nospam

In article <michelle-0B1AC3.18425805092010@news.eternal-september.org>,
Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

> > > Using Polycontrast paper (or another brand's equivalent), expose the
> > > negative three times: normal contrast, high contrast, and low
> > > contrast. But even before that, photographers were making multiple
> > > exposures, in essence doing the same thing that the iPhone's HDR does.
> >
> > i've never heard of that nor do i think it will result in what you think
> > it will.
>
> The fact that you never herd of it doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. And
> it results in what I said it does; I know that from experience.

i don't remember that from my darkroom days, and i don't see how it
could help since you only have one negative where the scene is already
fixed. most scenes have a wider dynamic range than film and if
highlights are blow or shadows lost, there's nothing you can do to
restore it. you are also limited by the paper which has a smaller
dynamic range than the negative.

ansel adams was a master of this, by adjusting the exposure and the
development of each photo (and with sheet film, that's easy). plus he
did a shitload of dodging and burning.

> > multigrade paper was basically two contrasts in one emulsion and
> > controlled by the filtration of the light (and restricted to b/w too).
>
> So it's not an exact analogy, one being color and the other B&W. But it is
> accurate so far as it goes.

it's not the same.

Borg

Michelle Steiner wrote:
> In article <Qd6dndOShrxAKR7RnZ2dnUVZ7rKdnZ2d@brightview.co.uk >,
> Borg <saerimner@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> The camera is so low quality I wouldn't want to print any of the
>> pictures.
>
> OK, so you don't know anything about photographic quality.
>


Funny enough I do, I know a crappy little plastic lens on the back of a
phone isn't going to be that good. endex.

JKConey

"Michelle Steiner" <michelle@michelle.org> wrote in message
news:michelle-661E53.21401604092010@news.eternal-september.org...
> In article <i5v3p7$reg$1@news.eternal-september.org>,
> "JKConey" <jkconey@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>> according to ModmyI:
>>
>> iOS 4.1 is right around the corner and set to launch next week. This
>> release
>> is going to fix many bugs including proximity, bluetooth, and iPhone 3G
>> bugs. It also adds in the long awaited game center for multiplayer
>> gaming.
>> Ahead in November we can expect iOS 4.2 which will not only update the
>> iPhone it will also bring the iPad up to current standards.
>
> Yup, and we've been discussing all that for the past four days, ever since
> Steve Jobs announced it all.
>


I don't read all the posts like you do, and hope you don't thrash me for
not being first with info. Is this anti-jailbreaking backlash? LOL


--

www.myconeyislandmemories.com

Michelle Steiner

In article <050920101849371696%nospam@nospam.invalid>,
nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:

> > The fact that you never herd of it doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.
> > And it results in what I said it does; I know that from experience.
>
> i don't remember that from my darkroom days, and i don't see how it
> could help since you only have one negative where the scene is already
> fixed.

Yup, and by using filters, you can increase or decrease the contrast. By
exposing the paper with a high contrast image and a low contrast image, you
get both. It really works. I've done it as recently as six years ago.

--
Check out the Hot Cocoa Party
<http://www.hotcocoaparty.info>

Michelle Steiner

In article <v72dnZyjpbkTlBnRnZ2dnUVZ7tGdnZ2d@brightview.co.uk >,
Borg <saerimner@gmail.com> wrote:

> Funny enough I do, I know a crappy little plastic lens on the back of a
> phone isn't going to be that good. endex.

Good thing that the iPhone doesn't have a crappy plastic lens, then.

--
Check out the Hot Cocoa Party
<http://www.hotcocoaparty.info>

nospam

In article <michelle-F20676.22215305092010@news.eternal-september.org>,
Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

> > i don't remember that from my darkroom days, and i don't see how it
> > could help since you only have one negative where the scene is already
> > fixed.
>
> Yup, and by using filters, you can increase or decrease the contrast. By
> exposing the paper with a high contrast image and a low contrast image, you
> get both. It really works. I've done it as recently as six years ago.

changing the contrast is not the same as taking three photos at
different exposures and combining them.

Michelle Steiner

In article <050920102225419572%nospam@nospam.invalid>,
nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:

> > Yup, and by using filters, you can increase or decrease the contrast.
> > By exposing the paper with a high contrast image and a low contrast
> > image, you get both. It really works. I've done it as recently as
> > six years ago.
>
> changing the contrast is not the same as taking three photos at
> different exposures and combining them.

It's not just changing the contrast, it's combining two or more exposures
at different contrasts. And I didn't say it's the same; I said it's
analogous. Do you know what an analogy is, or are you as literal-minded as
Larry or Wolfe?

--
Check out the Hot Cocoa Party
<http://www.hotcocoaparty.info>

JF Mezei

Michelle Steiner wrote:

> Good thing that the iPhone doesn't have a crappy plastic lens, then.

It may not be crappy "plastic", but its size and more importantly lack
of thickness of the iphone prevent high quality optics and optical
reproduction into the CCD sensors (or whatever type of sensor they are
using).

The lack of a lens cover (understandable) also prevents the lens from
staying clean when you treat your phone as a : phone.

Michelle Steiner

In article <4c848a8a$0$5694$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com>,
JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:

> > Good thing that the iPhone doesn't have a crappy plastic lens, then.
>
> It may not be crappy "plastic", but its size and more importantly lack
> of thickness of the iphone prevent high quality optics and optical
> reproduction into the CCD sensors (or whatever type of sensor they are
> using).

Sure, if you want to compare it to a camera, it falls short. But for a
phone, it's a damn good lens.

> The lack of a lens cover (understandable) also prevents the lens from
> staying clean when you treat your phone as a : phone.

Actually, the lens stays clean; it's covered by the glass back of the
phone, which is easily cleaned.

--
Check out the Hot Cocoa Party
<http://www.hotcocoaparty.info>

JF Mezei

Michelle Steiner wrote:

> Actually, the lens stays clean; it's covered by the glass back of the
> phone, which is easily cleaned.


I thought it would be behind the glass back, but it isn't.

The LED flash-light is begind the glass. But the lens itself goes
through a hole in the glass. There is a small metal ring that separates
the glass from the top most layer of the lens.

My sony ericsson phone was smaller but thicker, and its lens was (by
far) superior. It also had a real mechnical focusing mechanism for
greater accuracy. (probably not possible on a thin phone like the iphone)