h a l f b a k e r yI didn't say you were on to something, I said you were on something.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Out doing some exploring this weekend I was taking pictures of a small town I came across. Taking pictures into the sun I got the idea to shoot through my sunglasses to cut down on the glare. I know, I'm not the first person to do that. However, shooting through a pair of green tinted Ray-Ban Aviators
gave my photos a more interesting look (that I also notice wearing the sunglasses). It was awkward trying to hold my camera and sunglasses at the same time though, and keep the frames out of the photo.
I'm going to preemptively rebut the first five annos here: this isn't an idea for a ND filter. Those exist, and I forgot to bring mine. It's an idea to take the exact lens glass and coating used by Ray-Ban and turn it into a ND filter. Polarizing filters are also good to have on hand, but this particular lens isn't polarizing. RB could introduce a line of overpriced camera filters representing each of their most popular sunglass lenses. Also, before anyone comments about just adding this effect digitally, filters are easier and give better results.
I linked to a comparison photo of the unaugmented shot and shot through my sunglasses. It's not a particularly good photo, but I think it shows the difference well. RB filter is on the bottom.
Comparison
http://www.flickr.c...0478/in/photostream
Bonus points if you can tell me where this was taken. [DIYMatt, Jul 08 2012]
Please log in.
If you're not logged in,
you can see what this page
looks like, but you will
not be able to add anything.
Annotation:
|
| |
// RB could introduce a line of overpriced camera filters representing each of their most popular sunglass lenses // |
|
| |
Sp. "Bausch & Lomb could introduce a line of overpriced camera filters ... " |
|
| |
With the rise of digital photography (allegedly -
personally I rely on a watercolour artist), would
there not be an app for this? |
|
| |
I never use him for my court appearances, nor do I
consent to be photographed there. I have always
argued that the wig is outdated and ridiculous. |
|
| |
//I have always argued that the wig is outdated
and
ridiculous.// |
|
| |
Sorry to have to tell you, [Max] but it doesn't make
you look young and virile, either. |
|
| |
In fact, I'm surprised they let you wear one in the
dock.
Burquas have been banned for a while, so I should
think wigs would get the same treatment from the
beak... unless you're bribing him each time you
appear? |
|
| |
You seem a little confused, [Ubie]. Or perhaps it's
customary for judges to appear in the dock in your
land. Or perhaps you are confusing me with Sturton
- he acted as a judge for several years, but was then
caught. |
|
| |
//With the rise of digital photography (allegedly -
personally I rely on a watercolour artist), would
there not be an app for this?// No. It is not possible,
in general, to apply a post hoc transformation to a
digital image to match the effect of a light filter
applied before the image is captured. Except in
trivial cases, such as a true neutral grey filter, the
processes are not isomorphic. |
|
| |
RayBans on the watercolor artist? |
|
| |
RayBans on each guest in the Long Gallery?
Chromatically selective paint filter on the brush? |
|
| |
Not so much confused as we are tired of being
saddled with also-ran British judges who have moved
to Australia "for the sunshine", and who all seem to
be involved in international child pornography rings. |
|
| |
Perhaps "sunshine" is a British euphemism for child
pornography, as the word has no practical application
in Britain? |
|
| |