Eric W. Brown
Brown.EricW at jobcorps.org
Thu Nov 4 12:50:32 PDT 2010
I'm sorry. Rereading what I wrote, it comes off as harsh, and I didn't mean
it that way. I've looked at pictures of events I couldn't attend, and I was
glad to see them, and I'm appreciative of those that take considerable
amounts of their own time and effort in taking the pictures.
But, I'd like to think that my enjoyment of the pictures didn't result in
someone else actually attending the event experiencing less enjoyment of
their time there. Flashes tend to annoy me even in modern events, where
they're expected. They seem even less appropriate for our SCA events.
On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 12:05 AM, Fields Family Farm <fields at texas.net>wrote:
> Artisans doing their best to produce a truly period garment or tool don't
> interfere with the experience/reenactment. It's obvious that camera flashes
> do interfere with at least some people's experience.
> Doing the best you possibly can without distracting/disturbing others is
> one thing, and to be admired, but is sacrificing some of the enjoyment of
> those that are there to add that last bit of perfection for those that
> aren't a good idea?
> I'm confident that without a flash you can do better than
> barely-recognizable/blurry - not on every shot, but on enough shots.
> And, I agree, a camera in poorly lit conditions cannot exactly replicate
> our eyes. The pictures are going to suffer. The answer is to do what you
> can with the light you have, not to jarringly change the poorly lit
> conditions into well lit conditions for a fraction of a second, completely
> changing the atmosphere along with the lighting.
> On Wed, Nov 3, 2010 at 11:41 PM, Richard Threlkeld <
> rjt at softwareinnovation.com> wrote:
>> I must do the best I can to build pictures that capture what I see just as
>> our artisans must do their best to produce a truly period garment or tool.
>> Recognizable is not really good enough and good enough is not good enough.
>> Some of it is pride in the work I do. Some of it is the feeling when I get
>> picture that shows the personality of someone I know well. Some of it is
>> feeling when someone frames a print of one of my pictures for their desk
>> work or a wall at home.
>> Those are all personal reasons. But I also hear frequently from people who
>> live events they could not attend though pictures. Blurry, barely
>> recognizable pictures may be enough to remember something, but not to see
>> for the first time. One of the problems with cameras is their inability to
>> get the range of images our eyes can get. The picture of the torch lit
>> I can normally get without a flash is not what the participants saw. They
>> have better imaging equipment (their eyes). More light is needed for the
>> camera to even get close to our wonderful eyes.
>> Of course, the lighting Emma described might make the flash unnecessary,
>> most courts are not so well lit. I look forward to a court set up as she
>> In Service,
>> Caelin on Andrede
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: ansteorra-bounces+rjt=softwareinnovation.com at lists.ansteorra.org
>> > [mailto:ansteorra-
>> > bounces+rjt=softwareinnovation.com at lists.ansteorra.org] On Behalf Of
>> > Fields Family Farm
>> > Sent: Wednesday, November 03, 2010 11:11 PM
>> > To: Kingdom of Ansteorra - SCA, Inc.
>> > Subject: Re: [Ansteorra] Why aren't we doing this?
>> > I understand that professional photographers have exacting standards,
>> > what are these pictures for?
>> > Are we making a coffee-table book of still-image art? Are these going
>> > display in an art gallery?
>> > Or are these going to be on someone's facebook page and used as their
>> > computer background?
>> > Does it really matter if the pictures have artifacts or aren't up to
>> > professional quality? Isn't the point of these pictures to refresh
>> > or give a general impression of what happened? Do they have to be
>> > perfectly
>> > clear for that? As long as people/surroundings are recognizable, isn't
>> > enough? Do we really want to try to exactly recreate the visual
>> > for those that weren't there?
>> > I've taken night pictures before, with an amateur non-SLR camera and no
>> > flash. The people and surroundings were recognizable. You could tell
>> > was there and what was happening. That's what I wanted, and I got it.
>> > If you MUST have a flash and a $5000 camera/lens, what are you aiming
>> > And why?
>> > Hrethric
>> > On Wed, Nov 3, 2010 at 10:03 PM, SoldierGrrrl
>> > <soldier.grrrl at gmail.com>wrote:
>> > >
>> > > Unless video has changed a great deal, video cameras are not capable
>> > > of producing decent still frames, especially at night, or in dimly lit
>> > > areas. You can get a digital camcorder that is capable of still
>> > > images, but you're probably still not going to get anything from the
>> > > motion filming resembling a picture good enough to enlarge.
>> > >
>> > > This one,
>> > > http://www.amazon.com/Sony-HDR-XR150-Definition-Handycam-
>> > Camcorder/dp/tech-data/B0031RGL2A/ref=de_a_smtd
>> > > at almost $550, is capable of HD video and 3 mp still images. Even
>> > > with a 3 mp still capability, you're still going to run into blur,
>> > > digital trash and other issues with low-light photography.
>> > >
>> > > Video cameras, despite what you see on TV, just aren't capable of
>> > > producing high-quality still images. The information to enlarge a
>> > > frame just isn't there. Unlike actual film, where the information is
>> > > preserved on the film and the camera isn't making it up as it goes
>> > > along (pixel sampling, IIRC), digital cameras are limited with regards
>> > > to the amount of information the image contains. That's why you can do
>> > > amazing enlargements with 35mm film, while not so much with a camera
>> > > with few megapixels. The camera just can't gather enough information.
>> > > There is a whole science that goes into how digital cameras collect
>> > > and sort the information gathered for a "picture," and I don't get it
>> > > all, but it does provide the constraints photographers have to work
>> > > around.
>> > >
>> > > This one:
>> > > http://www.amazon.com/JVC-Everio-GZ-X900-Camcorder-
>> > Optical/dp/B001UHMTG0%3FSubscriptionId%3D19BAZMZQFZJ6G2QYGCG2%
>> > 26tag%3Dsquidooa266594-
>> > 20%26linkCode%3Dxm2%26camp%3D2025%26creative%3D165953%26creativ
>> > eASIN%3DB001UHMTG0
>> > > looks like it *might* be able to pull it off, providing you're
>> > > shooting in good daylight, but I think it's still shooting in a FPS
>> > > mode, rather than pulling a frame out of the "filming."
>> > >
>> > > I'll have to check and see what my broadcasters say about this, but
>> > > I'm not confident that a consumer, with a consumer camera, is going to
>> > > be able to pull usable stills from night filming. I could, of course,
>> > > be wrong.
>> > >
>> > > In service,
>> > > Helene
>> > >
>> > > --
>> > > "Whatever their fond sentiments for men and women in uniform, for most
>> > > Americans the war remains an abstraction - a distant and unpleasant
>> > > series of news items that do not affect them personally."- Robert
>> > > Gates, Secretary of Defense.
>> > > _______________________________________________
>> > > Ansteorra mailing list
>> > > Ansteorra at lists.ansteorra.org
>> > > In order to make changes and manage your account please go to:
>> > > http://lists.ansteorra.org/listinfo.cgi/ansteorra-ansteorra.org
>> > >
>> > >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Ansteorra mailing list
>> > Ansteorra at lists.ansteorra.org
>> > In order to make changes and manage your account please go to:
>> > http://lists.ansteorra.org/listinfo.cgi/ansteorra-ansteorra.org
>> Ansteorra mailing list
>> Ansteorra at lists.ansteorra.org
>> In order to make changes and manage your account please go to:
More information about the Ansteorra