[pure-silver] Re: UV vs IR photography
- From: Jim Brick <jim@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: pure-silver@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2005 12:48:03 -0700
At 12:00 PM 8/25/2005, Koch, Gerald 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?
If this were a problem, every professional and advanced amateur would be
aware of it. I don't believe for a nanosecond that strobe manufacturers are
going to sell something that makes people look awful in B&W. It actually
takes real effort to make someone's skin exhibit what that guy said.
If strobes did put out UV light, it would be filtered out by its
penetration into one's skin, and never get back out. You are still
photographing the skins surface, not millimeters below the surface.
This guy is off his rocker!
IMHO,
Jim
=============================================================================================================
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
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?
- [pure-silver] UV vs IR photography
- From: Koch, Gerald