around town taking snapshots. It is you sir that is the fraud. Now, please tell us what object is hanging over the lower triangle chrome strip in the Miller photo. Lets see if you really do have a clue, or are just a poser. appears direct sun light is creating a specular highlight on a dark shoe, which makes the shoe, a 'black' or brown shoe with specular highlight! Anyone suggesting the shoe is not dark? (quote) def. spec-u-lar:The term specular means that light is perfectly reflected in a mirror-like way from the light source to the viewer. Specular reflection is visible only where the surface normal is oriented precisely halfway between the direction of incoming light and the direction of the viewer; this is called the half-angle direction because it bisects (divides into halves) the angle between the incoming light and the viewer. Thus, a specularly reflecting surface would show a specular highlight as the perfectly sharp reflected image of a light source. However, many shiny objects show blurred specular highlights. This can be explained by the existence of microfacets. We assume that surfaces that are not perfectly smooth are composed of many very tiny facets, each of which is a perfect specular reflector. These microfacets have normals that are distributed about the normal of the approximating smooth surface. The degree to which microfacet normals differ from the smooth surface normal is determined by the roughness of the surface. The reason for blurred specular highlights is now clear. At points on the object where the smooth normal is close to the half-angle direction, many of the microfacets point in the half-angle direction and so the specular highlight is bright. As one moves away from the center of the highlight, the smooth normal and the half-angle direction get farther apart; the number of microfacets oriented in the half-angle direction falls, and so the intensity of the highlight falls off to zero. The specular highlight often reflects the color of the light source, not the color of the reflecting object. This is because many materials have a thin layer of clear material above the surface of the pigmented material. For example plastic is made up of tiny beads of color suspended in a clear polymer and human skin often has a thin layer of oil or sweat above the pigmented cells. Such materials will show specular highlights in which all parts of the color spectrum are reflected equally. On metallic materials such as gold the color of the specular highlight will reflect the color of the material. (end quote) pretty basic stuff in 3d graphics - ray tracing.... Yes its VERY basic stuff, lighitng 101, except you forgot the OTHER lightsource for the reflective objects in the Miller photograph, the open sky. This HUGE lightsource is what creates the big. broad highlight on the trunk, and it also adds to every other highlight on every reflective surface exposed to the sky. Now how about you explain all of this to White, he is clueless.

Give it up Jack, you have lost. Yes, its a broad white highlight on a black shoe, just like the broad highlight that makes the top of the black limo seat WHITE. You can see it right behind the shoe. How do I know this and you don't know this? Because I create lighting effects just like this everyday in the studio and on location. Its the result of spending nearly 3 decades becoming a master photographer. You on the other hand have proven over and over again that you don't have a clue about light nor shadow. Your '50 years of photographic experience" has garnered you less knowlege than a first year photography student. You are the equal of Grandma walking around town taking snapshots. It is you sir that is the fraud. Now, please tell us what object is hanging over the lower triangle chrome strip in the Miller photo. Lets see if you really do have a clue, or are just a poser. I have no idea why a fine COMMERCIAL PHOTOGRAPHER like Lamson wastes his time like this, making personal attacks. He makes claims he cannot support. I challenge him to photograph in his studio A BLACK SHOE SO THAT IT APPEARS TO BE ALL WHITE. He cannot do it. Nobody can, unless they use white spray paint or computer manipulation. He constantly berates me for not being a competent photographer. He is comparing me to being a competent COMMERCIAL STUDIO PHOTOGRAPHER like he is. I have never claimed to be such. But for more than 40 years I was a PROFESSIONAL (for pay) photographer for a leading advertising agency with my own inhouse darkroom and room where I did photography (portraits and products). I probably shot 50,000 images in my career... but none requiring the skills of Lamson. Most of my photography was for ads, annual reports, catalogs, and slide shows. Nothing spectacular, but competent for the job at hand. I once shot a slide show for Alcon Labs (a 500 company) for which I billed $18,000. I'd call that professional. Attached is one of my photos for Fort Worth's largest bank in 1972. Lamson acts like he is the only guy to ever push a shutterbutton. His personal attacks make him a laughingstock. Jack LOL! I love to watch you go over the edge Jack. I'm amazed that you are even responding to my posts since you have claimed a number of times on thsi forum that you don't even read my posts and will not respond to my posts. The truth is your friend Jack, try telling it sometimes. I dont make claims I can't support. My claims are ALWAYS supportable. Sheesh I supported my claim about rendering black as white many times over. It's not my fault that you can't understand the argument. I berate your photographic skills because you have shown TIME AND TIME again that you have none. This thread is a perfect example. You make claims about lighting and then you are shown to be wrong. Your reply...hey I'm not a commercial studio photographer! AMAZING! You made claims you cant back up and you get called on it...LOL! You don't want to be berated, dont make stupid claims. Either you can run with the big dogs or you can't. Since you can't I suggest you sit on the porch if you don't want a bite taken out of your ass. Why should I want to photograph a black shoe shows it is all white? Thats noty want we see in MIller. No problem shooting the side of a shoe like in MIller and making it white....thats a given. SO wahy ask for something that we don't need? I'll be happy to shoot a shoe like n Miller. Wow..you shot a slide show! I'm impressed. Copy stand Job I presume. I'm not off the mark for the rest of your work. Low skill, snapshot grade stuff. Nothing to be ashamed of to be sure, but nowhere near the level of skill you profess with your silly "photo interpretation". You fail on most of the basics and are totally lost when it comes to the advanced stuff. Why do I "waste" my time? Because its so much fun watching your antics. BTW, Whats the object hanging over the lower triangle chrome strip in Miller? Try answering that one. And why did the top of the black limo seat go white in MIller? Try answering that one too.

