Odd DuraAce Jockey Wheels: what are they?

[Luigi de Guzman]

On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 20:31:23 -0700, RS wrote:
I used the cheesy
> on camera flash on the back side photo of the derailleur, front photo
> no flash, all natural light. No reflectors, no nothing. Its all
> judgement calls and seeing the light. I never shot digitally as a pro,
> always used film. My original comment stands, its a 4M $150 Canon
> digital. Amazing how convenient its all gotten. And a little Photoshop
> tweaking never hurts. EBay here I come . . . . .

All digital does is let you do the same things you did in soup-based
photography faster--and without smelling of nasty chemicals.

All that training is transferrable, though, which is the best part. You
can't unlearn good lighting.


--
Luigi de Guzman
http://ouij.livejournal.com

 

[RS]

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
>
>
>On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 20:31:23 -0700, RS wrote:
> I used the cheesy
>> on camera flash on the back side photo of the derailleur, front photo
>> no flash, all natural light. No reflectors, no nothing. Its all
>> judgement calls and seeing the light. I never shot digitally as a pro,
>> always used film. My original comment stands, its a 4M $150 Canon
>> digital. Amazing how convenient its all gotten. And a little Photoshop
>> tweaking never hurts. EBay here I come . . . . .
>
>All digital does is let you do the same things you did in soup-based
>photography faster--and without smelling of nasty chemicals.
>
>All that training is transferrable, though, which is the best part. You
>can't unlearn good lighting.
>
>
>--
>Luigi de Guzman
>http://ouij.livejournal.com

Yes and no. Nothing beats a properly printed black & white darkroom
image by a good printer on fiber based paper. But few care anymore and
the internet and the ease of digital photography has dumbed down
photography for the masses. Digital has gotten outstanding, and the only
technical area in online images and many printed images is that properly
exposed film still has about 2 stops more lattitude. But its subtle and
nobody cares anymore.

 

[Ryan Cousineau]

In article <[email protected]>,
RS <[email protected]> wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] says...
> >
> >In article <[email protected]>,
> > RS <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> In article <[email protected]>,
> >> [email protected] says...
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >Ron Schiller writes:

[photos of Dura-Ace triple rder]

> >> > http://www.rickschiller.com/der7700.jpg
> >> > http://www.rickschiller.com/der7700_.jpg
> >> >
> >> >Excellent photos. Keep up the good work. Meanwhile, I'm sure
> you
> >> can
> >> >find the answer at better bicycle shops.
> >> >
> >> >Jobst Brandt
> >>
> >> Amazing what one can do with a $150 camera these days.
> >
> >Yesbut, your lighting betrays your professionalism.
> >
> >At a guess, you turned off the built-in flash (which would have
> >hilariously overexposed the derailer) and used a hot light, or as us
> >cheap photographers call them, "halogen work lights, $15 with stand
> on
> >sale."

> Ok, I'm busted, I was a professional photographer but have dropped
> it. Lighting is all judgement calls, Halogen is as you say the $15 choice
> and not a good one because they have a very low Kelvin temperature
> and will shift colors very warm to red. You can compensate to get
> neutral tones but few amateurs would have a clue. I used the cheesy
> on camera flash on the back side photo of the derailleur, front photo
> no flash, all natural light. No reflectors, no nothing. Its all
> judgement calls and seeing the light. I never shot digitally as a pro,
> always used film. My original comment stands, its a 4M $150 Canon
> digital. Amazing how convenient its all gotten. And a little Photoshop
> tweaking never hurts. EBay here I come . . . . .

I cheated. I saw the photos, noted that Jobst was right about the
quality of the pics, and looked at the root level of your website
(rickschiller.com).

I'm a great fan of cheap and cheerful digicams, and especially Canon's
stuff (an A85 or A530, perchance?), but I really did think the flash
would have blown out the details from so close up, which it did not.
Maybe I have to get a better camera.

