The rational part of me knows whats the logic direction of the splashes are. But my brain ain't rational. Never has been, never will be.
Jest or not. I wonder how fast I could make the recycle time of a normal flash, if I added a mega batterypack in my backpack. We are talking fill flash and an extender, so perhaps it didn't need a full recycle. Wonder whats the reach of a 540 or a 500 and extender? What a heck. Looking at what Muybridge did with his equipment, kind of sets my mind free. I don't really _need_ 3fps. I only need one frame right. I'm not a flash fan. It feels like cheating. Kind of spoiling the noble sport part of it. But the idea is kind of tempting too. The intertia of the setup I think I could handle, with the major load at my back, and the gimbal mount helping me handle flash and extender. You are probably right about the shyness part. I havent found them respond much to shutter sound either, but sound _and_ visual stimuly might be another story. The bird loving part in me says, better safe than sound. So if I decide to go further with this crazy idea. Then I'd better test it out first, outside hatching season. BTW. Phillip Glass used the Horse in Motion series as cower art at one of his LP's. Don't remember witch one, but it echoed the athmosphere of the music very well. Tim Twisted Mind ----- Original Message ----- From: "mike wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List" <pdml@pdml.net> Sent: Monday, September 10, 2007 4:19 PM Subject: Re: PESO Challenger (Going OT) > > From: Tim Øsleby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: 2007/09/10 Mon PM 12:53:33 GMT > To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List" <pdml@pdml.net> > Subject: Re: PESO Challenger (Going OT) > > For me it was obvious that the splashes worked against the movement. Now > I'm > not so sure anymore. There seem to be consensus against it. > I've experienced the same thing in other pictures too. My brain tells me > the > splahes goes the wrong way. So I want to make them look "right". > Should I get my brain fixed? Or at least scanned. Maybe the scannes would > turn up mirrored and upside down :-) > I'm with you on the distanse part. Thats an error for me too. I suppose you are thinking that, as the bird is taking off, the splashes should look as if they are going backwards as the feet force the water back. In reality, the splashes travel mostly in the direction the bird is travelling. As your photo shows. You are in great company here. Edweard Muybridge would be proud of you. If you had left it unchanged..... > > I'm not so sure about the flash idea. Norwegian Loons are very shy and > fragile. I've never worked with more shy birds. The other couple I've been > watching, have had 10 unsucsessfull hatching attempts on a row. Some > birders > would probably kill me at sight, no questions asked, if they caught me > doing > that :-) > > And what flash would be up to the tast? 3fps and 30-50 meters. Thats a lot > off flash. And a lot of battery. Mostly out of curiosoty, are there any > flashes runing on batteries that are capable of that? The flash comment was completely and utterly in jest. You _could_ get equipemnt to do the job but it would be so unwieldy, with extender and battery pack, that you would be trying to wave the inertia equivalent of a badly attached 600/4 around. No fun.... Having said that, it is suprising how tolerant of something that they are entirely unfamiliar with some species will be. A human? Flight mode. Flash of light? Carry on. Shutter noise is often more intrusive. > > Tim Typo > Mostly Harmless > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "mike wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List" <pdml@pdml.net> > Sent: Monday, September 10, 2007 10:16 AM > Subject: Re: PESO Challenger (Going OT) > > > > > > > From: Charles Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Date: 2007/09/09 Sun PM 06:01:35 GMT > > To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List <pdml@pdml.net> > > Subject: Re: PESO Challenger (Going OT) > > > > On Sep 9, 2007, at 11:02, P. J. Alling wrote: > > > > > Resizing seems to be a problem with my system. Details look fine at > > > full magnification, but really become degraded when I save for the > > > web. > > > > > > Tim Øsleby wrote: > > >> http://foto.no/cgi-bin/bildegalleri/vis_bilde.cgi?id=331054 (I > > >> forgot the > > >> link in previous post. Sorry about that) > > >> > > > > I actually prefer this image in color... with the unreversed splash, > > too. I can't really see the need to flip that last splash around in > > the other direction. > > > > -Charles > > Sorry, Tim, but what you really needed here was <enablement>a burst of > fill > flash</enablement> to make it stand out more. 8-))) > > I am also perplexed as to why you thought the splashes needed reversing, > especially as you altered the distance between them. > > > > > -- > > Charles Robinson - [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Minneapolis, MN > > http://charles.robinsontwins.org > > > > > > > > -- > > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > > PDML@pdml.net > > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > > > > > ----------------------------------------- > Email sent from www.virginmedia.com/email > Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software and scanned for spam > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > > > > > -- > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.5.485 / Virus Database: 269.13.12/997 - Release Date: > 09.09.2007 > 10:17 > > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > ----------------------------------------- Email sent from www.virginmedia.com/email Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software and scanned for spam -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.485 / Virus Database: 269.13.12/997 - Release Date: 09.09.2007 10:17 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
