Craig Lamson Posted July 17, 2006 Share Posted July 17, 2006 To the contrary, turning the photo enables the viewer to see it as one might see a shoe, instead of upsidedown. For instance, looking at the "shoe sole", we see that the "sole" meets the "heel" in the middle; we see that the upper area of the "shoe" is white instead of black. At this angle, one more easily sees the shirt cuff, etc. Jack 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. OK, Jack. No worries, (my mum at 82 is more gutsy than me). I felt a definite confirmation would be nice simply in order to proceed with a look at how the leg/hand combo could go the way it seems to. IMO, if it is not Clints right foot, then that notion is supported by those photo's being in the sequence suggested. I'll proceed as if the Miller is 8 seconds after the Hankins. It doesn't make sense that he goes from the leg stretched out rearward, to where he has it raised with the hand on knee as in the Hankins. Then he drops his leg into Kennedy's hip to achieve the position suggested by some in the Miller, then goes through the motions to where he is sitting on the right side as in the exit photo. Rather: IMO::the photos could show a smooth transition where he lifts his leg over Kennedys hand/leg then places it on an available area on the seat and swings around to the exit photo position. You ever gonna address the chrome strip John? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted July 17, 2006 Share Posted July 17, 2006 To the contrary, turning the photo enables the viewer to see it as one might see a shoe, instead of upsidedown. For instance, looking at the "shoe sole", we see that the "sole" meets the "heel" in the middle; we see that the upper area of the "shoe" is white instead of black. At this angle, one more easily sees the shirt cuff, etc. Jack 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 What a non sequitur! What nonsense! What ignorance of photo lighting! Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted July 17, 2006 Share Posted July 17, 2006 (edited) 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. Edited July 17, 2006 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted July 17, 2006 Share Posted July 17, 2006 (edited) Many thanks to Lamson for showing us his beautiful photos SHOWING THAT BLACK OBJECTS STILL PHOTOGRAPH BLACK, even when they have bright specular highlights. Nice photos, Mr. Light. They show that if YOU had faked the Apollo photos, we might never have known the difference. You DIDN'T shoot them of course. Right? Jack PS...I admire that nice even glow on the background behind the product. How did you achieve that? Edited July 17, 2006 by Jack White Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted July 17, 2006 Share Posted July 17, 2006 (edited) Many thanks to Lamson for showing us his beautifulphotos SHOWING THAT BLACK OBJECTS STILL PHOTOGRAPH BLACK, even when they have bright specular highlights. Nice photos, Mr. Light. They show that if YOU had faked the Apollo photos, we might never have known the difference. You DIDN'T shoot them of course. Right? Jack PS...I admire that nice even glow on the background behind the product. How did you achieve that? 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. Edited July 17, 2006 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted July 17, 2006 Share Posted July 17, 2006 Lamson claims to know lighting and photography. Now he proves himself a fraud. Or a xxxx. He becomes less and less credible. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted July 17, 2006 Share Posted July 17, 2006 Lamson claims to know lighting andphotography. Now he proves himself a fraud. Or a xxxx. He becomes less and less credible. Jack 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted July 17, 2006 Share Posted July 17, 2006 (edited) White is simply exposing his massive ignorance of the basics of photographic exposure, lighting and the properties of reflection. 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 Edited July 17, 2006 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted July 17, 2006 Share Posted July 17, 2006 Lamson claims to know lighting and photography. Now he proves himself a fraud. Or a xxxx. He becomes less and less credible. Jack 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted July 17, 2006 Share Posted July 17, 2006 (edited) I have no idea why a fine COMMERCIAL PHOTOGRAPHER like Lamson wastes his time like this .............. He makes claims he cannot support. Jack, even if what you said about Craig is true - what's the big deal! Do you think that you are the only person who should be able to make unsupported claims? Lamson acts like he is the only guy to ever push a shutterbutton. Craig never said he was the only one to ever push a shutter buton, but where the difference lies is that he understands how things reflect light on film at various levels of exposure. Bill Miller Edited July 17, 2006 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted July 17, 2006 Share Posted July 17, 2006 Lamson claims to know lighting and photography. Now he proves himself a fraud. Or a xxxx. He becomes less and less credible. Jack 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.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted July 17, 2006 Share Posted July 17, 2006 Lamson claims to know lighting and photography. Now he proves himself a fraud. Or a xxxx. He becomes less and less credible. Jack 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted July 17, 2006 Share Posted July 17, 2006 White is simply exposing his massive ignorance of the basics of photographic exposure, lighting and the properties of reflection. 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted July 17, 2006 Share Posted July 17, 2006 (edited) Lamson claims to know lighting and photography. Now he proves himself a fraud. Or a xxxx. He becomes less and less credible. Jack 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. Edited July 17, 2006 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted July 17, 2006 Share Posted July 17, 2006 (edited) White is simply exposing his massive ignorance of the basics of photographic exposure, lighting and the properties of reflection. 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 Edited July 18, 2006 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now