Give it up Jack, you have lost. Yes, its a broad white highlight on a black shoe, just like the broad highlight that makes the top of the black limo seat WHITE. You can see it right behind the shoe. How do I know this and you don't know this? Because I create lighting effects just like this everyday in the studio and on location. Its the result of spending nearly 3 decades becoming a master photographer. You on the other hand have proven over and over again that you don't have a clue about light nor shadow. Your '50 years of photographic experience" has garnered you less knowlege than a first year photography student. You are the equal of Grandma walking around town taking snapshots. It is you sir that is the fraud. Now, please tell us what object is hanging over the lower triangle chrome strip in the Miller photo. Lets see if you really do have a clue, or are just a poser.

Thanks to White for showing us ONCE AGAIN that he has no CLUE. The shoe in the MILLER PHOTO IS STLLL BLACK YET PHOTOGRAPHS WHITE IN ONE AREA DUE TO A SPECULAR HIGHLIGHT. HE also fails to notice that LARGE AREAS OF BLACK OBJECTS ARE EASILY RENDERED AS WHITE. The cars are perfect examples. In any case Jack how do you explain that the top edge of the black leather seat in the Miller photo rendering as WHITE? How did I get that nice glow? I know what I'm doing.

The "photographer wannabe" White writes: "And despite what Lamson says, a BLACK SHOE cannot photograph as white. Fortunately, these provocateurs are revealing themselves as phonies in their stubborn insistence that a hand is a shoe, and that is the best thing about this little exercise." Thank you Jack, your stubborn insistance that you have even a slight clue about Photography is showing you the be the phony you really are. Black is easy to render as white, despite your ignorant pleadings to the contrary. Examples: Black leather airport chairs http://www.pbase.com/infocusinc/image/37596415 Black ladder rack: http://www.pbase.com/infocusinc/image/37596439 Black tires on a trailer ( colored balanced to yellow for effect) http://www.pbase.com/infocusinc/image/37597025 Black steel tubes http://www.pbase.com/infocusinc/image/37625540 Black car http://www.pbase.com/infocusinc/image/37595305 Another black car http://www.pbase.com/infocusinc/image/37595310 No Jack, a good photographer knows that specular highlights, and broad, diffuse highlights along with shadows are the key to creating photoggraphs that have depth and a "3d" look. Only "photogrgapher wannabes" like yourself would think that an image without highlights would be a "good" image. Highlights ARE A REQUIREMENT if you want to show the SURFACE REFLECTIVITY of an object and the SHAPE of an object. You need to buy a clue...wannabe.

Jack , that's like saying if you turn the photo over that the limo may look like something else ... that's crazy! The photo as we are seeing it has been lightened, which as I said before will exand the light areas out of their original boundries on the original photo. The sunlight has illuminated the leather shoe ... A similar glare on Hill's shoe can be seen in this studio photo directly below. (resembles glare in the Newman photo shoe) Another example below. (resembles glare seen in the Miller photo shoe) Shoe lighting changes. Another thing ... Older style dress shoes had a narrow sole between the ball of the foot and the heel. This meant that the sides of the shoe was desinged to curl under the inner and outter instep. When one rolls the shoe onto its side - that part of the shoe where it curls under (see red arrows) will visually spread out under the heel. The way it is seen is related to the angle at which it is seen. Bill Miller Interesting post. Despite what Jack wants everyone to believe, there its no big deal to make a black leather shoe look white, to say differently as White is doing is the height of sillyness. Take the Miller photo for example, we have a jet black limo seat that photographs white, we have the sholders of the MC cop's dark uniform that photographs white, we have the trunk of the black limo at near white...and on and on. White is simply exposing his massive ignorance of the basics of photographic exposure, lighting and the properties of reflection. A pretty sorry example coming from a man who bills himelf as having 50 years of photographic experience. That ANYONE takes anything he says seriously speaks volumes. You ever gonna address the chrome strip John?