Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 5/20/2003 11:38:30 AM EDT
[img]http://media.mnginteractive.com/media/paper36/guns0520.jpg[/img] That photo is from Today's Denver post. Can it be real? Look at the hammer. Look at where the flash is. Look at how nothing is blurred as if from recoil. Here's my e-mail to them, and the photographer's response. I'm not sure what to believe.
Sir, While reading today's Denver Post article re: weapons permits, I noted that the photograph credited to Post photographer Cyrus McCrimmon appears to have some anomalies / paradoxical qualities which I thought I would raise with you. The photograph appears online at this article: My question is this: How can there be "fire" emanating from the bore of that weapon given that (a) the hammer is clearly still cocked; (b) the trigger is not depressed; and (c) there is no sign of any recoil whatsoever. (If the photo were snapped right at the instant the weapon fired before any recoil would be evident, I would expect that the trigger would still be pulled and the hammer would be down. Likewise, if the claim is that the photo was taken at the very end of the firing cycle after the weapon had reloaded and recocked the hammer, then I find it hard to believe that the muzzle blast would either still be visible, or would line up with the pistol that had just finished recoiling and reloading. As noted in the text of the article, that's a 45 ACP pistol, which would have a great deal of recoil). In the aftermath of the Jayson Blair scandal, and the earlier LA Times scandal involving dismissal of photographer Brian Walski (for computerized manipulation of photos), it is very difficult for those of us in the public to trust the mass media. Please let me know how this photograph can depict what it appears to depict.
View Quote
Response:
Dear ****** Thanks for your comments about today's photo on the cover of the Denver and The West section. The photo was a single image taken with a slow shutter speed (1/30th of a second) and a wide angle lens. There was nothing added or altered with the photo. Thanks for your observations. Sincerely, Cyrus McCrimmon
View Quote
Any photography buffs out there willing to weigh in on this? Is the reporter telling it like it is or does my gut feeling that there is something weired with this photo have some merit?
Link Posted: 5/20/2003 11:44:13 AM EDT
Link Posted: 5/20/2003 11:49:28 AM EDT
Im no photography expert, and no 1911 expert, but the slide does appear to have just started its rearward movement, as for the hammer (again, no 1911 expert), it may take very little slide movement to recock the hammer. Just my personal observations.
Link Posted: 5/20/2003 11:56:03 AM EDT
It was a long exposure shot and is 100% real. The majority of the exposure time was before the hammer dropped so that image is strongest. But if you look very closely, you can see the shadow of the hammer after it dropped. The shutter closed as the slide began to recoil.
Link Posted: 5/20/2003 11:56:26 AM EDT
This kind of photo is easy to create. All it takes is a dark room, a slow shutter speed, and a flash at the beginning or end of the exposure. The flash gives color to the photo that wasn't there in darkness, and captures the handgun before or after firing (and keeps motion blur to a minimum). The bright muzzle blast in the dark room also shows up quite well. The same technique is used in car photos where you see brake lights streamed out across the print, but the car looks like it's standing still. "click (exposure)...flash!(end exposure)
Link Posted: 5/20/2003 12:02:39 PM EDT
it is not necissarily altered. with a slow shutter speed such as 1/30th of a second, the film captures almost instantly all things in the foreground (the gun, including the trigger about to break, the hammer about to fall and the slide still locked up.) the flash and the camera's aperature wich was calibrated for the flash would have cancelled the majority of the acutal recoiling of the slide which is somewhat exposed by the ambient light. What was left to be imprinted on the film was the bright muzzle flash of the bullet leaving the barrel. This muzzle flas appears because it is the only thing bright enough to overcome the power of the flash save the details in the background which had enough time to expose properly (since they are only marginally affected by the flash). Hopefully this makes some sense, but as a pro photographer I can say that I've seent this phenomena many many times... its not a fake.
Link Posted: 5/20/2003 12:05:08 PM EDT
Originally Posted By DnPRK: It was a long exposure shot and is 100% real. The majority of the exposure time was before the hammer dropped so that image is strongest. But if you look very closely, you can see the shadow of the hammer after it dropped. The shutter closed as the slide began to recoil.
