If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
subject induced refraction?
This shot was taken with the sun just off the tip of the crane: http://www.aliasimages.com/images/Ju...0Crane0011.jpg ghosting and flare about what one would expect... The next was with the sun right on the tip of the crane: http://www.aliasimages.com/images/Ju...0Crane0010.jpg In this version there are many more ghost images. I suspect that the complex junction at the tip of the crane made multiple images of the sun which in turn made all the extra ghosts in the upper left... Comments? (Maxxum 20mm f/2.8 at f/11; E100S. UV filter in place as the area was somewhat dusty) Cheers, Alan -- --e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.-- |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
subject induced refraction?
Alan Browne wrote in
: This shot was taken with the sun just off the tip of the crane: http://www.aliasimages.com/images/Ju...0Crane0011.jpg ghosting and flare about what one would expect... The next was with the sun right on the tip of the crane: http://www.aliasimages.com/images/Ju...0Crane0010.jpg In this version there are many more ghost images. I suspect that the complex junction at the tip of the crane made multiple images of the sun which in turn made all the extra ghosts in the upper left... Comments? (Maxxum 20mm f/2.8 at f/11; E100S. UV filter in place as the area was somewhat dusty) I'm more inclined to say that filter in the dust is the cause, since there's no uniformity to it and it's not following the lens axis. Small potential that exactly the right angle bounced some reflections off of the lens surfaces onto the back of the UV, too. I think it's possible to have subject-induced refractions, but only in the cases where the subject can act like a lens or pinhole, and I doubt you would see it through a lens itself, but only when the sunlight was projected onto a surface for "focus'. What comes to mind is the effect where spots of sunlight coming through trees and screens can produce multiple images of a partial eclipse onto surfaces (when a partial eclipse is in effect, of course). I could be wrong, this is only speculationm and I;'ll disavow all knowledge of this conversation if questioned. - Al. -- To reply, insert dash in address to match domain below Online photo gallery at www.wading-in.net |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
subject induced refraction?
i just wanted to say that the title of the thread "subject induced refraction"
sounds like a medical condition of some sort |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
subject induced refraction?
Al Denelsbeck wrote:
Alan Browne wrote in : This shot was taken with the sun just off the tip of the crane: http://www.aliasimages.com/images/Ju...0Crane0011.jpg ghosting and flare about what one would expect... The next was with the sun right on the tip of the crane: http://www.aliasimages.com/images/Ju...0Crane0010.jpg In this version there are many more ghost images. I suspect that the complex junction at the tip of the crane made multiple images of the sun which in turn made all the extra ghosts in the upper left... Comments? (Maxxum 20mm f/2.8 at f/11; E100S. UV filter in place as the area was somewhat dusty) ....oops... was E100G. I'm more inclined to say that filter in the dust is the cause, since there's no uniformity to it and it's not following the lens axis. Small potential that exactly the right angle bounced some reflections off of the lens surfaces onto the back of the UV, too. I think it's possible to have subject-induced refractions, but only in the cases where the subject can act like a lens or pinhole, and I doubt you would see it through a lens itself, but only when the sunlight was projected onto a surface for "focus'. What comes to mind is the effect where spots of sunlight coming through trees and screens can produce multiple images of a partial eclipse onto surfaces (when a partial eclipse is in effect, of course). What led me to the idea that it is subject created difraction (as opposed to dust on/near the lens is that he two shots were taken about 10 seconds (less?) apart. After the 'off' point hot I repositioned such that the shaddow of the camera fell onto the shaddow of the top of the crane... Cheers, Alan -- --e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.-- |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
difficulty drum scanning negatives | Jytzel | Film & Labs | 51 | April 10th 04 08:56 PM |