[pure-silver] Re: UV vs IR photography
- From: Bob Randall <bob@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <pure-silver@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2005 14:22:22 -0500
On 8/25/05 2:00 PM, "Koch, Gerald" <gkoch02@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> My question, has anyone experienced the problem that this guy states
> about capillaries being particulary evident in photos taken with strobe
> lighting? Or is this guy full of himself?
Not only is he full of himself, he's full of something else too. Most strobe
tubes used in a studio environment are coated with a UV inhibitor. You can
order them without at an extra cost. You can't name a mainstream BW film
that was made in the last 30 years that I haven't shot with, and I have
never experienced what this guy is talking about. You read some of the
silliest things on the internet.
Bob
=============================================================================================================
To unsubscribe from this list, go to www.freelists.org and logon to your
account (the same e-mail address and password you set-up when you subscribed,)
and unsubscribe from there.
- References:
- [pure-silver] UV vs IR photography
- From: Koch, Gerald
Other related posts:
- » [pure-silver] UV vs IR photography
- » [pure-silver] Re: UV vs IR photography
- » [pure-silver] Re: UV vs IR photography
- » [pure-silver] Re: UV vs IR photography
- » [pure-silver] Re: UV vs IR photography
- » [pure-silver] Re: UV vs IR photography
- » [pure-silver] Re: UV vs IR photography
- [pure-silver] UV vs IR photography
- From: Koch, Gerald