 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Film Photography / 35 mm / September 2008[PICS] frustration of hummingbirds
Welcome to the frustrating world of photographing hummingbirds. http://www.jlkramer.net/Pictures/HB/morning.htm -Jim > Welcome to the frustrating world of photographing hummingbirds. > > http://www.jlkramer.net/Pictures/HB/morning.htm > -Jim I didn't have much luck with them either; I have one (possibly) usable crop. I suggest dropping the (C) notices...  Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. -- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out. >> Welcome to the frustrating world of photographing hummingbirds. >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > I suggest dropping the (C) notices... If you click on the crops it takes you to a 100% sized version. If I'm putting up big stuff the C notice goes with it. ah-la -> http://www.jlkramer.net/Pictures/HB/morning1.htm http://www.jlkramer.net/Pictures/HB/morning2.htm http://www.jlkramer.net/Pictures/HB/morning3.htm http://www.jlkramer.net/Pictures/HB/morning4.htm http://www.jlkramer.net/Pictures/HB/morning5.htm -Jim On Aug 23, 9:28 am, "jimkramer" <Newsread...@NOFSPAMjlkramer.net> wrote: > Welcome to the frustrating world of photographing hummingbirds. > > http://www.jlkramer.net/Pictures/HB/morning.htm > -Jim Tell me about it! I wasted most of this morning trying to shoot those buggers. Most of the shots need some loving treatment after the fact. But with a little work you can take a RAW capture like this: http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/102060398 and turn it into this: http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/102060394/original On Aug 23, 9:28 am, "jimkramer" <Newsread...@NOFSPAMjlkramer.net> wrote: > Welcome to the frustrating world of photographing hummingbirds. > > http://www.jlkramer.net/Pictures/HB/morning.htm > -Jim Tell me about it! I wasted most of this morning trying to shoot those buggers. Most of the shots need some loving treatment after the fact. But with a little work you can take a RAW capture like this: http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/102060398 and turn it into this: http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/102060394/original Think that I'll work on my technique a bit before I bother trying to fix a questionable image. But damn those things are fast. -Jim > Tell me about it! I wasted most of this morning trying to shoot those > buggers. Most of the shots need some loving treatment after the fact. > > But with a little work you can take a RAW capture like this: > http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/102060398 My condolences! How in God's creation did you manage to get it so wrong in-camera? Don't let Noons see that one or he'll have a hardon for you the rest of the year. > and turn it into this: > http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/102060394/original Too much work for no payback. Rita SignatureStamping out Internet stupidity one idiot at a time. Never empower the idiot, embrace it and stimulate it. For more details go to the Usenet Stimulus Project page. http://ritaberk.myhosting247.com > Welcome to the frustrating world of photographing hummingbirds. > > http://www.jlkramer.net/Pictures/HB/morning.htm > -Jim It needn't be so frustrating. Didn't you just move to Mississippi? If you will put all your feeders within 10 feet of each other (and the First Nature one that is in your photo is inexpensive and one of the best available) you will, within the next two week or so, you will have too many hummingbirds to photograph. At that point set up a pancake style humminbird feeder (humzinger and Perky Pet Oasis are two examples of this type) supported from the bottom and place it about 30 feet away from the other feeders and in the shade. It will get regular visits and will likely only get one hummer at a time (with some fighting). Get your flash off camera and set it to a manual setting of 1/2 or full power. Put it at a height of about two feet above the feeder pointing at the feeder at a downward and horizontal angle of about 45 degrees to the line of sight from the camera. Use a small diffuser that does not send light in directions leading away from the subject, such as the Westcott Micro Apollo or the $5 foamcore one here: http://www.dyesscreek.com/hidden_pages/diffuser.html What you don't want is a Gary Fong Lightsphere, cut alcohol bottle, Sto-Fen Omni-Bounce or anything that will send your flash's light to places where your subject isn't. If you two flashes, put one on either side of the bird, again, pointing away from you and down at the bird at about a 45 degree angle on both axes. If you don't have two flashes, use a piece of white foamcore as a reflector on the opposite side of the bird. Your camera should be at a level approximately six inches above the feeder, which is the same level the bird will be most of the time that you shoot it. Put thumbtacks in the holes of the feeder leaving only one open and orient it such that you will get the side of the hummer that you want. Rotate the feeder to get different "poses." Cut the perches off the feeder if it has them and they cannot be removed any other way. After the hummingbird sips, it will "back up" and hover for a moment before sipping again. Shoot it while it is hovering in-between sips. Let the wings blur. They look natural that way and the trade-offs are worth it: http://www.dyesscreek.com/birds/index.php?dir=hummingbirds During mid-september, and especially after any big storm blows through, you will be able to shoot hundreds of shots in one sitting. Eric Miller www.dyesscreek.com >> Welcome to the frustrating world of photographing hummingbirds. >> [quoted text clipped - 50 lines] > Eric Miller > www.dyesscreek.com Thanks for the pointers Eric. I put up two feeders and am now going through just over a gallon of sugar water in a week. The feeders each have ten holes and I have seen as many as eight on a feeder used at one time, not for long mind you. :-) I've counted well over 20 at once in air and on feeder. There was just a mass hatching as there are lots of juvenile males (oxymoron?) that are just coming in to colors. They are fairly tame, you can stand with in 2 feet of the feeders and they will still come up to feed, just don’t move quickly. My goal is to make Bret furious by getting set up to shoot them with the MP-E 65. :-) Have you tried flashing from the underside to get the gorget to flare? Any flower recommendations? -Jim On Aug 27, 12:31 pm, "jimkramer" <Newsread...