From: Cal Rollins on 12 Feb 2010 18:04
On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 22:46:09 -0600, Cal Rollins <anywhere(a)anyplace.net>
>On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 21:33:14 -0600, Cal Rollins <anywhere(a)anyplace.net>
>>On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 21:28:43 -0500, Robert Coe <bob(a)1776.COM> wrote:
>>>On Mon, 08 Feb 2010 17:14:53 -0500, M-M <nospam.m-m(a)ny.more> wrote:
>>>: In article <C795DA00.3E36E%ghost_topper(a)hotmail.com>,
>>>: George Kerby <ghost_topper(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>: > >>> http://www.mhmyers.com/d80/DSC_21427w.jpg
>>>: > Being a native Houstonian, I never realized the soft reflectivity factor of
>>>: > snow, since it is so rare here. I assume that is what is providing the light
>>>: > on the birds' bellies. Very interesting.
>>>: That, but a little Photoshop helped also :)
>>>: Interesting also that when you take a photo of snow on a sunny day, it
>>>: comes out blue- reflecting the sky.
>>>Snow scenes tend to be so monochromatic that one can often set the white
>>>balance to almost any value and still get an interesting result. (Not the case
>>>with your cardinals, of course.)
>>Adequately proving that you've never used any camera in your lifetime. In
>>sunlight the sunlit patches of snow will be tinted to 6500 Kelvin, those in
>>shade tinted by the blue sky, nearer to 9300K. If they are not balanced
>>properly it will not look correct. The same two shades of white are also
>>used by every painter who has ever painted a snow-covered house, field, or
>>mountain. During sunrise and sunset then you also have to include hues of
>>red, purple, and even greens. No different than clouds in a sunset due to
>>the subtle shades occurring in the alpenglow and alpen-scheine bands in the
>>sky, clouds present or not.
>Sample of snow colors in sunlight and shade, captured around 9am.
>If your photos are not representing snow in those warmer and cooler hues in
>sunlight and shade, then you should look up "white balance settings" in
>your camera manual. Because it's obviously something that you have
>overlooked or failed to implement correctly. These problems of all gray or
>all blue snows are mostly caused by rank-amateurs due to leaving the camera
>set on their snapshooter's auto-everything dependency. Using auto
>white-balance will tend to wipe out the important colors or shift them in
>error, just as it will do the same for sunrises and sunsets.
>The only times where there is an exception is in the deeply packed snows of
>glaciers and icebergs where the natural blue color of water will be
>strongly apparent when light is passing through it. Contrary to the colors
>of surface snows with light only reflecting off of it.
>To further educate the foolish trolls that will no doubt make their typical
>idiotic comments ... no that is not sensor noise nor hot-pixels in the
>example photo, that is the sunlight glinting off of snowflakes. A large
>percentage of them lost due to downsizing. The individual pixels of
>glinting snowflakes being combined into non-glinting neighbor pixels.
An interesting optical illusion, or a factual representation of the fractal
nature of nature.
When this snow sample photo is inverted and a slight gaussian-blur applied
to it to disguise the pointillistic effect of the individual snowflakes,
except for brighter glinting snowflakes that somewhat remain, it now
becomes indistinguishable from high cirrus clouds photographed with the
available color temperatures of mid-morning sunlight.
Fellow science, math, physics, art, and photography officianados might find
From: Robert Coe on 14 Feb 2010 15:52
On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 20:50:46 -0800, J�rgen Exner <jurgenex(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
: Cal Rollins <anywhere(a)anyplace.net> wrote:
: You are never running out of new fake names, are you?
I once met the real Carl Rollins when I was in college. (Google "Carl Rollins
Yale".) So this is a particularly egregious appropriation, even though the
troll didn't even manage to spell the name right.