John Dolva Posted July 18, 2006 Share Posted July 18, 2006 (edited) The seat base stretched on to a seat grid. There appears to be sharper outlines as if from a shoe (Clint - blue) The full pic of Jackie post assassination clothing would be good. K:: head? or shoulder with head on J lap? It strikes me that the way J is bending forward there may not be room for K's head on her lap? _________ EDIT:: reply to below. Youre funny, Craig, I don't know? (I don't even know if anything is.) I would like to know though. (Hence an ongoing attempt to find out.) Edited July 18, 2006 by John Dolva Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted July 18, 2006 Share Posted July 18, 2006 The seat base stretched on to a seat grid.There appears to be sharper outlines as if from a shoe (Clint - blue) The full pic of Jackie post assassination clothing would be good. K:: head? or shoulder with head on J lap? It strikes me that the way J is bending forward there may not be room for K's head on her lap? What object is covering the lower triangle chrome strip? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted July 18, 2006 Share Posted July 18, 2006 (edited) 'Craig Lamson' wrote: 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. dgh: How about the worlds most famous photographer, Ansel Adams? Never saw a blown out *highlight* in his photographs creating a 3D type look, EVER. I, and many others consider his work the best b&w photography and printing, EVER, Ansel wannabe enough? Highlights ARE A REQUIREMENT if you want to show the SURFACE REFLECTIVITY of an object and the SHAPE of an object. dgh: not sure what your argument is [are] -- all your photos display specular highlights, some highlights appear more diffuse (softened) probably by redirecting a light_source (bounce light, reflected light), which I'm sure is designed, having said that, none change the fact, all the objects in your photos are dark of pigment, [including red]. I suspect the same can be said for the shoes in the limo photo, the shoes are dark in color, black or brown, in the limo phpoto, with specular highlight. Does the highlight off the trunk add to (reflected to) the specular highlight on the shoes? Not much, if any, it doesn't need any, a single unhampered light source is in play here, the sun... One thing is certain, the trunk highlight, nor the shoe highlight was flagged You need to buy a clue...wannabe. Edited July 18, 2006 by David G. Healy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted July 18, 2006 Share Posted July 18, 2006 Paraphrased from the internet: ...Specular highlights (hot spots) are the bane of professional photographers and should be avoided. ...A specular highlight is equal to zero (pure white) on a gray scale and is not within the normal range of most scenes. ...Specular highlights are useful only in photographing very shiny objects like chrome, but care must be taken to avoid UNWANTED reflections ...Extreme contrast of specular highlights causes development and printing problems. ...Methods of preventing specular highlights include polarizing filters, sofbox, indirect bounce light, lighting placement, special non-reflective sets to control reflections (for instance, silverware is best photographed by enclosing it inside an all-white set, so it reflects only white), controling the angle of lighting, use of scrims of baffles to block unwanted light (especially in portraits, to prevent shine on noses and foreheads)... ...lots more than this sampling. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted July 18, 2006 Share Posted July 18, 2006 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? Yes, I believe Jack mentioned something about the shoe being white. Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuck Robbins Posted July 18, 2006 Share Posted July 18, 2006 http://terraserver-usa.com/image.aspx?T=1&...ALat=32.7897677 Let's try to pin point it? In 1986 aerial, zoomable to the degree indicated in image. If you indicate where to pan to, zoom in on etc? EDIT:: could you post/email the whole of Jackie, please? (I wish to study the blood on her) Where's her hat? John...I am not sure I saved the whole scan. I will look. The aerial is too tiny to identify landmarks. Can you zoom in and enlarge? jack POST DELETED AFTER SHARP OBSERVATION BY JOHN!Will be reposted after cutline alteration. Jack Post reinstated... Why is there no shadow under the "shoe" and why is there no reflection from the "shoe"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted July 18, 2006 Share Posted July 18, 2006 (edited) 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? 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? Edited July 18, 2006 by David G. Healy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted July 18, 2006 Share Posted July 18, 2006 'Craig Lamson' wrote: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. dgh: How about the worlds most famous photographer, Ansel Adams? Never saw a blown out *highlight* in his photographs creating a 3D type look, EVER. I, and many others consider his work the best b&w photography and printing, EVER, Ansel wannabe enough? Highlights ARE A REQUIREMENT if you want to show the SURFACE REFLECTIVITY of an object and the SHAPE of an object. dgh: not sure what your argument is [are] -- all your photos display specular highlights, some highlights appear more diffuse (softened) probably by redirecting a light_source (bounce light, reflected light), which I'm sure is designed, having said that, none change the fact, all the objects in your photos are dark of pigment, [including red]. I suspect the same can be said for the shoes in the limo photo, the shoes are dark in color, black or brown, in the limo phpoto, with specular highlight. Does the highlight off the trunk add to (reflected to) the specular highlight on the shoes? Not much, if any, it doesn't need any, a single unhampered light source is in play here, the sun... One thing is certain, the trunk highlight, nor the shoe highlight was flagged You need to buy a clue...wannabe. 