>> |
Anonymous
>1/1250th isn't enough to counteract a car that's bouncing up and down and moving at 20 miles per hour, being shot by someone who's doing it really quickly without being able to take a moment to steady himself. Let's all figure this out together: 20mph = ~30 ft/s = 352 in/s = 8,940 mm/s. 8940/1250 = 7.152, meaning that there is a maximum of 7.152 millimetres of a blur radius, about the width of the iris in one of her eyes. Completely unnoticeable at this distance.
>Sure you could have. You could have stopped the car, gotten a better vantage point, and then taken the shot. Or, after having taken the shot, you could have just accepted that the railing was ugly and too prominent and thrown it away. The whole point is that it was taken from a moving car. Didn't we have a thread on that earlier? I think it's a nice way to get a different view of things. And I never said the railing wasn't ugly, but I would argue that it's negligible.
>I focus better than that with manual-focus cameras frequently, actually. Never at 135/2.8, but often at 50/1.4. Wanna know how I do it? By not taking it from a car window. Again, being from a car window is half the point. And yeah, because focusing on a 50mm lens where infinity is >30ft is the same as focusing on a 135mm lens where infinity is >50ft.
>It's designed to cover her, not to keep in heat. The material looks thin, and it's white to reflect away heat rather than locking it in. Sure, that makes sense for the burka, but what about the thick, dark turqoise cashmere-like material making up her long dress, which itself is placed over a pair of long, lycra/cotton (assuming by look, of course) pants? That does nothing but retain heat. It looks very cumbersome and uncomfortable.
|