@NOFSPAMjlkramer.net> wrote: > I've counted well over 20 at once in air and on feeder. You guys are lucky. I have 4 hummers at my place. I have 3 feeders surrounding my deck. > My goal is to make Bret furious by getting set up to shoot them with the > MP-E 65. :-) Good luck with that! If I set my camera outside on a tripod the hummers will sometimes buzz it so you might be able to get the shot that way with a remote cable. I can go out with my red shirt and red cap on and they'll buzz right by my ears. > Any flower recommendations? A friend tells me this salvia is their favorite target in his garden: http://edgehill.net/California/Bay-Area/Oakland/8-10-08-berkeley/full-set/pg2 It makes 3-foot long spikes like that (only about 3 inches are shown) and stands about 5 feet tall. SignaturePaul Furman www.edgehill.net www.baynatives.com all google groups messages filtered due to spam > I put up two feeders and am now going through just over a gallon of sugar > water in a week. The feeders each have ten holes and I have seen as many > as eight on a feeder used at one time, not for long mind you. :-) Soon you will have many more birds coming through and a lot of adult males will lead the crowd. > There was just a mass hatching as there are lots of juvenile males > (oxymoron?) . . .> "Truism" is the word I think you are looking for if my wife is correct. > My goal is to make Bret furious by getting set up to shoot them with the > MP-E 65. :-) Good luck with that. Give a 70-200 with a 1.4x teleconverter a try if you just want to get close. For filling the frame, my lens of choice is a 400mm 5.6 (Canon's EF 400 5/5.6L) with an extension tube, somewhere around 35mm length. > Have you tried flashing from the underside to get the gorget to flare? No. But I have tested lighting from different angles but never got around to posting a web page on that subject. My verdict is: illuminate from above. A rubythroat's gorget will light up best if illuminated from above while the bird is facing you. Of course, this is foiled by the bird sometimes because they can apparently control whether the red shows or not. After testing by placing the flash at different angles to the feeder and rotating the feeder to change the position of the birds, it dawned on me that I probably should have known this anyway since that is where their light comes when not being photographed. Anyway, this photo shows the bird with light hitting the bird at an approximate 45 degree downward angle and from about the same angle to the right and left of the line from the lens to the bird: http://www.dyesscreek.com/birds/index.php?display=hummingbirds%2Fcrw_6372.jpg > Any flower recommendations? For attracting them to the yard, the three most successful plants that I have are: Mimosa a.k.a. Silk Tree - when this blooms in spring, my hummingbird numbers grow significantly. Turk's Cap - when this blooms in late summer and fall (right now) the birds will ignore the feeders until they have drained this plant first. Coral Honeysuckle - another plant that the birds will feed from before the feeder. Eric Miller www.dyesscreek.com Eric Miller wrote,on my timestamp of 28/08/2008 1:37 AM: > Put thumbtacks in the holes of the feeder leaving only one open and orient > it such that you will get the side of the hummer that you want. Rotate the > feeder to get different "poses." Cut the perches off the feeder if it has > them and they cannot be removed any other way. After the hummingbird sips, > it will "back up" and hover for a moment before sipping again. Shoot it > while it is hovering in-between sips. and don't forget to paste in a few blossoms to replace that ugly feeder... So tell me something: how do you get blurred wings with two flashes? Do you slow down lightspeed as well? Last time I looked, the exposure time of a flash burst will freeze solid any moving wings. > Let the wings blur. They look natural that way and the trade-offs are worth > it: or just photoslop them in from another shot, blur and all. Bret would. > So tell me something: how do you get blurred wings > with two flashes? Do you slow down lightspeed as > well? Last time I looked, the exposure time of a flash > burst will freeze solid any moving wings. Not unless you have a VERY high-speed flash unit. Hummingbird wings beat so fast you'd need about 1/15,000 of a second to freeze it totally. Annika1980 wrote,on my timestamp of 28/08/2008 10:45 AM: >> So tell me something: how do you get blurred wings >> with two flashes? Do you slow down lightspeed as [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Hummingbird wings beat so fast you'd need about 1/15,000 of a second > to freeze it totally. Just to prove what sort of a liar you are: http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2000/MarkLevin.shtml If you take a flash to a spinning airplane propeller, you'll freeze the action right there. Even 1/1000 will do it. Hummingbirds beat their wings much, much slower than a spinning propeller, at around 60Hz. That's why they are called "humming": the noise from their wings is a low pitch "hum". Or in photo terms, around 1/60 second. If you used the default synch speed of your camera of around 1/200, the wings would be nearly frozen solid. So how come the hummie bodies show evidence of flash light reflection but the wings are blurred? Strange flash you have, that has a flash burst speed of less than 1/60. May I suggest you try to sell it in epay? Must be worth a fortune! Like I said: nothing like letting a liar like you talk. It shows straight away what you claim is nothing but crap. But everyone already knew that, it's only you who can't fathom how silly you really make yourself look. > Or in photo terms, around 1/60 second. > If you used the default synch speed of your camera > of around 1/200, the wings would be nearly frozen solid. > So how come the hummie bodies show evidence of flash > light reflection but the wings are blurred? You are an idiot. If a hummer beats his wings at 50 beats per second then the wings will make one full cycle of motion in 1/50 of a second. At a shutter speed of 1/200 of a second the wings will go through 1/4 of their total cycle of motion. In other words they'll move a couple of inches in the time that the shutter is open. So tell us again how 1/200 is going to freeze the motion? Better yet, provide us ANY examples of that happening without the use of high-speed flash. On Aug 28, 9:08 am, Noons <wizofo...