Gianna

Dave R. west London wrote:

> I spoke to caddy he insists theres no manipulation he even includes a full
> <caddy359> the exif data
> [18:37] <caddy359> is there plain to see
> [18:37] <caddy359> Camera: Nikon D80
> [18:37] <caddy359> Exposure: 4 sec (4)
> [18:37] <caddy359> Aperture: f/22
> [18:37] <caddy359> Focal Length: 10 mm
> [18:37] <caddy359> ISO Speed: 100
> [18:37] <caddy359> Exposure Bias: -1 EV
> [18:37] <caddy359> Orientation: Horizontal (normal)
> [18:37] <caddy359> X-Resolution: 72 dpi
> [18:37] <caddy359> Y-Resolution: 72 dpi
> [18:37] <caddy359> Software: Adobe Photoshop CS2 Windows but it seems too
> bizarre
> so I dunno what to believe

I think it is safe to believe that the above is not the original EXIF data.
It is also interesting that certain sea-borne objects are reasonably sharp in an
image exposed for 4 seconds (although I have seen the sea that calm once).


--
Gianna

http://www.buchan-meteo.org.uk
* * * * * * *

Weatherlawyer

On Jul 14, 8:28 am, Gianna <gia...@gianna.org> wrote:
> Dave R. west London wrote:
>
> > I spoke to caddy he insists theres no manipulation he even includes a full
> > <caddy359> the exif data
> > [18:37] <caddy359> is there plain to see
> > [18:37] <caddy359> Camera: Nikon D80
> > [18:37] <caddy359> Exposure: 4 sec (4)
> > [18:37] <caddy359> Aperture: f/22
> > [18:37] <caddy359> Focal Length: 10 mm
> > [18:37] <caddy359> ISO Speed: 100
> > [18:37] <caddy359> Exposure Bias: -1 EV
> > [18:37] <caddy359> Orientation: Horizontal (normal)
> > [18:37] <caddy359> X-Resolution: 72 dpi
> > [18:37] <caddy359> Y-Resolution: 72 dpi
> > [18:37] <caddy359> Software: Adobe Photoshop CS2 Windows but it seems too
> > bizarre
> > so I dunno what to believe
>
> I think it is safe to believe that the above is not the original EXIF data.
> It is also interesting that certain sea-borne objects are reasonably sharp in an
> image exposed for 4 seconds (although I have seen the sea that calm once).

It looks like an F1 sea surface to me* and the white in the foreground
is air in the water from 2 or 3 waves, now blurred. Given that even in
an F1 there will be some slapping of the shore, at a rate of one wave
every six to ten seconds or so, that is a substantial blur.

Enough to contain the image of the residue from three wavelets. I am
no photographer but the image does look to contain two or three. In
which case, if it is a fake it is a good one. What data is that
[18.37] information giving?

*Redolent of the sort of mid evening calm that I was referring to in
my earlier post about the rocks.

Gianna

Weatherlawyer wrote:

> What data is that
> [18.37] information giving?
>

It is the time the person on chat typed in the supposed data, I expect.
The data is incomplete and in this instance irrelevant.

If, for example, I make a digital photograph, it will contain EXIF data which
includes the name of the transfer software.
If I load up that image into Photoshop, tweak it in any way I feel inclined, and
save the results, it will still contain much the same EXIF data other than the
software element which will change to 'Photoshop'.
There will be a date stamp added but the original date stamp remains and if one
wants those to match, simply change the date/time on the computer.


--
Gianna

http://www.buchan-meteo.org.uk
* * * * * * *

Dave Wheeler

14/07/2007 10:18:00
Weatherlawyer <Weatherlawyer@hotmail.com> wrote in message
<1184403154.954650.44730@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.c om>

> On Jul 14, 8:28 am, Gianna <gia...@gianna.org> wrote:
> > Dave R. west London wrote:
> >
> > > I spoke to caddy he insists theres no manipulation he even
includes a full
> > > <caddy359> the exif data
> > > [18:37] <caddy359> is there plain to see
> > > [18:37] <caddy359> Camera: Nikon D80
> > > [18:37] <caddy359> Exposure: 4 sec (4)
> > > [18:37] <caddy359> Aperture: f/22
> > > [18:37] <caddy359> Focal Length: 10 mm
> > > [18:37] <caddy359> ISO Speed: 100
> > > [18:37] <caddy359> Exposure Bias: -1 EV
> > > [18:37] <caddy359> Orientation: Horizontal (normal)
> > > [18:37] <caddy359> X-Resolution: 72 dpi
> > > [18:37] <caddy359> Y-Resolution: 72 dpi
> > > [18:37] <caddy359> Software: Adobe Photoshop CS2 Windows but it
seems too
> > > bizarre
> > > so I dunno what to believe
> >
> > I think it is safe to believe that the above is not the original
EXIF data.
> > It is also interesting that certain sea-borne objects are
reasonably sharp in an
> > image exposed for 4 seconds (although I have seen the sea that
calm once).
>
> It looks like an F1 sea surface to me* and the white in the
foreground
> is air in the water from 2 or 3 waves, now blurred. Given that even
in
> an F1 there will be some slapping of the shore, at a rate of one
wave
> every six to ten seconds or so, that is a substantial blur.
>
> Enough to contain the image of the residue from three wavelets. I
am
> no photographer but the image does look to contain two or three. In
> which case, if it is a fake it is a good one. What data is that
> [18.37] information giving?
>
> *Redolent of the sort of mid evening calm that I was referring to
in
> my earlier post about the rocks.