View Quote
no, the shutter close long after recoil impulse was over, there just was not enough light to capture it onto the negative. yes, though one can see the blur of the hammer that was captured with a flash before it fell, and again (faintly with ambient light) as it fell.
Link Posted: 5/20/2003 12:06:12 PM EDT
The important question: WHAT WAS THE ARTICLE ABOUT, AND WAS IT BIASED? [?][?][?]
Link Posted: 5/20/2003 12:09:36 PM EDT
Originally Posted By BigD: This kind of photo is easy to create. All it takes is a dark room, a slow shutter speed, and a flash at the beginning or end of the exposure. The flash gives color to the photo that wasn't there in darkness, and captures the handgun before or after firing (and keeps motion blur to a minimum). The bright muzzle blast in the dark room also shows up quite well. The same technique is used in car photos where you see brake lights streamed out across the print, but the car looks like it's standing still. "click (exposure)...flash!(end exposure)
View Quote
while this is ture, one does not necissarily need a dark room. this room was clearly lit to some degree, although you are correct in the regard that the effects are more pronounced with a room that it poorly lit as I would suspect most ranges would be. it's more like a Click+Pop (shutter open and flash), Pause, Click (shutter close). The more powerful your flash or strobe units are, the less dark the room has to be!
Link Posted: 5/20/2003 12:38:24 PM EDT
Link Posted: 5/20/2003 12:44:20 PM EDT
The photo is most likely real. - I used to do pics like that out doors, its not hard at all. The methods described above can all be used. AS to the [url=www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36~53~1402232,00.html]Denver Post Article[/url] it is about local people in the Denver area that are applying or inquiring about obtaining CCW permits. As of May 18th Colorado is a "[b]Shall Issue[/b]" state much to the displeasure of the Denver local government.
Link Posted: 5/20/2003 12:48:56 PM EDT
Might be a true pic, but I doubt the shooter knew Sh88 for shinola! Posture, Extention, and Hand placement SUCK!!!! Not even standing in the shooters box. Give me a week with that pouge, and he might hit something.
Link Posted: 5/20/2003 12:54:08 PM EDT
I would assume it's 100% real because there would be absolutely nothing to gain by faking this particular photo.
Link Posted: 5/20/2003 12:54:23 PM EDT
Link Posted: 5/20/2003 1:51:34 PM EDT
legs has provided the perfect example of "creating ones own illumination" flash not needed.
Link Posted: 5/20/2003 1:59:26 PM EDT
I think he's about to get hit by a meteor
Link Posted: 5/20/2003 2:10:48 PM EDT
Link Posted: 5/20/2003 2:12:18 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/20/2003 2:16:00 PM EDT by thesacrifice]
Originally Posted By DnPRK: It was a long exposure shot and is 100% real. The majority of the exposure time was before the hammer dropped so that image is strongest. But if you look very closely, you can see the shadow of the hammer after it dropped. The shutter closed as the slide began to recoil.
View Quote
there's no way it's a long exposure shot, absolutely nothing is blurred, meaning everything stood precisely still during the firing cycle, the muzzle flash would also be huge. its possbile you are referencing long exposure as in 1/2 a sec, but the detail on that muzzle flash and no blur from the guns recoil indicates it was infact a very fast shutter speed or a very strong flash
Link Posted: 5/20/2003 2:31:22 PM EDT
Originally Posted By ilikelegs: That flash ain't shit compared to mine. [url]http://xzodus.com/funny_images/ILL_Dragon.jpg[/url]
View Quote
How in the hell did you get a flash like that [shock]?!?!? it looks like a fvckin flamethower! you pack some slowburn in the shell along with some firewood!? jeez!
Link Posted: 5/20/2003 2:48:18 PM EDT
1/30th of a second seems to slow to freeze the action, and flashes are synced at faster shutter speeds, thats how I understand it.
Link Posted: 5/20/2003 2:57:38 PM EDT
Originally Posted By HappyJack97: 1/30th of a second seems to slow to freeze the action, and flashes are synced at faster shutter speeds, thats how I understand it.