Or possibly a better photographer,

--
Ryan Cousineau [email protected] http://www.wiredcola.com/
"I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics
to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos

 

[RS]

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
>
>
>In article <[email protected]>,
> RS <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> In article <[email protected]>,
>> [email protected] says...
>> >
>> >In article <[email protected]>,
>> > RS <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >
>> >> In article <[email protected]>,
>> >> [email protected] says...
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >Ron Schiller writes:
>
>[photos of Dura-Ace triple rder]
>
>> >> > http://www.rickschiller.com/der7700.jpg
>> >> > http://www.rickschiller.com/der7700_.jpg
>> >> >
>> >> >Excellent photos. Keep up the good work. Meanwhile, I'm sure
>> you
>> >> can
>> >> >find the answer at better bicycle shops.
>> >> >
>> >> >Jobst Brandt
>> >>
>> >> Amazing what one can do with a $150 camera these days.
>> >
>> >Yesbut, your lighting betrays your professionalism.
>> >
>> >At a guess, you turned off the built-in flash (which would have
>> >hilariously overexposed the derailer) and used a hot light, or as us
>> >cheap photographers call them, "halogen work lights, $15 with stand
>> on
>> >sale."
>
>> Ok, I'm busted, I was a professional photographer but have dropped
>> it. Lighting is all judgement calls, Halogen is as you say the $15 choice
>> and not a good one because they have a very low Kelvin temperature
>> and will shift colors very warm to red. You can compensate to get
>> neutral tones but few amateurs would have a clue. I used the cheesy
>> on camera flash on the back side photo of the derailleur, front photo
>> no flash, all natural light. No reflectors, no nothing. Its all
>> judgement calls and seeing the light. I never shot digitally as a pro,
>> always used film. My original comment stands, its a 4M $150 Canon
>> digital. Amazing how convenient its all gotten. And a little Photoshop
>> tweaking never hurts. EBay here I come . . . . .
>
>I cheated. I saw the photos, noted that Jobst was right about the
>quality of the pics, and looked at the root level of your website
>(rickschiller.com).
>
>I'm a great fan of cheap and cheerful digicams, and especially Canon's
>stuff (an A85 or A530, perchance?), but I really did think the flash
>would have blown out the details from so close up, which it did not.
>Maybe I have to get a better camera.
>
>Or possibly a better photographer,
>
>--
>Ryan Cousineau [email protected] http://www.wiredcola.com/
>"I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics
>to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos
A520 Backside metal didn't have quite the same sheen, I shot it both ways
and this one looked better. Tweaking curves, contrast, levels, etc in
Photoshop and sharpening properly helps also. The highights actually are
more blown out in the backside photo, look at the metal just below the
upper 1/2 of the lower pulley on the left. But who cares or notices?

 

[[email protected]]

On Jul 15, 9:43 pm, Ryan Cousineau <[email protected]> wrote:
> RS <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Ok, I'm busted, I was a professional photographer but have dropped
> > it. Lighting is all judgement calls, Halogen is as you say the $15 choice
> > and not a good one because they have a very low Kelvin temperature
> > and will shift colors very warm to red. You can compensate to get
> > neutral tones but few amateurs would have a clue. I used the cheesy
> > on camera flash on the back side photo of the derailleur, front photo
> > no flash, all natural light. No reflectors, no nothing. Its all
> > judgement calls and seeing the light. I never shot digitally as a pro,
> > always used film. My original comment stands, its a 4M $150 Canon
> > digital. Amazing how convenient its all gotten. And a little Photoshop
> > tweaking never hurts. EBay here I come . . . . .
>
> I cheated. I saw the photos, noted that Jobst was right about the
> quality of the pics, and looked at the root level of your website
> (rickschiller.com).
>
> I'm a great fan of cheap and cheerful digicams, and especially Canon's
> stuff (an A85 or A530, perchance?), but I really did think the flash
> would have blown out the details from so close up, which it did not.
> Maybe I have to get a better camera.
>
> Or possibly a better photographer,

A tripod works wonders. Side lighting a bit helps,
having a featureless background without sharp shadows
helps. The pictures at
http://www.ucolick.org/~bjw/misc/rbt/brakebolts.html
(from a past RBT controversy) were taken on a table top
with an old 4mp Canon S45, tripod, macro, flash off,
main light was a 60 W desk lamp and the fill was
probably ambient room light, auto white balance. And
they're downsampled for the web. The color temp of the
desk lamp is not as much of a problem when photographing
metal objects as it warms up the coldness of the silver/gray
finish. Unfortunately, pictures of brakes aren't,
artistically, that interesting.

Ben

 

[[email protected]]

Rick Schiller writes:

I was always amazed at "Builder's Photos" of steam engines that had
practically no perspective and no background. In the days of yore,
when these were popular, there were no computers to edit out
extraneous background. The best I could find right now is at:

http://www.steamlocomotive.com/bigboy/

Of course the mechanical drawing is at:

http://steamcad.railfan.net/bigboy.htm

Jobst Brandt