|

Top 20 Lighthouse photos

A forum to post any lighthouse pictures you'd like others to see. Feel free to talk about lighthouse photography. Lighthouse-related photos (such as LSS and lenses) are also welcome.

Postby LeadingLight » Wed Nov 08, 2006 2:25 pm


Flickr is a website where thousands of photographers from all over the world show their photos. It is a well developed website; photos can be tagged and/or placed in subject groups, so it is very easy to find photos of specific subjects. There are great tools to upload and organize your photos. (I am not a stakeholder of the site, just an enthusiast user :D )Of course there are also some lighthouse photo groups. It is worth to take a look and find photos of lighthouses on all continents.
A rather new initiative of one of the contributors is the top 20 lighthouse photos. It is a page with 20 lighthouse photos. Every contributer is allowed to show only one photo. As the number of photos has to stay 20, uploading a photo always means that a photo that is already shown, has to be removed. If you have a photo shown on the page already, you will have to delete your own photo when you want to upload a new one.

The idea behind the top 20 is very funny, but it only works well when a lot of people are contributing. Perhaps some of the photographers here like it and want to join the group.

The top 20 lighthouses is at http://www.flickr.com/groups/top20lighthouse/

The flickr homepage is www.flickr.com

My own photographs on flickr are at http://www.flickr.com/photos/60719822@N00/
Leading Light
Frans la Poutré
The Netherlands
51 34 06.7 N - 006 01 57.8 E
User avatar
LeadingLight
Head Keeper
 
Posts: 334
Joined: Sun Apr 24, 2005 12:00 am
Location: Maashees, Netherlands

Postby Ma-Belle-Ile » Thu Nov 09, 2006 10:43 am


nice and beautyfull foto's are nearer than I thaught....
Beware, sometimes I will say very stupid things. English is not my current language. Please tell me if I write mistakes.
Image
User avatar
Ma-Belle-Ile
1st Assistant Keeper
 
Posts: 60
Joined: Fri Jan 13, 2006 1:00 am
Location: The Netherlands

Postby Grover1 » Fri Nov 10, 2006 4:06 am


Frans, thanks much for the site info ... there is so much really good "stuff" here ... one can easily get lost wandering from photo to photo ...
Believe those who search for the truth ...
Doubt those who find it ...
User avatar
Grover1
Lighthouse God
 
Posts: 5999
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2003 12:00 am
Location: God's Square Mile

Postby Rob143 » Fri Nov 10, 2006 4:50 pm


Opinions on this shot. I don't buy the explanation.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/ccilker/251622108/in/pool-top20lighthouse/
User avatar
Rob143
Head Keeper
 
Posts: 251
Joined: Thu Apr 13, 2006 12:00 am
Location: Carlisle, PA

Postby LeadingLight » Fri Nov 10, 2006 10:53 pm


It looks like it is paintbrushed. The photographer was at the right place at the right time. The light and the shadows on the buildings, and the visibility of the garden, shows that it was almost sunset. To me it sounds onconceivable that the rotation of a light is stopped for 5 minutes, just to allow people to make photographs. I hope they sent out a warning to mariners. :roll:

The photographer says that photographing the beams is imposible when the light is rotating. However, it is the challenge of photographers to make good nightshots. My avatar shows it is possible and on the website of lighthousing.net member Ruilof (http://www.ruilof-images.nl/Lighthouses/Netherlands/index.html) there are beautiful examples
Leading Light
Frans la Poutré
The Netherlands
51 34 06.7 N - 006 01 57.8 E
User avatar
LeadingLight
Head Keeper
 
Posts: 334
Joined: Sun Apr 24, 2005 12:00 am
Location: Maashees, Netherlands

Postby Ross » Sat Nov 11, 2006 1:00 pm


My opinion:

Faked.

It implies that there are 9+ panels to the lens, which seems to be too many and too odd a number.

If you look closely at the beam that goes from the light to the chimney on the keepers house, and then the brightest beam that goes from the light to the top-left-center of the photo, the angles don't jive.

Something's not right with that photo.
User avatar
Ross
LH.net Administrator
 
Posts: 3457
Joined: Thu Oct 24, 2002 12:00 am
Location: New Hampshire

Postby LeadingLight » Sat Nov 11, 2006 2:37 pm


Ross wrote:My opinion:

Faked.

It implies that there are 9+ panels to the lens, which seems to be too many and too odd a number.
Something's not right with that photo.