@yahoo.com.au> wrote: > Or in photo terms, around 1/60 second. > If you used the default synch speed of your camera > of around 1/200, the wings would be nearly frozen solid. > So how come the hummie bodies show evidence of flash > light reflection but the wings are blurred? You are an idiot. If a hummer beats his wings at 50 beats per second then the wings will make one full cycle of motion in 1/50 of a second. At a shutter speed of 1/200 of a second the wings will go through 1/4 of their total cycle of motion. In other words they'll move a couple of inches in the time that the shutter is open. So tell us again how 1/200 is going to freeze the motion? Better yet, provide us ANY examples of that happening without the use of high-speed flash. The difference between someone that is just ignorant and someone that is just an idiot; you can teach the ignorance away, not so with the idiotcy. You have clearly identified the problem; the only logical course of action should also be painfully apparent, lest we begin to categorize you as well. -Jim On Aug 28, 11:11 am, "jimkramer" <Newsread...@NOFSPAMjlkramer.net> wrote: > The difference between someone that is just ignorant and someone that is > just an idiot; you can teach the ignorance away, not so with the idiotcy. > You have clearly identified the problem; the only logical course of action > should also be painfully apparent, lest we begin to categorize you as > well. -Jim So I should ignore the idiot? Gotcha. Having said that, it is sometimes tough to let some of his blatant lies stand. On Aug 28, 11:11 am, "jimkramer" <Newsread...@NOFSPAMjlkramer.net> wrote: > The difference between someone that is just ignorant and someone that is > just an idiot; you can teach the ignorance away, not so with the idiotcy. > You have clearly identified the problem; the only logical course of action > should also be painfully apparent, lest we begin to categorize you as > well. -Jim So I should ignore the idiot? Gotcha. Having said that, it is sometimes tough to let some of his blatant lies stand. The only one paying him any attention is you. Again, the logical course of action... -Jim > On Aug 28, 11:11 am, "jimkramer" <Newsread...@NOFSPAMjlkramer.net> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > of action... > -Jim should have been obvious from the beginning. -Jim Annika1980 wrote,on my timestamp of 29/08/2008 1:31 AM: > Having said that, it is sometimes tough to let some of his blatant > lies stand. "Hummingbird wings beat so fast you'd need about 1/15,000 of a second to freeze it totally. " nothing like letting your lies stand on their own. jimkramer wrote,on my timestamp of 29/08/2008 1:11 AM: > The difference between someone that is just ignorant and someone that is > just an idiot; you can teach the ignorance away, not so with the idiotcy. > You have clearly identified the problem; the only logical course of action > should also be painfully apparent, lest we begin to categorize you as > well. -Jim "Hummingbird wings beat so fast you'd need about 1/15,000 of a second to freeze it totally. " the words of YOUR idiot. not mine. ["Followup-To:" header set to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems.] > If a hummer beats his wings at 50 beats per second then the wings will > make one full cycle of motion in 1/50 of a second. At a shutter speed [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > going to freeze the motion? Better yet, provide us ANY examples of > that happening without the use of high-speed flash. Actually, you don't want "high speed flash", that is, a flash setting for faster than x-sync. That'll just have the flash stutter at a very fast rate, not freezing anything. :-/ Use a flash (or many flashes) at a low(er) power setting to freeze by flashlight. -Wolfgang Annika1980 wrote,on my timestamp of 29/08/2008 1:00 AM: > You are an idiot. You took the words off my mouth. Thanks for admitting it. > If a hummer beats his wings at 50 beats per second then the wings will > make one full cycle of motion in 1/50 of a second. And that somehow is 1/15000 of a second? > At a shutter speed > of 1/200 of a second the wings will go through 1/4 of their total > cycle of motion. And that proves they move at 1/15000second how? > In other words they'll move a couple of inches in > the time that the shutter is open. So tell us again how 1/200 is > going to freeze the motion? By firing a flash at it that has a 1/1000th of a second exposure duration, dickhead? > Better yet, provide us ANY examples of > that happening without the use of high-speed flash. of WHAT happening, dickhead? > So tell us again how 1/200 is > > going to freeze the motion? > > By firing a flash at it that has a 1/1000th of a second > exposure duration, dickhead? We have learned at least two things so far in this thread. You are mathematically challenged and you can't keep up. Let me try to school your dumb a.s once more. Eric Miller explains it much better on his website: http://www.dyesscreek.com/miscellaneous_pages/howto_1.html Eric writes: "Let me explain the math. The wings on a ruby throated hummingbird beat at approximately 50-60 beats per second. With a wingspan that varies between