View Quote
a bright powered flash helps to freeze things up, but for something like firing a weapon you'd want atleast 1/60 for a really clear shot
Link Posted: 5/20/2003 3:18:43 PM EDT
Originally Posted By thesacrifice:
Originally Posted By HappyJack97: 1/30th of a second seems to slow to freeze the action, and flashes are synced at faster shutter speeds, thats how I understand it.
View Quote
a bright powered flash helps to freeze things up, but for something like firing a weapon you'd want atleast 1/60 for a really clear shot
View Quote
Yes I understand that the strobe effect will freeze the action but when using a flash it has to be syncronized with the shutter speed. I thought that flash sync/shutter speed didn't operate at 1/30th.
Link Posted: 5/20/2003 3:32:40 PM EDT
It's very easy to do. One of the techniques is called "rear curtain synch". You program the flash to pop just before the shutter closes. That is what puts the image in sharp focus. The muzzle flash is captured at the beginning of the shutter opening. Have the shooter fire the round as soon as he hears the shutter click, and then have him remain as still as possible. Just before the shutter closes, the flash pops and a sharp picture including the muzzle flash is captured.
Link Posted: 5/20/2003 3:42:17 PM EDT
Link Posted: 5/20/2003 4:14:56 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Phil_in_Seattle: Everything photoshop can do, can be done photographically.
View Quote
haha that's asking for trouble
Link Posted: 5/20/2003 4:25:14 PM EDT
Link Posted: 5/20/2003 4:29:12 PM EDT
Take a closer look at the picture!! The "muzzle flash" begins about a half inch [b]BEHIND[/b] the muzzle!!!
Link Posted: 5/20/2003 6:21:36 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/20/2003 6:23:58 PM EDT by Greenhorn]
Originally Posted By 15th_Texas_Cavalry: Take a closer look at the picture!! The "muzzle flash" begins about a half inch [b]BEHIND[/b] the muzzle!!!
View Quote
Remember, the barrel follows the slide for a short distance. You're probably seeing the image of the slide before it moved and the flash coming out of the barrel after it moved back a half an inch.
Link Posted: 5/20/2003 6:49:41 PM EDT
Link Posted: 5/20/2003 6:52:29 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Phil_in_Seattle: Everything photoshop can do, can be done photographically.
View Quote
That sounds like a challenge!
Link Posted: 5/20/2003 8:10:44 PM EDT
Link Posted: 5/21/2003 9:02:47 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Phil_in_Seattle:
Originally Posted By Sumo2000:
Originally Posted By Phil_in_Seattle: Everything photoshop can do, can be done photographically.
View Quote
That sounds like a challenge!
View Quote
A lot of years ago I went to a seminar that revolved around compositing and retouching transparencies. The reason I went to this seminar was because I'd seen a print ad that the speaker had made for a motorcycle company where he had taken 20 some different images and photographically composited them into one, to make the nastiest twisted road one could ever imagine. No one could tell that this was not an original image. It's one of the most amazing things I've ever seen in the photographic field. Photoshop makes many things easier, it can substitute for a lot of skill, it requires different skills, but it is not a magic wand. The magic wand is in your head.
View Quote
yes, look at the careful cutting and pasting with negatives such as Jerry Ulesmann... manipulation of negatives to "create" a print is as old as the photographic process itself. early photographers who used the wet collodion process, such as Matthew Brady, Alexander Gardner, Carleton Watkins usually had to take a second exposure of the sky to capture the clouds as the collodion process was not as sensitive to blue tones. they would then take these negatives (made of glass plates) and put them ontop of each other to create clouds in the sky where only a blank sky would have appeared before. this was 1850's version of photoshopping! phil- thanks for agreeing with me... some of this stuff is easier to do than explain! Treelo- as for the rear curtian sync, that is possible but so is just having a slow sync. It depends solely on what action is captured frozen and with the greatest exposure. here i believe it is the beginning of the event, not the end. if rear curtian sync was used, how would the muzzle flash have been captured?
Top Top