I'm quite happy that this picture is OK. This is a 4sec exposure -
hence the 'smoothing' of the sea. The rocks, beach etc don't move and
are sharp. Clouds, boats are distant and relative movement is small.
Lightning (I thought this would have been brighter) is of very short
duration and is therefore sharp.
If interested I have a couple of pics using similar techniques at -
http://www.davewheelerphotography.
com/Landscape/content/IMGP6548b_large.html
http://www.davewheelerphotography.
com/Landscape/content/IMGP6949_large.html
Dave
Fair Isle

Dave Wheeler

14/07/2007 10:40:44
Dave Wheeler <dawadderaman@hotmail.com> wrote in message
<46989958$0$1228$4c56ba96@master.news.zetnet.net >

> 14/07/2007 10:18:00
> Weatherlawyer <Weatherlawyer@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> <1184403154.954650.44730@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.c om>
>
> > On Jul 14, 8:28 am, Gianna <gia...@gianna.org> wrote:
> > > Dave R. west London wrote:
> > >
> > > > I spoke to caddy he insists theres no manipulation he even
> includes a full
> > > > <caddy359> the exif data
> > > > [18:37] <caddy359> is there plain to see
> > > > [18:37] <caddy359> Camera: Nikon D80
> > > > [18:37] <caddy359> Exposure: 4 sec (4)
> > > > [18:37] <caddy359> Aperture: f/22
> > > > [18:37] <caddy359> Focal Length: 10 mm
> > > > [18:37] <caddy359> ISO Speed: 100
> > > > [18:37] <caddy359> Exposure Bias: -1 EV
> > > > [18:37] <caddy359> Orientation: Horizontal (normal)
> > > > [18:37] <caddy359> X-Resolution: 72 dpi
> > > > [18:37] <caddy359> Y-Resolution: 72 dpi
> > > > [18:37] <caddy359> Software: Adobe Photoshop CS2 Windows but
it
> seems too
> > > > bizarre
> > > > so I dunno what to believe
> > >
> > > I think it is safe to believe that the above is not the
original
> EXIF data.
> > > It is also interesting that certain sea-borne objects are
> reasonably sharp in an
> > > image exposed for 4 seconds (although I have seen the sea that
> calm once).
> >
> > It looks like an F1 sea surface to me* and the white in the
> foreground
> > is air in the water from 2 or 3 waves, now blurred. Given that
even
> in
> > an F1 there will be some slapping of the shore, at a rate of one
> wave
> > every six to ten seconds or so, that is a substantial blur.
> >
> > Enough to contain the image of the residue from three wavelets. I

> am
> > no photographer but the image does look to contain two or three.
In
> > which case, if it is a fake it is a good one. What data is that
> > [18.37] information giving?
> >
> > *Redolent of the sort of mid evening calm that I was referring to

> in
> > my earlier post about the rocks.
>
> I'm quite happy that this picture is OK. This is a 4sec exposure -
> hence the 'smoothing' of the sea. The rocks, beach etc don't move
and
> are sharp. Clouds, boats are distant and relative movement is small.

> Lightning (I thought this would have been brighter) is of very
short
> duration and is therefore sharp.
> If interested I have a couple of pics using similar techniques at -
> http://www.davewheelerphotography.
> com/Landscape/content/IMGP6548b_large.html
> http://www.davewheelerphotography.
> com/Landscape/content/IMGP6949_large.html
> Dave
> Fair Isle
This is another one I had in mind where a longish exposure 'smoothes'
the sea -
http://www.davewheelerphotography.
com/Landscape/content/South_Haven_1471a_large.html
(not sure if these long urls are linkable or require 'cut & paste')
Dave
Fair Isle

Dave Liquorice

On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 13:42:45 +0100, Dave Wheeler wrote:

>> I'm quite happy that this picture is OK. This is a 4sec exposure -
>> hence the 'smoothing' of the sea. The rocks, beach etc don't move
>> and are sharp. Clouds, boats are distant and relative movement is
>> small.

That doesn't worry me and yes you do get smoothing almost fog like
appearance with long exposures of moving water. Look at some of caddy's
other images for examples.

>> Lightning (I thought this would have been brighter) is of very
>> short duration and is therefore sharp.

But where are the refractions and/or reflections? I'd still expect to see
the glow in the cloud base and something on the water.

>> If interested I have a couple of pics using similar techniques at -
http://www.davewheelerphotography.co...6548b_large.ht
ml
http://tinyurl.com/29yrzy

http://www.davewheelerphotography.co...6949_large.htm
l
http://tinyurl.com/2wyfdr

http://www.davewheelerphotography.co...h_Haven_1471a_
large.html
http://tinyurl.com/2f82n8

> (not sure if these long urls are linkable or require 'cut & paste')

They wrap at the . of .com so to my email client they were broken. I'm not
100% sure my client will break them even though I have unbroken them as I
type. Tiny URLs suplied...

--
Cheers new5pam@howhill.com
Dave. pam is missing e-mail