PDA

View Full Version : Extreme photographer captures aurora borealis



John Flavell
14-Mar-2012, 03:51
I thought this might be of interest. All film and no shutter:

http://tinyurl.com/6wxwmqs

jonreid
14-Mar-2012, 04:02
40 megapixels??? Be a lot more than that...

Steven Tribe
14-Mar-2012, 04:12
The real experience of aurora borealis is the constantly changing light/colour effects, motions and twists. No still photograph can ever give even a slight impression of the minute/hour long ballet!

danno@cnwl.igs
14-Mar-2012, 06:58
I think the reporter ma have made an error in detail, or I'm missing something.
His huge 2 1/2 X 3 1/2 films (?) cost about $35 per shot???

Greg Miller
14-Mar-2012, 07:28
My experience with the press is that every article has incorrect facts, and they take great liberty in their quotes. It does not surprise me that there would be errors in stated file sizes or costs.

Frank Petronio
14-Mar-2012, 07:46
Every news story I have been in, or have first hand knowledge of, always has had several major errors that could have been easily checked and corrected. Or avoided entirely had the "journalist" paid attention. This is with the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, etc.

I keep reminding myself of this whenever I read or see the news.

I like the photos, I wonder why some of the horizons are blurred?

E. von Hoegh
14-Mar-2012, 08:38
I like the photos, I wonder why some of the horizons are blurred?

Must be that "chunk of finely rounded surveyor's glass", those "giant" bits of film must exceed it's coverage....

Brian C. Miller
14-Mar-2012, 12:06
Dennis Anderson's bio page (http://www.auroradude.com/bio.html)

There are pictures of his home-made "Frankencamera" and a 4x5 with a fisheye lens on it. Anybody recognize the lenses?

Jason Greenberg Motamedi
14-Mar-2012, 12:11
The one on the left is a Wild Heerbrugg Falconar 98mm f1.4, a very desirable aerial lens.

Frank Petronio
14-Mar-2012, 12:39
I read it as 21 / 2 inches by 31 / 2 inches, I thought it would be a larger camera ;-p

jonreid
15-Mar-2012, 06:21
I read it like Frank, hence my claim it would be way larger than 40 Mp when digitised...

E. von Hoegh
15-Mar-2012, 09:03
It's a shame the media have to put such a hyper-spin on everydamnthing.

His photos are great, the cameras are interesting and he made them himself, but that isn't enough....

ic-racer
15-Mar-2012, 17:28
2" x 3" is "Giant" ?? I thought you guys wanted to kick out all the 6x9cm LF wannabes :) :)

Brian Vuillemenot
15-Mar-2012, 21:25
Give me a break- medium format is considered extreme? And how is a single "shot" costing $35, unless this guy takes three or four rolls of each "shot"?

Brian C. Miller
15-Mar-2012, 22:37
Extreme conditions, like -50F. At night. For weeks. That's pretty extreme. (of course, now you're going to top that with wintering at the south pole, photographing inside Santa's other workshop, dodging murderous elves with night vision, zombie penguins with alien death ray guns, and after that about your side job at the Nevada nuke testing and how much suntan lotion you had to wear, yadda yadda yadda.)

As for the reference to "giant," that 6x9 camera is about the size of a 4x5, and probably weighs at least twice as much as my Toyo 45AX. Remember, the only camera size reference the reporter had was an iPhone.

I give kudos to him for constructing such a neat camera! And his other camera is a 4x5. (The lens kind of looks like a Pentax 6x7 35mm, but I'm not sure.)