All the images from the boston.com page cited in Jez Cunningham's email are
attributed to a named photographer and an organization. With the exception
of image #13 all the images are more than likely the product of a
photographer operating a handheld or mono / tripod supported camera with
atached lens.
Any clown could stand at an control consol with his finger on a release
mechanism and fire away 100 images a second using a static and firmly
mounted camera. Picking just the right image from a string of sequential
images would indeed produce a winning image just like #13.
Just what kind of skill is required to watch the game and operate the
in-goal-camera anytime the puck passed close by ?
Fake and gimmickry .....
jh
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim Loudon" <listadr@xxxxxxxxx>
To: "Olympus Camera Discussion" <olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, February 22, 2010 10:22 AM
Subject: Re: [OM] Great Olympics pix
>
>> I'd put money on image #13 being a fake.
>>
>
> Then here's another fake for you (the Vancouver photoshoppers are
> obviously working overtime):
>
> http://www.vancouver2010.com/img/00/28/88/96944586-10_62imgGalBig-Nn.jpg
>
> FWIW, the front edge of the television camera is peeking into the top of
> the frame just to the left of the scoreboard, as in the example you say is
> faked.
>
> The camera array in the rear of the goal is clearly visible in these
> images (unless you think they've been photoshopped as well):
>
> http://www.vancouver2010.com/img/00/28/82/96931366_12imgGalBig-VG.jpg
>
> and
>
> http://www.vancouver2010.com/img/00/28/82/96930103_20imgGalBig-KF.jpg
>
>
>> Since when are cameras found at the back of and inside the goal netting
>> at an
>> ice hockey game?
>>
>
> Since forever. An integral part of the modern hockey telecast.
>
>>
>> My take ........... a fancy bit of Photoshopping.
>>
>> Also, the photo is just too perfect .......... consider the depth of
>> field
>> from the logo on the puck to the far end boards
>>
>
> Look at the image. *Really* look at the image. *Really*, *really* look at
> the image (emphasis on *really examining* the image because this isn't the
> first time you've declared something real a fake instead).
>
> Consider the image was taken with a short focal length lens (a "full
> frame" fisheye, check out that barrel distortion) under bright television
> lighting over a huge, highly reflective ice surface, a small aperture, and
> you have the ingredients for serious depth of field.
>
> jim
>
>
> --
> _________________________________________________________________
> Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
> Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
> Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
>
>
> __________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus
> signature database 4886 (20100222) __________
>
> The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.
>
> http://www.eset.com
>
>
>
__________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature
database 4887 (20100222) __________
The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.
http://www.eset.com
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|