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted July 18, 2006 Share Posted July 18, 2006 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? 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted July 18, 2006 Share Posted July 18, 2006 (edited) 'Craig Lamson' wrote: 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. dgh: How about the worlds most famous photographer, Ansel Adams? Never saw a blown out *highlight* in his photographs creating a 3D type look, EVER. I, and many others consider his work the best b&w photography and printing, EVER, Ansel wannabe enough? Highlights ARE A REQUIREMENT if you want to show the SURFACE REFLECTIVITY of an object and the SHAPE of an object. dgh: not sure what your argument is [are] -- all your photos display specular highlights, some highlights appear more diffuse (softened) probably by redirecting a light_source (bounce light, reflected light), which I'm sure is designed, having said that, none change the fact, all the objects in your photos are dark of pigment, [including red]. I suspect the same can be said for the shoes in the limo photo, the shoes are dark in color, black or brown, in the limo phpoto, with specular highlight. Does the highlight off the trunk add to (reflected to) the specular highlight on the shoes? Not much, if any, it doesn't need any, a single unhampered light source is in play here, the sun... One thing is certain, the trunk highlight, nor the shoe highlight was flagged You need to buy a clue...wannabe. 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... Edited July 18, 2006 by David G. Healy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted July 18, 2006 Share Posted July 18, 2006 (edited) Paraphrased from the internet:...Specular highlights (hot spots) are the bane of professional photographers and should be avoided. ...A specular highlight is equal to zero (pure white) on a gray scale and is not within the normal range of most scenes. ...Specular highlights are useful only in photographing very shiny objects like chrome, but care must be taken to avoid UNWANTED reflections ...Extreme contrast of specular highlights causes development and printing problems. ...Methods of preventing specular highlights include polarizing filters, sofbox, indirect bounce light, lighting placement, special non-reflective sets to control reflections (for instance, silverware is best photographed by enclosing it inside an all-white set, so it reflects only white), controling the angle of lighting, use of scrims of baffles to block unwanted light (especially in portraits, to prevent shine on noses and foreheads)... ...lots more than this sampling. Jack 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... Edited July 18, 2006 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted July 18, 2006 Share Posted July 18, 2006 (edited) 'Craig Lamson' wrote: 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. dgh: How about the worlds most famous photographer, Ansel Adams? Never saw a blown out *highlight* in his photographs creating a 3D type look, EVER. I, and many others consider his work the best b&w photography and printing, EVER, Ansel wannabe enough? Highlights ARE A REQUIREMENT if you want to show the SURFACE REFLECTIVITY of an object and the SHAPE of an object. dgh: not sure what your argument is [are] -- all your photos display specular highlights, some highlights appear more diffuse (softened) probably by redirecting a light_source (bounce light, reflected light), which I'm sure is designed, having said that, none change the fact, all the objects in your photos are dark of pigment, [including red]. I suspect the same can be said for the shoes in the limo photo, the shoes are dark in color, black or brown, in the limo phpoto, with specular highlight. Does the highlight off the trunk add to (reflected to) the specular highlight on the shoes? Not much, if any, it doesn't need any, a single unhampered light source is in play here, the sun... One thing is certain, the trunk highlight, nor the shoe highlight was flagged You need to buy a clue...wannabe. 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 Edited July 18, 2006 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dolva Posted July 18, 2006 Share Posted July 18, 2006 (edited) Is it known at all what the shoe print pattern if any of Clints shoe was? (Kennedy's?) This is just a print off the web, suggesting a reason for pattern on seat 'panel'. EDIT:: image orientation correction Edited July 18, 2006 by John Dolva Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted July 18, 2006 Share Posted July 18, 2006 oh? I'd love to see a black or dark colored shoe (under studio lighting conditions) blown out, turned **completely white** I agree, but as I said ... it was Jack who made that stupid claim. Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted July 18, 2006 Share Posted July 18, 2006 You're outted, dude -- ........................ 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. David, you should consider reading the entire thread again. It is nutty Jack who cannot comprehend why Hill's shoe looks so light in color with the sun shining onto it. Even showing another assassination photo of Hill's shoes looking light in color didn't seem to sink in to Jack and somehow you think Jack is owed an apology ... you must be joking! So if you are going to pretend to know more than you really do, then tell this forum .. is it your opinion that Clint Hill's shoe(s) appear whitish in color because you believe he wore light colored shoes or do you see it as the sun reflecting off a polished surfice? Bill Miller 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