ben_lanterman1

I had forgotten apparently. I took the original and by adding a few percent highlight in Photoshop got the aura. There is a symbol on the vertical that doesn't show up and I was trying to bring it out. It took really excessive amounts to do it. I thought I had backstepped enough but apparently didn't go all the way back to the original.

 

The jet is worth about $15,000 and is powered by the turbine seen at the rear of the centerline of the wing. It weighs about 25 pounds or so. Others can be seen at

 

http://public.fotki.com/benlanterman/2004_ozark_mountain/

 

It's a hobby that is more expensive than cameras and is technically challenging.

 

To me the red just pops out of the screen along with the dark blue accents. It

would be better with the light coming such that the side of the fuse was better

lit but the sky isn't quite as forgiving as a studio!

 

I wonder if it would be worth the effort to cut the airplane out and put it on a

cloudy background or does the blue work for you as it is? The image is not

manipulated as it is other than cropping and sharpening.

 

I love the 300 2.8 L IS for taking photos of airplanes. The machine is going

about 150mph and is quite tricky to follow.

Sorry the caption should say Sunset God's Rays. I hit the return instead of the '

 

I have been a collector and if possible photographer of God's Rays for some time now. With a sky like this the Rays should be tinted toward yellow. They should be more visible near the opening and disappear near the ground. I am afraid these God's Rays are not real. They are a white airbrush or eraser tool.

 

Since the box indicated that this was an unmanipulated photo (perhaps in error?) I have to give this a low rating.

 

With some work they could be made to look real and indeed would add to the photo. But do some work and do them right. email me and I'll send you some examples of real ones.

The only time I saw a full rainbow I didn't have a lens wide enough to get the whole thing in one shot :-( I find they are rare. It appeared as a rain shower and front moved east and the sun was low in the west. The rainbow appeared smaller and denser (not a real property though). It all depends on light angles and amount of water.

 

Also it was in a new subdivision and the foreground was solid dirt and half finished houses. Not too good for making a beautiful photo such as yours.

 

A real rainbow will show, as does yours, a lighter area on the inside than outside due to some optical properties that I don't understand. In the case of the one that I saw there was also a less intense double that sometimes occurs in a greater arc than the main brighter one. There are some interesting sites that explain all the possible variations and are worth visiting for those interested.

These Sea Dragons are seen in the Chattanooga Aquarium. Photograph was

taken through a curved wall tank and the light was low and dramatic but not

conducive to photography. This was with an external flash. I do think these

are beautiful creatures and have a perfect blend into the background. Good

since they are very slow and are very difficult to raise and keep in capativity.

The population in the aquarium has dropped from about 10 down to 3 in a

years time. I was lucky that two decided to "fly" in formation for a few minutes.

I find these beautiful flowers a lot of fun to photograph, especially when they

are corralled and herded together in the same building. It slows the normally

fast creatures down a little :-)

 

I'm sorry - I couldn't resist it. But indeed the Fuqua Orchid Center in Atlanta,

GA is a great place to photograph. However there are no tripods allowed.

I think I answered my own question. No white blob is better.

Finding and shooting these kinds of images are a lot of the pure fun of

photography. I keep looking for them but never quite finding them. I applaud

some who has discovered one.

 

My editorial comment -

As opposed to last week, our intrepid photographer used a camera instead of

a scanner and it worked. I no longer have the nagging urge to run out and

buy a scanner. thanks. (the forgoing comment was not meant to be

disrespectful of anyone or image, I just like photography with cameras)

Dreamy and nice

This is a giant cross outside of Effingham, Ill. It is a striking object in real life. I

added a little more light in Photoshop to enhance the effect that was already

there.

Michael, the RC stuff is indeed a lot of fun isn't it?

 

But, definitions aside, ask a first grade kid or my 80 year old mom how to take

a photograph, they say, " use a camera".

 

I hold up my new shiny 1Ds (I love the camera) that is all electronic in one

hand and my Epson flat bed scanner which is all electronic in the other hand

and ask them to point out the camera - I doubt they will point toward the

scanner.

 

In terms of common language usage anywhere, a camera takes a photograph

on film - then we put a digital sensor in place of the film and stretch the limits

of what seems normal but still feel OK about it.

 

It is difficult to think of a scanner as a means of making a photograph. It is

called photo.net not graphics.net or scanner.net. The language is precise

enough to differentiate between the two.

 

I noted earlier I love my 1Ds, I caress it and whisper sweet nothings in the

card slot, I don't have the same feelings toward the scanner.

 

As I noted I love good graphics work, I have painted (not well but vigorously)

for most of my life and good work makes me feel good.

 

But it is not a photograph, it is graphics work.

 

No photography was done in the making of the image, scanning was.

 

photo.net --------- not ----------- graphics.net

 

End of rant.

I see the flickers and red headed woodpecker in my back yard doing this all the time. Upside down, every way you could think of they do. They literally hop upside down on a tree branch, hunting for bugs and grubs. This is a trivial angle for them.

I love graphics art works, photographs, etc. But isn't this a photo forum with

cameras and lenses.

 

I am all for a graphics art forum and the great work that can be done, but, If

the title is Photo of the Week shouldn't the image have come from a

CAMERA?

 

Camera - photo - see the relationship?

I put him in the Portrait category :-) He was in a puppet museum in Atlanta,

Georgia.

Thanks Lucas, I had forgotten the name. It is difficult to believe that such a neat creature like it could exist. It is well named except for the lack of fire and fang.

As you can see in some of my other photos I have removed a very dark water

plant from behind the sea horse. I liked the green against the black. And I

loved the sea horse. I shot a hundred or more photos of this one display.

I just ran across this photo. The light is correct with the photographers shadow. Put the photo in photoshop and rotate it 180 degrees. Look at what would be the lower left corner in the original which is not the upper right in the flipped photo. All the grains and blobs of sand are consistent as well as the shoeprint and the clunks of sand that fell off the heel. It will look as if the light is coming from the top of the photo, the direction that the shadow from the photographer is shown.

 

Our mind always puts light at the top of the photo, which is why the original looked wrong. It is indeed a proper photo.

The inner part of a strong rainbow will show a silver effect in the inside and darkening of the outside. Here is an old photo to show the effect. I didn't have a lens wide enough to do it in one shot and it is also not too pretty, lots of dirt and construction in a new subdivision. My usual luck.

I found this photo when reviewing a lot of picts taken this last 4th of July. It is

made of time exposure of sparks of course but I have no idea what the

process was that made the separate trails. I was hand holding the camera

but it doesn't have the typical "everything moves the same amount " that

camera movement makes. The colors, etc are as taken. I honestly like it a lot.

 

I wonder how you feel about it.

This was a scale radio controlled model of approximately 8 ft wingspan. The Swastika while historically a symbol of less than stellar reputation is indeed scale. The smoke apparently was just for the fun of it and is caused by oil injected into the airplane exhaust. It is the reason it comes out in puffs.

I started to remove some little distractions in the photo and got a little carried

away with the smear tool. It was a lot of fun, I think it looks better than the

original photo.

I am working on my subject matter selection, the equipment is fine and better

than me!

How much does the log thingy in the background add/detract from the image.

It is a simple matter to remove it and black it in but somehow is seems to

belong there. The other shadows ect. are as photographed.

The black background was added later, it was better than the windows that

were there. Neat flowers are as they were.

Some photographers don't like to see people in natural things but isn't this

orchid squinting to keep the Lady Bug out of his eye? When I look at these

orchids I am reminded of Japanese Warriors.