Craig Lamson Posted July 18, 2006 Share Posted July 18, 2006 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted July 18, 2006 Share Posted July 18, 2006 Show us the rest of the nice photo of the BLACK car, please. We want to see if the lighting turned the whole black car to white. We know that highlights are useful tools...but can they turn a black car (or shoe) to all white? If you have time, take a black shoe to your studio, or just out on a sidewalk, and photograph it so that the entire shoe looks white...not just a few highlights. Jack:) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted July 18, 2006 Share Posted July 18, 2006 Show us the rest of the nice photo of the BLACK car, please.We want to see if the lighting turned the whole black car to white. We know that highlights are useful tools...but can they turn a black car (or shoe) to all white? If you have time, take a black shoe to your studio, or just out on a sidewalk, and photograph it so that the entire shoe looks white...not just a few highlights. Jack:) 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dolva Posted July 18, 2006 Share Posted July 18, 2006 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'. Consider the pattern here in the top left quarter of the image. There are blue areas reminiscent of shoe print patterns If these are caused by a patterned shoe sole, then that would explain the flow of blood into the areas between the patterns. Clints weight causes blood to flow to this area and the shoe pattern keeps it off certain areas. So I suppose it is better called a kind of negative print. IF it indeed is a shoe print then it is not Clints shoe in the photo in question, as it is being presented as a smooth sole, not a patterned one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted July 18, 2006 Share Posted July 18, 2006 (edited) I'm not suprised you have suach a limited understanding about light, .............. Craig, David seems to have even a limited understanding of the thread when he asked 'who thought Hill's shoes were white?' When someone is shown multiple photos of shoes reflecting light and still cannot apply that observation to the aqssasination photos showing much of the same - THEY DO NOT WANT TO UNDERSTAND ANYTHING! What I find most mind boggling is that even if someone doesn't totally understand the concept of reflectivity, then they should at least see how it continually effects what is seen on film. As seen below, we know that Hill did not have white racing stripes on his shoes, nor did Sitzman wear a two toned scarf. Bill Miller IF it indeed is a shoe print then it is not Clints shoe in the photo in question, as it is being presented as a smooth sole, not a patterned one. Not to mention that Clint Hill's shoes had a heel, thus the sole patteren would not leave an imprint where your sole design does. Bill Miller Edited July 18, 2006 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dolva Posted July 18, 2006 Share Posted July 18, 2006 If it's a shoe 'print' then it would appear where the deepest depression of the seat occurs. On an undepressed seat panel this is around the edges and where the upholstery buttons are. Therefore, for the blood to pool like this and to be directed into the channels between the shoe tread, it would require weight to be focused in this area. I'ts not at all unreasonable to visualise a situation where this weight would be distributed towards the toe area. Then the heel (which is poised roughly over one of the buttons) need not cause a pattern to appear. 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' 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. Yes, I understand my ignorance is overwhelming, Craigster you need (and use, btw) foamcore to flatten out (bounce) your lighting to a object, in this case a vehicle, AVOIDING the specular highlights you cherish... 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. hey, your not trying to BS a client here, your studio stuff looks fine, doesn't reflect reality in the least, such as the JFK related photo under discussion -- so key, fill, back and MAYBE "rim" lights, flags, fingers, dots and C stands -- not rocket science champ - 1st year product photo students learns this stuff, certainly second year television lab students... TV station master control directors and technical directors don't "pull" switches, they "punch and take" switches -- Technical directors, film/video compositors and NLE editors do however "pull" mattes, which is another story, isn't it? LMAO! Do I owe White3 an apology? Why? He is totally wrong and so are you. You owe ME an apology davie. do get back to me when you determine if Ansel Adams used specular highlights to enhance photos in his vast b&w portfolio ... and, I've never seen a matte or brushed colored black vehicle before, vanity photo or manufactured as same? Edited July 18, 2006 by David G. Healy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted July 18, 2006 Share Posted July 18, 2006 hey, your not trying to BS a client here, your studio stuff looks fine, doesn't reflect reality in the least, such as the JFK related photo under discussion -- so key, fill, back and MAYBE "rim" lights, flags, fingers, dots and C stands -- not rocket science champ - 1st year product photo students learns this stuff, certainly second year television lab students... It is amusing to see how David always pretends to know more than the people who do certain things for a living, but seeing how David mentioned how things reflect reality, can I assume then that at least David see's how Hill's polished shoes reflected light, thus made them to appear light in tone on a B&W photo? If so, then David's understanding of howe things look in photos is a cut above some of the other posters in this thread. Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted July 18, 2006 Share Posted July 18, 2006 (edited) 'Craig Lamson' 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. Yes, I understand my ignorance is overwhelming, Craigster you need (and use, btw) foamcore to flatten out (bounce) your lighting to a object, in this case a vehicle, AVOIDING the specular highlights you cherish... 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. hey, your not trying to BS a client here, your studio stuff looks fine, doesn't reflect reality in the least, such as the JFK related photo under discussion -- so key, fill, back and MAYBE "rim" lights, flags, fingers, dots and C stands -- not rocket science champ - 1st year product photo students learns this stuff, certainly second year television lab students... TV station master control directors and technical directors don't "pull" switches, they "punch and take" switches -- Technical directors, film/video compositors and NLE editors do however "pull" mattes, which is another story, isn't it? LMAO! Do I owe White3 an apology? Why? He is totally wrong and so are you. You owe ME an apology davie. do get back to me when you determine if Ansel Adams used specular highlights to enhance photos in his vast b&w portfolio ... and, I've never seen a matte or brushed colored black vehicle before, vanity photo or manufactured as same? 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. Edited July 18, 2006 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted July 18, 2006 Share Posted July 18, 2006 (edited) On of the definitions of a specular highlight is a SHINY SURFACE THAT MIRRORS A LIGHT SOURCE TOWARD THE LENS AT AN EQUAL ANGLE OF INCIDENCE. To explain in lay terms, if the shiny subject is 20 degrees to the left of the lens, the light source would be 20 degrees to the right. That is called equal angle of incidence...and would result in a hot spot in the photograph. Hot spots can be avoided by NOT having equal incidence angles of lens to subject and light to subject. Attached is a simple little test for Lamson, Miller and Healy regarding specular highlights and angles of incidence. I hope you all can pass it. 1. Does the photo show SPECULAR HIGHLIGHTS? 2. If so, what is the angle of incidence of the light source? If not, how do you account for the highlights? Jack Edited July 18, 2006 by Jack White Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted July 18, 2006 Share Posted July 18, 2006 On of the definitions of a specular highlight is a SHINY SURFACETHAT MIRRORS A LIGHT SOURCE TOWARD THE LENS AT AN EQUAL ANGLE OF INCIDENCE. To explain in lay terms, if the shiny subject is 20 degrees to the left of the lens, the light source would be 20 degrees to the right. That is called equal angle of incidence...and would result in a hot spot in the photograph. Hot spots can be avoided by NOT having equal incidence angles of lens to subject and light to subject. Attached is a simple little test for Lamson, Miller and Healy regarding specular highlights and angles of incidence. I hope you all can pass it. 1. Does the photo show SPECULAR HIGHLIGHTS? 2. If so, what is the angle of incidence of the light source? If not, how do you account for the highlights? Jack 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dolva Posted July 19, 2006 Share Posted July 19, 2006 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'.Consider the pattern here in the top left quarter of the image. There are blue areas reminiscent of shoe print patterns If these are caused by a patterned shoe sole, then that would explain the flow of blood into the areas between the patterns. Clints weight causes blood to flow to this area and the shoe pattern keeps it off certain areas. So I suppose it is better called a kind of negative print. IF it indeed is a shoe print then it is not Clints shoe in the photo in question, as it is being presented as a smooth sole, not a patterned one. If it's a shoe 'print' then it would appear where the deepest depression of the seat occurs. On an undepressed seat panel this is around the edges and where the upholstery buttons are. Therefore, for the blood to pool like this and to be directed into the channels between the shoe tread, it would require weight to be focused in this area. I'ts not at all unreasonable to visualise a situation where this weight would be distributed towards the toe area. Then the heel (which is poised roughly over one of the buttons) need not cause a pattern to appear. ___ the edge on the reflection possibly indicating shoe tread Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted July 19, 2006 Share Posted July 19, 2006 The Craigster says the SPACESUIT is reflecting sunlight onto the scotch tape causing specular reflections. But what if the photographer is in the shade, and the reflectivity of the moon surface is only 12 percent...where is the auxiliary light coming from to illuminate the scene? Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted July 19, 2006 Share Posted July 19, 2006 The Craigster says the SPACESUIT is reflecting sunlight onto thescotch tape causing specular reflections. Jack Jack, what is your source for the tape being scotch tape rather than duct tape? Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted July 19, 2006 Share Posted July 19, 2006 (edited) "Scotch" is a generality. Adhesive cellophane tape is more descriptive. Edited July 19, 2006 by Jack White 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