birds from 3-4 inches or so, that means that the wingtips travel from front to back about 6-8 inches, more or less. This means that the wings travel between 300 and 500 inches per second. So a 1/1000 second shutter speed will catch a wing movement of about 1/2 inch or so, i.e., a complete blur. Of course, the 1/2 inch distance is not always true because the wings don't actually move at a constant speed. Instead, they move through one beat, stop (or slow down greatly) and then move in the opposite direction, but you get the idea. In order to see detail in the wings you would need a faster shutter speed than you will find on most any good SLR. Catching the wing near either end of a beat will help a lot too." Hope that helps. > > Better yet, provide us ANY examples of that happening without the use of high-speed flash. > > of WHAT happening, dickhead? Damn, try to keep up. EXAMPLES OF FREEZING A HUMMERS WINGS WITHOUT USING HIGH-SPEED FLASH, dickhead. By "high-speed flash" I am of course talking about a flash duration much shorter than the usual 1/1000 second. Annika1980 wrote,on my timestamp of 30/08/2008 12:13 AM: > We have learned at least two things so far in this thread. You don't have a clue what the short exposure of a flash does to a wing beat and you are a complete liar. Yes, we know that. > Eric Miller explains it much better on his website: > http://www.dyesscreek.com/miscellaneous_pages/howto_1.html <yaaaaaaaaaaaaawn, this is gonna be fun!> > Eric writes: > second. So a 1/1000 second shutter speed will catch a wing movement of > about 1/2 inch or so, i.e., a complete blur. Of course, the 1/2 inch > distance is not always true because the wings don't actually move at a > constant speed. I wish he'd make up his mind: is it a "complete blur" or is it 1/2 inch distance blur or is it a full stroke blur like in your shots? One wonders... > Instead, they move through one beat, stop (or slow > down greatly) and then move in the opposite direction, but you get the > idea. Yeah, I get the idea your shots have fake wings: they show a full stroke of blur with a flash burst on the body. > In order to see detail in the wings you would need a faster > shutter speed than you will find on most any good SLR. Catching the > wing near either end of a beat will help a lot too." Fantastic! Thanks for proving my point. So, when you use a short flash burst, you get wings that look blurred? Like: in YOUR obviously FAKE shots? > Damn, try to keep up. EXAMPLES OF FREEZING A HUMMERS WINGS WITHOUT > USING HIGH-SPEED FLASH, dickhead. Cripes, Bret: are you making a special effort to show yourself as a complete idiot? Get this very simply, dickhead: you CANNOT have a flash-frozen body of a bird and at the same time blurred wings, like you do in your fakes! Got it, you blithering moron? What you just provided in this stupidly moronic post of yours is complete proof of what *I* said since the start. Of course: being the complete idiotic arse you really are, instead of READING my original post you charged along in some confused understanding of yours. > By "high-speed flash" I am of course talking about a flash duration > much shorter than the usual 1/1000 second. Yes, like what you get when a flash cuts out: as short as 1/15000. Plenty short to "freeze" ANY bird's wings. So, HOW COME YOUR SHOTS WITH SUCH A FLASH SHOW A COMPLETE, FULL STROKE BLURRED WING BEAT AND A "FLASH-FROZEN" BODY AT THE SAME TIME? Got it now, diddums? Hey, knock yourself out: it's only your reputation completely in tatters yet again, you stupid moron! > I wish he'd make up his mind: is it a "complete blur" > or is it 1/2 inch distance blur or is it a full stroke > blur like in your shots? One wonders... No confusion there, except by you. The wings are moving up to 1/2 inch duing the exposure. That creates a blur. What is so difficult to understand? > Yeah, I get the idea your shots have fake wings: > they show a full stroke of blur with a flash burst > on the body. Not a full stroke. Probably only 1/2 or so. > Get this very simply, dickhead: > you CANNOT have a flash-frozen body of a bird > and at the same time blurred wings, like you do > in your fakes! Of course you can, idiot. The body of the bird is moving slowly compared to the wings. Have you never seen a photo of a flying plane or copter with the blurred props? > Got it, you blithering moron? What you just > provided in this stupidly moronic post of yours > is complete proof of what *I* said since the start. Oh really? Seems like you are the only one here who doesn't get it. > So, HOW COME YOUR SHOTS WITH SUCH A FLASH SHOW > A COMPLETE, FULL STROKE BLURRED WING BEAT AND > A "FLASH-FROZEN" BODY AT THE SAME TIME? It's a type of magic. Moron! Annika1980 wrote,on my timestamp of 30/08/2008 1:23 AM: > No confusion there, except by you. The wings are moving up to 1/2 > inch duing the exposure. That creates a blur. What is so difficult > to understand? A full stroke blur like in your FAKE shots? Yeah that is indeed difficult to understand. But only if one wants to keep the illusion of credibility: which you exhausted ages ago... >> Yeah, I get the idea your shots have fake wings: >> they show a full stroke of blur with a flash burst >> on the body. > > Not a full stroke. Probably only 1/2 or so. A very clear full stroke, dickhead. > Oh really? Seems like you are the only one here who doesn't get it. what, that your shots are complete FAKES? >> So, HOW COME YOUR SHOTS WITH SUCH A FLASH SHOW >> A COMPLETE, FULL STROKE BLURRED WING BEAT AND >> A "FLASH-FROZEN" BODY AT THE SAME TIME? > > It's a type of magic. It's called a FAKE, moron. > Annika1980 wrote,on my timestamp of 28/08/2008 10:45 AM: > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > That's why they are called "humming": the noise > from their wings is a low pitch "hum". You believe a spinning propeller is going much faster then 3600 RPM? Scott Scott W wrote,on my timestamp of 30/08/2008 12:29 AM: > You believe a spinning propeller is going much faster then 3600 RPM? No. And that is much faster than the wings of ANY bird, including