I might be too naive to have thought of that possibility. However the photo is strange. The problem with the number of beams is not that it are too many, but that it are not enough. The Pigeon Point optic has 24 panels. It rotates in 4 minutes. The photos I made only show a part of the lens, but I found some photos here http://www.cr.nps.gov/Maritime/lens/piglens.htm

I looked at the exif details of the photo and it says that the exposure time was 30 seconds. The stars in the sky had become small lines, so that would confirm the 30 seconds, but most the people are not moving on the photo, which is almost impossible with that exposure time.
Leading Light
Frans la Poutré
The Netherlands
51 34 06.7 N - 006 01 57.8 E
User avatar
LeadingLight
Head Keeper
 
Posts: 334
Joined: Sun Apr 24, 2005 12:00 am
Location: Maashees, Netherlands

Postby Gary Martin » Sat Nov 11, 2006 6:42 pm


The lens is not the primary light at Pigeon Point. The rotating aero beacon mounted on the seaward side of the light now serves that purpose. The event is annually scheduled with the Coast Guard and I'm sure mariners are well forwarned.

As for the lens, the 1st order Fresnel lens housed in the lantern room at Pigeon Point once shone form Cape Hatteras across the Diamond Shoals in the Atlantic Ocean. The lens has 24 bulls eye panels. I've been in the lantern room a number of times and have been inside of that lens. There are photos on my website:

http://coastalbeacons.com/pacificcoastg ... point3.htm
Last edited by Gary Martin on Sun Nov 12, 2006 5:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Gary Martin
Lighthouse Master
 
Posts: 4054
Joined: Mon Nov 04, 2002 1:00 am
Location: Warren, New Jersey

Postby Ross » Sat Nov 11, 2006 8:13 pm


Oops, I meant too few. I'm used to our little 4th order here in Portsmouth :)

Nonetheless, it looks odd. Not to say you couldn't get a photo like that, but not they way he describes.
User avatar
Ross
LH.net Administrator
 
Posts: 3457
Joined: Thu Oct 24, 2002 12:00 am
Location: New Hampshire

Postby Gary Martin » Sun Nov 12, 2006 5:43 pm


As for that image being Photoshopped.... most probably. I've photographed that lighthing in the past. The beams coming toward where the photographer was standing are always the most prominent. Those going a way, even in the dark are a total bear to capture and you DON'T do it from where he was standing. The other thing worth noting, is that the DON'T light that lens until it's almost dark, suggesting that the photog screwed with the light levels in a major way.

The last tme I shot the light at Pigeon Point, here's what I got. Note that the first shot the lens isn't lighted and it's darker than the post on fliker. In the second image, you'll notice that the sky is quite BLACK!!!!! The extent to which you can see the beams radiating away from where you're standing should be a funciton of how much mist is in the air to be lighted. You'll also notice that the rays going away from me that I captured AREN'T radiating down... IMO...

PHOTOSHOPPED!!!

Image

Image
User avatar
Gary Martin
Lighthouse Master
 
Posts: 4054
Joined: Mon Nov 04, 2002 1:00 am
Location: Warren, New Jersey

Postby LeadingLight » Tue Nov 14, 2006 11:35 pm


I start to believe the photo is not faked. Have a look at this video http://www.nightbeacons.net/ca/ppvideo.php. It requires some patience, but the illumination of the tower and even the backwards pointing beams all appear in the video. The photographer of the photo on Flickr is seriously explaining and replying. It must be extraordinary favourable atmospheric circumstances exactly at the right time.
Leading Light
Frans la Poutré
The Netherlands
51 34 06.7 N - 006 01 57.8 E
User avatar
LeadingLight
Head Keeper
 
Posts: 334
Joined: Sun Apr 24, 2005 12:00 am
Location: Maashees, Netherlands

Postby Ross » Wed Nov 15, 2006 8:22 am


No, it's not possible I got it wrong.

Just for purposeful backup, Flickr.com should be renamed PhotoshopFlickr.com because a lot of stuff on there is photoshopped and being passed off as not, it's quite embarrassing to the photography community, actually.

And don't make a warcry regarding letting opinions go unchallenged, because your

a) on my turf now
b) crazy for thinking you scared anyone off with your post

First off, it's an opinion, if you don't like it, don't read it. You made an awful lot of effort to login and join the site just to defend something that's a complete gray area. That, to me, shows more guilt than anything.

