hey /p/rotogs, how do you think this photo was taken?it dates from 2010, but based on the debris and vignette it was shot on film - so I'm thinking a monopod is more likely than a droneI also just think this is a really cool image and captures the vibe perfectly
>vignetteThat's a polariser at play anon.>DebrisThose are birds anon.I'm not discounting it probably wasn't a drone, but it's more likely a cheap compact digishit with a tall monopod at the extreme wide focal length.
It was probably just taken from the deck of an over-water bungalow >>4474219>extreme wide focal lengthAnon that's like 35mm full frame equivalent
with slide film and clear tropical skies you often didnt need a polariser, the vignette is also very localized, i would almost say its like out of focus roof or something; would agree with anon here >>4474236
>>4474236Or a boat maybe
>>4474236>Anon that's like 35mm full frame equivalentwhich on a cheap digishit there's every chance it's the widest it can go.
>>4474256Terms like wide angle, extreme wide angle and ultra-wide aren't really context based terms, they refer to specific focal lengths.
>>4474251Yeah I was thinking that too, but the water looked a little shallow for a boat with an upper deck. Could have also climbed up on a buoy
>>4474261Oh I didn't even remember typing extreme. My bad. Stay in drugs kids.
>>4474219lmao OP exposed as a nophoto in the first post
>>4474237>with slide film and clear tropical skies you often didnt need a polariserwhat>>4474261sequences of words are allowed to have different meanings in different contexts, in this case "extreme" means "furthest in/along a direction" especially given the usage of "the" instead of "a" in front of itprobably why >>4474263 doesn't even remember using it, it's just part of the language>they refer to specific focal lengthsfocal length is kind of a confusing term to use here since there's at least two formats that have been mentionedeven then, I've never heard of those terms as tied to specific FoVs, they're either vague marketing terms or used relative to each other / other lenses in a system
>>4474262What is a sailboat?
>>4474287>>>4474237>>with slide film and clear tropical skies you often didnt need a polariser>whatektachrome/kodachrome/velvia, they all have (had) very deep and saturated blues, and the skies get deeper the closer to the equator you are, must be something about the sun angle or whatever.
>>4474287>sequences of words are allowed to have different meanings in different contexts, in this case "extreme" means "furthest in/along a direction" especially given the usage of "the" instead of "a" in front of itOf course, but that would be like using the term 'f stop' in a sentence to describe "stop filming". It's not effective communication, and in fact it caused a breakdown in communication between two people, where neither of us knew what the other was saying. There is a reason why words have definitions. To argue for the contrary is the kind of postmodern pedantry that derails otherwise productive conversations into a back-and-fourth regarding semantics, sort of like what we're doing right now.
>>4474302I think they look sort of like this.
>>4474357dude chill outthis is all about whether you interpret "extreme" as an adjective or as part of a compound term here, not postmodern pedantryit was perfectly clear to me what the original post meant, there was no need for>akshually those words mean something very specifichuman language isn't a programming language, it's often context-dependent and sometimes ambiguoushell even many programming languages aren't context-free grammars and some even have ambiguous syntaxtl;dr you're autistic and think like a robot, I'm retarded for continuing to reply
>>4474397I mean I wasn't the one that brought up>but words are just like, ideas manIt is helpful to teach people on a photography forum about what photography specific terms mean. I wasn't even rude the guy. Why you're continuing to defend a use of a word that wasn't even correct ""in context"" as you claim, boggles the mind. That anon is obviously new so learning that terms like wide, standard and telephoto refer to specific groups of focal lengths is helpful. If you react like this every time someone tries to help you, grasping at straws, trying whatever gymnastics are required for you to avoid a teaching moment, how do you expect to progress?
Okay okay. Holy shit, I put a word in my post when I didn't intentionally mean to. My god.I was wrong anyway because that kind of polarisation effect on the sky wouldn't be possible (or it would be far less pronounced) at 35mm. This is clearly 16-24mm territory which isn't proving it isn't a digitshit, but DOES mean that it IS an UWA shot.I'm also rethinking and there's nothing saying there couldn't be a shack or pier where the shot is taking place that we just aren't seeing; photography is the practice of inclusion and omission, and it could simply be they framed things to keep the structure out of shot. There *could* also be a fucking burger king behind the camera.
>>4474410>If you react like this every time someone tries to help youmedsnow
>>4474442>reduced to name calling in lieu of a thoughtOk anon
>>4474207It's very likely to be Velvia (purple clouds, no dynamic range).This guy >>4474219 is right that it's a polariser darkening the sky, but wrong about the camera. It is 1000% a slide film colour scheme, and slide film dust visible all over the top left, and most jarringly the shepherd's crook shaped pube in the middle of the frame.Old mate >>4474236 has correctly identified the likely vantage point and field of view.Lastly; it's scanned on a potato, as 35mm Velvia should look better than most digital cameras.
>>4474467ding ding dingI reckon that all sound about accurate, but I'm still unconvinced it's taken from a structure, as it's probably depicting the sand bank at one foot islandsadly this is the highest quality version I could find, so it's likely the original scan, wonder if the photographer still has the negatives...?
>>4474207So, I did some digging, found who I believe to be the photographer, and sent him an Email. I'll reply with an update if he emails me back.
>>4474653It's worth noting this photo seems to be connected to Aitutaki. It appears in videos from people at the Aitutaki Private Island Lagoon Resort.