stuffed ones. Exactly what was your point? > Scott W wrote,on my timestamp of 30/08/2008 12:29 AM: > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > ANY bird, including stuffed ones. > Exactly what was your point? You said "Hummingbirds beat their wings much, much slower than a spinning propeller" Well at 60 Hz, this would be 3600 RPM. Scott Scott W wrote,on my timestamp of 30/08/2008 2:13 AM: >> Scott W wrote,on my timestamp of 30/08/2008 12:29 AM: >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Well at 60 Hz, this would be 3600 RPM. Sheesh, took you a loooong time for that one... Except propellers have usually 3, and quite often 4 blades. Birds have one wing blade to beat with. That would be 180Hz or even 240 against 60. Rather different, not? Once again: your point? > Scott W wrote,on my timestamp of 30/08/2008 2:13 AM: > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > even 240 against 60. Rather different, not? > Once again: your point? You might want to read this. http://www.rpphoto.com/howto/hummer/humguide1.asp Scott Scott W wrote,on my timestamp of 30/08/2008 2:37 AM: >> Scott W wrote,on my timestamp of 30/08/2008 2:13 AM: >> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > You might want to read this. > http://www.rpphoto.com/howto/hummer/humguide1.asp Can you stop idiotic quotes of out of context sites? But let's indulge the stupidity anyway. From *your* quoted site, this: "The result is about 1/6,000 s at 1/16 power, and 1/10,000 s at 1/32 power. That's plenty of stopping ability" Did you get that? "PLENTY" of stopping ability. Once more, to see if it gets through your brain: "That's plenty of stopping ability" OK. Got it? So, now: how come Bret's shots have a bird with a flash-ed body and blurred wings? With exif info saying the flash fired? What, *another* "pbase exif bug"? Does it even reach your brain that an electronic flash firing at close distance shows PRECISELY and EXACTLY the "plenty of stopping ability" mentioned above? And therefore it is COMPLETELY IMPOSSIBLE for the wings to be blurred to the extent he fabricates in his images? So, once again: exactly what is your point? *IF* you have one, other than out of context insinuations? > "The result is about 1/6,000 s at 1/16 power, > and 1/10,000 s at 1/32 power. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > a flash-ed body and blurred wings? > With exif info saying the flash fired? Because I didn't use High-speed sync at 1/32 or 1/64 power. Dumbass. I could use that setting on my Speedlights, but I'd need to have the flash very close to the bird because of the greatly reduced light output. Annika1980 wrote,on my timestamp of 30/08/2008 4:20 AM: >> OK. Got it? So, now: >> how come Bret's shots have a bird with [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Because I didn't use High-speed sync at 1/32 or 1/64 power. > Dumbass. You had the flash on auto, of course. We know that, it's how you take most of your shots anyway, relying on photoslop to fix the errors. What do you think auto does to modulate the power, dickhead? It CUTS the time, you moron! That's why you get freeze action, which you then blur the sh.t off in your fake shots. > I could use that setting on my Speedlights, but I'd need to have the > flash very close to the bird because of the greatly reduced light > output. You use auto flash which does exactly the same, moron. But only an ignorant dickhead like you would pretend it doesn't. > Scott W wrote,on my timestamp of 30/08/2008 2:37 AM: > [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > Can you stop idiotic quotes of out of > context sites? What qoutes? I simply posted link to a site that goes into some detail on what you need to do to get the flash fast enough to freeze a hummingbird's wings. He stated that you need a duration as short as 1/5,00 to 1/20,000 sec. Scott Scott W wrote,on my timestamp of 30/08/2008 4:32 AM: > What qoutes? I simply posted link to a site that goes into some > detail on what you need to do to get the flash fast enough to freeze a > hummingbird's wings. > > He stated that you need a duration as short as 1/5,00 to 1/20,000 sec. and that proves exactly WHAT? Can you actually post TWICE on topic ANYWHERE? > > > "Hummingbirds beat their wings much, much slower than > > > a spinning propeller" [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > even 240 against 60. Rather different, not? > > Once again: your point? I had forgotten about noons (I filtered him out at the beginning of the summer) seems clear that physics is not his strong suite. I will make it simple for him 1) Propellers are turning in revolutions per minute (RPM) and hummingbirds wings are in beats per second (Hz). There is a factor of 60 between the two units. Typical numbers are 2000 RPM for aircraft engines, helicopter blades are 300 RPM and humming birds 60 beats per second. 2) Hummingbirds have two wings. 3) Three or four blades will change the phase component and harmonic content of the noise but not the frequency. 4) Airplanes are photographed at a distance, humming bird can't be seen in a distance. Propellers move a few pixels/grains on aircraft photos. Humming birds wings move in a significant percentage of body size. Sorry Scott, I ran out of coffee a couple hours ago and noons replaced it with adrenaline. w.. Walter Banks wrote,on my timestamp of 30/08/2008 5:13 AM: > I had forgotten about noons (I filtered him out at the > beginning of the summer) seems clear that physics is not > his strong suite. I will make it simple for him Apparently, you have forgotten about reality. That's what happens to the twits running around yelling lah-lah-lah with a killfile around their ears > rest of totally out of context and unreal "statements of fact" snipped, to improve the noise. > Sorry Scott, I ran out of coffee a couple hours ago and > noons replaced it with adrenaline. "The result is about 1/6,000 s at 1/16 power, and 1/10,000 s at 1/32 power. That's plenty of stopping ability" Still waiting for your "explanation" to that, arsehole. > "The result is about 1/6,000 s at 1/16 power, > and 1/10,000 s at 1/32 power. > That's plenty of stopping ability" > > Still waiting for your "explanation" to that, > arsehole. I'm still waiting for your explanation for how a flash duration of 1/1000 can freeze a hummer's wings when every other source quoted says that you have to have a much shorter flash duration to freeze them. First you wrote this pearl of wisdom: "Last time I looked, the exposure time of a flash burst will freeze solid any moving wings." That was pretty funny and we all had a good laugh at that one. Then you compounded your foolishness with this gem: "If you used the default synch speed of your camera of around 1/200, the wings would be nearly frozen solid." My stomach actually hurt from the laughing pains after that one. When I said that you'd need a flash with about a 1/15000 duration you tried to mock me as being an idiot. More than once. Scott posted a link that said the same thing: "To freeze all motion in a hummingbird's wings, you need a duration as short as 1/5,000 to 1/20,000 of a second (50-200 microseconds)." Gee, sounds like what I said! And now all you can say is, " and that proves exactly WHAT? " What it proves is that you are a clueless buffoon who obviously never made it out of grade school. Sucks to be you, Loony Noony! Annika1980 wrote,on my timestamp of 30/08/2008 12:24 PM: > I'm still waiting for your explanation for how a flash duration of > 1/1000 can freeze a hummer's wings when every other source quoted says > that you have to have a much shorter flash duration to freeze them. Never said that. Once again: you're quoting the voices in your head, dingbat. > That was pretty funny and we all had a good laugh at that one. the voices in your head? Yes, they laugh a lot. At you. > My stomach actually hurt from the laughing pains after that one. Stomach is all you have in place of a brain, moron. > When I said that you'd need a flash with about a 1/15000 duration you > tried to mock me as being an idiot. More than once. And you don't. Which has been proven time and time again. "The result is about 1/6,000 s at 1/16 power, and 1/10,000 s at 1/32 power. That's plenty of stopping ability" Just one more time to get it through your sick, frozen brain: "The result is about 1/6,000 s at 1/16 power, and 1/10,000 s at 1/32 power. That's plenty of stopping ability" How come the wings in your flash shots are COMPLETELY blurred, moron? Explanation, please? Instead of more moronic out of context snips? > Scott posted a link that said the same thing: > "To freeze all motion in a hummingbird's wings, you need a duration as > short as 1/5,000 to 1/20,000 of a second (50-200 microseconds)." Actually, it's this: "The result is about 1/6,000 s at 1/16 power, and 1/10,000 s at 1/32 power. That's plenty of stopping ability" "plenty" means PLENTY, dickhead. Not the blurred wings in your flash shots. But let's not allow truth interfere with the voices in your head. > Gee, sounds like what I said! Gee, it does not sound like ANYTHING you said! > And now all you can say is, " and that proves exactly WHAT? " Exactly and precisely. It's got nothing to do with the simple fact you still have not explained why your shots contradict the simple truth you keep quoting. What it proves is that you are a complete LIAR, a buffoon midget with no brains whatsoever and demonstrates your complete lack of any basic principles, which shows in the FAKES you constantly regurgitate. > How come the wings in your flash shots are > COMPLETELY blurred, moron? Explanation, please? > Instead of more moronic out of context snips? Are you really this f.cking thick? I'll type this as slowly as I can so maybe you can follow. The wings in my hummer shots are blurred because I DID NOT use a flash with a short duration like 1/15000, 1/10000 or even 1/6000 of a second. So why didn't I just manually set it to 1/128 power to get the shortest flash duration? Because at the distance I was shooting it would have given me a black photo since the power output of the flash is reduced. That's as simple as I can make it. If you need more help you might wanna check Amazon for the latest copy of "Hummingbird Flash Photography for Stupid f.ckers." Annika1980 wrote,on my timestamp of 30/08/2008 1:44 PM: >> How come the wings in your flash shots are >> COMPLETELY blurred, moron? Explanation, please? >> Instead of more moronic out of context snips? > > Are you really this f.cking thick? I couldn't possibly match you. > I'll type this as slowly as I can so maybe you can follow. > The wings in my hummer shots are blurred because I DID NOT use a flash > with a short duration like 1/15000, 1/10000 or even 1/6000 of a > second. The wings in your hummie shhots are COMPLETELY blurred because you used photoslop to do so, moron. Even if you had used a full blast flash - which you didn't - it would still have been enough to make a good outline, although blurred. What you got in your FAKEs is a COMPLETELY blurred wing, which is IMPOSSIBLE to obtain with a flash, at ANY power. Like I said: totally FAKE. > The wings in your hummie shhots are COMPLETELY blurred > because you used photoslop to do so, moron. > Even if you had used a full blast flash - which you didn't - it > would still have been enough to make a good outline, although blurred. > What you got in your FAKEs is a COMPLETELY blurred wing, > which is IMPOSSIBLE to obtain with a flash, at ANY power. Bullshit. And I can of course prove it if you are willing to put your cash where your big fat mouth is. Annika1980 wrote,on my timestamp of 30/08/2008 2:37 PM: >> The wings in your hummie shhots are COMPLETELY blurred >> because you used photoslop to do so, moron. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Bullshit. And I can of course prove it if you are willing to put your > cash where your big fat mouth is. of course, the hawker scammer resorts to illegal betting. try leaving those tactics to the low-life places you frequent, instead of polluting the Usenet even more than you already do. once more, to make sure it registers: Even if you had used a full blast flash - which you didn't - it would still have been enough to make a good outline, although blurred. What you got in your FAKEs is a COMPLETELY blurred wing, which is IMPOSSIBLE to obtain with a flash, at ANY power. > once more, to make sure it registers: > Even if you had used a full blast flash - which you didn't - it > would still have been enough to make a good outline, although blurred. > What you got in your FAKEs is a COMPLETELY blurred wing, > which is IMPOSSIBLE to obtain with a flash, at ANY power. Keep spouting those lies, Noons. Maybe somebody will believe you, despite the fact that everyone else (those who have posted and the links we provided) agrees with what I'm saying. I've offered to post the RAW file for any pic you choose, but you run away like the chickenshit that you are. I'm done with your stupid, neanderthal a.s. >> once more, to make sure it registers: >> Even if you had used a full blast flash - which you didn't - it [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > the RAW file for any pic you choose, but you run away like the > chickenshit that you are. I'm done with your stupid, neanderthal a.s. Does that mean you'll finally KF him and stop your inane discussions with the void-brain? Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. -- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out. >>> once more, to make sure it registers: >>> Even if you had used a full blast flash - which you didn't - it [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Does that mean you'll finally KF him and stop your inane discussions > with the void-brain? Of course not. Nor will he stop cross posting. Try to help here, Alan. Signaturejohn mcwilliams On Aug 30, 11:53 am, Alan Browne <alan.bro...@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote: > Does that mean you'll finally KF him and stop your inane discussions > with the void-brain? Yes, it's possible that I will ignore him (I don't use killfiles since they are for dweebs). That way I'll have more time to devote to that other fuckwit, McWilliams. "FU SET! FU SET!" > On Aug 30, 11:53 am, Alan Browne <alan.bro...@Freelunchvideotron.ca> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Yes, it's possible that I will ignore him (I don't use killfiles since > they are for dweebs). People who use KF's are certainly not dweebs, but folks who get the wisdom of "avoid people vexatious to the spirit." Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. -- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out. >> On Aug 30, 11:53 am, Alan Browne <alan.bro...@Freelunchvideotron.ca> >> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > People who use KF's are certainly not dweebs, but folks who get the > wisdom of "avoid people vexatious to the spirit." Crikey, Brettie, just stop the x-posting and get on with it. Alan, you could help by not continuing the cross posts. Signaturelsmft John McWilliams wrote,on my timestamp of 1/09/2008 4:31 AM: >>> Yes, it's possible that I will ignore him (I don't use killfiles since >>> they are for dweebs). [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Crikey, Brettie, just stop the x-posting and get on with it. Alan, you > could help by not continuing the cross posts. c'mon! you KNOW who are the trolls, scammers and cross-posters, don't you? do you think they'll EVER change? >> Yes, it's possible that I will ignore him (I don't use killfiles since >> they are for dweebs). > > People who use KF's are certainly not dweebs, but folks who get the > wisdom of "avoid people vexatious to the spirit." One size fits all descriptions let a lot of people through the cracks. Some, but not all may be dweebs. For the other OSFA description, take SMS for example. He certainly uses KFs to "avoid people vexatious to the spirit", but "wisdom" is hardly the reason why he uses them. In this, I agree with Annika (ouch!). If he used killfiles he'd think of himself as a dweeb. Whether true or not, I take him at his word that that's how he'd feel. Maybe it would be better said that if he used killfiles he wouldn't respect himself in the morning. :) Annika1980 wrote,on my timestamp of 31/08/2008 1:44 AM: >> once more, to make sure it registers: >> Even if you had used a full blast flash - which you didn't - it [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > the RAW file for any pic you choose, but you run away like the > chickenshit that you are. I'm done with your stupid, neanderthal a.s. NO ONE "agrees" with you except the "voices" in your head, moron. Not one of your sock puppets has produced ANY evidence other than out of context or off-topic quotes of sites that if anything reinforce exactly and precisely what I said! Don't confuse your wild and idiotic claims of what I said with facts, dickhead. Here are a few once more, to make sure it registers: Even if you had used a full blast flash - which you didn't - it would still have been enough to make a good outline, although blurred. What you got in your FAKEs is a COMPLETELY blurred wing, which is IMPOSSIBLE to obtain with a flash, at ANY power. >> Scott W wrote,on my timestamp of 30/08/2008 2:13 AM: >> [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > Scott Scott, you are asking a lot from an illiterate and uneducated idiot. jean wrote,on my timestamp of 30/08/2008 1:51 PM: > Scott, you are asking a lot from an illiterate and uneducated idiot. how about you shove your opinion where the sun doesn't shine, diddums? Might actually match for once the quality of your posts. > > You believe a spinning propeller is going much faster then 3600 RPM? > > No. And that is much faster than the wings of > ANY bird, including stuffed ones. > Exactly what was your point? I think he was querying your assertion that "Hummingbirds beat their wings much, much slower than a spinning propeller, at around 60Hz" Generally, it's the other way around. Propellers are usually around 30Hz max, although there are, of course, exceptions. SignatureAlan LeHun Alan LeHun wrote,on my timestamp of 30/08/2008 2:16 AM: >>> You believe a spinning propeller is going much faster then 3600 RPM? >> No. And that is much faster than the wings of [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Generally, it's the other way around. Propellers are usually around 30Hz > max, although there are, of course, exceptions. Of course. Now: read my reply to him instead of interjecting with nonsense. >>> You believe a spinning propeller is going much faster then 3600 RPM? >> No. And that is much faster than the wings of [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Generally, it's the other way around. Propellers are usually around 30Hz > max, although there are, of course, exceptions. It's not a question of exceptions but limiting tip speeds such that the low pressure side (front) laminar flow does not reach/exceed the speed of sound during takeoff. For most light aircraft that carry people the high is about 2700 RPM (45Hz) (though higher in smaller homebuilts and ultralights) down to about 1200 RPM for the largest turboprops (~20 Hz). I expect the V-22 and B-609 are even lower, but I don't know the numbers. Having said all that, these are rates of full revolution. Catching a blade that is, say, 5 degrees wide over a 360 degree arc requires a shutter speed at least 2 X 72X faster than the RPS. And that will be blurred a bit. (72=360/5). To the arguments regarding number of blades, it is a non-issue (other than sound and harmonics) as at a given rpm you if you freeze one blade you've frozen them all... Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. -- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out. >> Annika1980 wrote,on my timestamp of 28/08/2008 10:45 AM: >> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > You believe a spinning propeller is going much faster then 3600 RPM? Regardless of the number, if (eg) a humming bird beats at (say) 60 Hz (the range is quite large over species, actually) and the thickness of the wingtip is 1mm and the stroke is 50mm at the wingtips, then you would need 1/(50 x 60) = 1/3000s to get a slightly blurred image of the frozen wings. Adjust equations to fit... I prefer hummingbird shots with mixed flash and ambient, the flash to freeze the wings and pop the feathers and put a gleam in the eye and the ambient to leave some movement in the wings. Rear sync, natch. At lower power, say 1/16, a large attachment flash is on the order of 1/10,000s. Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. -- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out. Alan Browne wrote,on my timestamp of 30/08/2008 5:30 AM: > I prefer hummingbird shots with mixed flash and ambient, the flash to > freeze the wings and pop the feathers and put a gleam in the eye and the > ambient to leave some movement in the wings. Rear sync, natch. Thank you! At last, a single post with a smidgeon of photo information. Instead of the usual idiotic off-topic bullshit about theory of flight of the bumblebee on steroids. Or whatever... That's what folks do who don't use multiple flash setups. It's hard as nuts to get a well placed wing, as Jim showed in the originals. On top of that, hummies will often beat the wings out of synch to control the hovering. Pot luck shot at best. This is where a dslr comes in handy: take a shot, check, delete if no good, rinse and repeat. Perfect tool for the job. Of course to then go and deface a good shot with photoslop-blurred wings is the tip of the fake expert. But those are spotted a mile away. Except by the idiot trolls and scammers. > At lower power, say 1/16, a large attachment flash is on the order of > 1/10,000s. And that's why they recommend multiple flashes. String a couple and you got twice the power at same fast speed. > > At lower power, say 1/16, a large attachment flash is on the order of > > 1/10,000s. > > And that's why they recommend multiple flashes. > String a couple and you got twice the power > at same fast speed. NUNO SOUTO: HUMMINGBIRD PHOTO EXPERT! And just think, only two days ago you said this: "If you used the default synch speed of your camera of around 1/200, the wings would be nearly frozen solid." I guess even a stupid old mutt can be taught something. Annika1980 wrote,on my timestamp of 30/08/2008 2:38 PM: > And just think, only two days ago you said this: > "If you used the default synch speed of your camera of around 1/200, > the wings would be nearly frozen solid." which they would. That setup is only for those producing jim's kind of shot. Not the photoslop FAKE results of yours, with totally blurred wings. > I guess even a stupid old mutt can be taught something. I guess a stupid smelly midget can always be shown the mediocrity of his arguments. > directions leading away from the subject, such as the Westcott Micro Apollo > or the $5 foamcore one here: > > http://www.dyesscreek.com/hidden_pages/diffuser.html (This is not about hummingbirds.) I'm wondering if I'm confused about the point you are making in the link above. I actually prefer the lighting in the second photo without the diffuser. Or is that the point? Russell BTW, you hummingbird photos are awesome. >> directions leading away from the subject, such as the Westcott Micro >> Apollo [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > BTW, you hummingbird photos are awesome. OOPS! Wrong link. The diffuser link that I wanted to post is the following: http://www.dyesscreek.com/hummingbirds/softbox/index.html The one that was posted was on a different subject entirely and used the wrong type of diffuser for hummingbird photography. Eric Miller www.dyesscreek.com >>> directions leading away from the subject, such as the Westcott Micro >>> Apollo [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > http://www.dyesscreek.com/hummingbirds/softbox/index.html just not your day for links---> htm not html http://www.dyesscreek.com/hummingbirds/softbox/index.htm > The one that was posted was on a different subject entirely and used the > wrong type of diffuser for hummingbird photography. > > Eric Miller > www.dyesscreek.com |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.