Second, don't expect people to change their minds or convince them otherwise if you say we all have "closed minds".

And if you did photoshop it? Big deal, just don't pass it off like you didn't, otherwise, what do you care what people think? If I had a dime for everytime some other photographer put down my work, I wouldn't need to work.

And my last recommendation, do NOT come here and preach about photography knowledge and how much you know, and how much we don't. That, my friend, is where you will err. That's not something I would want *my* three kids to see.
User avatar
Ross
LH.net Administrator
 
Posts: 3457
Joined: Thu Oct 24, 2002 12:00 am
Location: New Hampshire

Postby Rob143 » Wed Nov 15, 2006 7:33 pm


Carl,

Excuse me? Did I just read that right? You log onto Ross's forum to tell him, and others, to shut up?

Anybody that defensive is blowing smoke. No, I wasn't wrong, your shot is faked.

Aside from what I've already said I'll refer you to re-read Ross's post. He covered it well.

Rob
User avatar
Rob143
Head Keeper
 
Posts: 251
Joined: Thu Apr 13, 2006 12:00 am
Location: Carlisle, PA

Postby Biggy » Wed Nov 15, 2006 9:13 pm


And so the great debate continues about this Pigeon Point photo... 8O
I don't know this guy Carl from a hole in the wall. And I have nothing to bash him about, really. If he wants to drastically alter or fake a photo, well, good for him. Let him. And let him defend himself till the cows come home (wherever home may be for those cows). But opinions are opinions, and we either agree or disagree with others depending on our own opinions or by having a distint knowledge of a particular subject.

With that said ... Carl, if you happen to show up again and read this, I wouldn't be so bold about challenging many people on this board, because many of us are, at the least, semi-professional photographers who sell our work to the general public through side businesses. And many of us have been shooting photos for quite a long time (I mostly think of Gary when I say this -- but not because he's an old fart, because he's not :wink:). Many of us here know the inner workings of our cameras better than our toilets (just an arbitrary piece of household equipment I chose here). So, Carl, if you happen to show up again and read this, defending yourself on a public forum is OK. Giving your opinion is OK. But if you're coming on here and saying nobody knows what they're talking about, you're probably going to be wrong to a very large degree.

Anyway ... What I have to say about this Pigeon Point photo -- after studying it on and off throughout the day and purely based on my knowledge of shooting photos and after using PhotoShop for nearly half my life -- is that it definitely is altered. In fact, Carl admits this both on the other board's thread as well as this one. This photo definitely has been brightened, and I would say quite a lot. As Gary had said previously, even with a 30-second exposure time, the sky would be quite dark, probably not totally black, but not far off. This photo was lightened so much that it's easy to pick out somebody among the right side of the crowd with a pink jacket on. Now, you tell me ... how in the world would you distinctly see a pink garment from that distance, even with the light from the lighthouse and the floodlights surrounding it? The photo has been lightened a lot.

As for the movement issue ... I agree with Carl on this point. With the natural lighting and the distance it probably would be quite difficult for the camera to pick up any subtle movements from a mingling crowd. But looking very closely at the photo, I can see some blurred spots amid some of the people's heads and shoulders, indicating movement that was captured.

As for the light and its beams ... After viewing the video provided to us by Frans and carefully scanning the rays in the photo to see any duplicated patterns, I will venture to say there's nothing fake about that part of it.

But Carl, suppose you ever see this, I do bring up this question: If the beams were that spectacular, why would you lighten the photo so much to make them appear so faint? Personally, I think it makes your photo look awkward. I'd like to see a version of this photo that wasn't lightened as much, actually. And since you have the RAW images, you would be able to show us, right?

And one other thing I might mention too... I'd like to know whether this photo was shot with a digital SLR or a film SLR. That might make quite a difference. And if it's a film SLR, I wonder too if the type of film used, and then the type of scanner used to transmit the image to the computer, would make a difference in the coloring, appearance of light, etc.
David
------------------------------
Check out www.biggysphotosetc.com for updates on David's upcoming book, Lighthouses: Maine to Florida, scheduled for an April release by Schiffer Publishing.
User avatar
Biggy
Assistant Inspector
 
Posts: 551
Joined: Thu Jan 05, 2006 1:00 am
Location: Barnegat, NJ

Next

Return to Lighthouse Photography

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron