Any Photographers?

Are there any photoprphers on this board? I am also a freelace. I have a really important question that I need to share that I can only explane to someone who is manually camera savvy. One who knows the machanics of a camera. It is UFO related.

Thanks,
SkyChild_5

Hey SkyChild... I was a professional photographer for about 7 years and studied fine art photography in college. And have even taught photography classes, so I know the mechanics of a camera pretty well.

________________________________________________________________
Be Cool
K_OS

Wow! This is just plane awesome. Didn't really expect a reply. OK, tell ya what. It is now 6:30 EDT on my coast and I have to get ready for work. I will post my question when I get home about 4ish. Maybe, this thread can get to the bottom of something that has bothered me now for almost 9 years. BTW: I have a nice old manual Minolta Maxxum 7000 series (which I love to control) with two attachable lens. One good telephoto and a nice 70mm-210mm zoom. And about 2 dozen filters. My question will be far from bazzar to you I hope or anyone else that might answer my question.
Chat with you after work OK. And thanks bunches for the reply! And by all means put this in you "Fav's" so we can chat now and then. And so you know I am for realy, here are some of my curtique methods.

1. Never center your subject in the middle of the shot
2. Never divide your shot with the horizon
3. Make sure before you snap that shutter cable that there are no power lines or tree limbs growing out of your subjects head or ears
4. Make sure you not shooting a "stick" person. Pose, pose and pose some more, use your continues mode on your model as much as possible to catch that "Kodak Moment".

ROTFLMAO. I think you can believe I know my stuff now. And that I am for real.

Sky

Originally posted by K_OS
Hey SkyChild... I was a professional photographer for about 7 years and studied fine art photography in college. And have even taught photography classes, so I know the mechanics of a camera pretty well.

________________________________________________________________
Be Cool
K_OS

[edit on 11-11-2005 by SkyChild_5]

But, I did forget the most important thing of all! And that is: A true photographer never leaves home without it. No matter what kind you want to tap along with ya. I have my digital under the front side of my car.

The event as it took place. This one late night at the beach with sis. My UFO counterpart. We were priveed to a large (football field size) triangular craft (military most likely) at a very low altitude and moving very slow. I started shooting one shot at a time about every fifteen seconds or so. I shot about 21 out of a 24 roll of 35mm at 400 ISO with my setting at 1000/3.5 setting. The last couple of shots I took were a little boat off shore with some light strung along it. There is the clincher. When I got my film developed ( I do not have a dark room) at Walgreens, all of the 21 shots of that craft the film came back to me "undeveloped"! The last couple of the boat came back fine. But the rest of them of the craft were not there. Now, when I looked at the negitives, they were all "amber" in color. Yes "amber". I re-wound that fillm myself with the clip on the back of my Minolta. And I know for a fact the shutter worked fine cause I could here it open and close. Undeveloped film? They should have been all black if they were delevoped and went through. I was like I was clicking the shutter and the film was moving though fine, just something stoped it from being exposed. I know this sounds crazy, but this really happened. Just like an X-Ray, it is amber before you expose it, then once exposed it turns black with you image in tacked. What happened here in your humble opinion. I have been looking for a realistic answer for years now. Just haven't had anyone to ask that would not think I am nuts. That film was developed! I know it was. Came back to me just like a brand new roll of film just in a negetive form.

P.S There were three large white bright lights on each end of the craft. I should have least gotton those light on film you would think, yes?

Any thoughts?

[edit on 11-11-2005 by SkyChild_5]

Pretty weird story..
The coincidence of "bad" film versus "good" film, just as you changed subjects..
Do you hapen to have access to a film scanner?
If there was an exposure problem during those first shots, you might be able to determine if ANYTHING was imaged on that part of the film..

I sure don't have a image scanner. Wish I did. I will say this much. I went over those negitives with a fine tooth comb and a magnifing glass and I could see NO image at all. Just as I said......looked like brand new undeveloped film that had never been exposed to any light what so ever. I though at first my settings were off. But then I knew my apiture was right and my speed was correct. I feel I did everything right. Something really spookey about this event IMHO. Remember the boat came out fine. Those two exposures were black negitives with the boat right there with the light (colored) right on it. Beets the heck outta me.

Originally posted by spacedoubt
Pretty weird story..
The coincidence of "bad" film versus "good" film, just as you changed subjects..
Do you hapen to have access to a film scanner?
If there was an exposure problem during those first shots, you might be able to determine if ANYTHING was imaged on that part of the film..

[edit on 11-11-2005 by SkyChild_5]

[edit on 11-11-2005 by SkyChild_5]

Originally posted by SkyChild_5
The event as it took place. This one late night at the beach with sis.


400 ISO with my setting at 1000/3.5 setting.

Are you sure about the settings? If you were shooting at 1/1000 a second, it would have to be very, very bright for anything to show up. I am assuming that if it turned out amber, you were using color film. This usually shows up when the film is under exposed.

I really can not be sure of my settings. But, I was using 400 ISO 35mm color. But, if that were the case, I just don't understand that the boat slightly off shore with just a string of lights on it came out just fine. And yes, I remember like it was yesterday, the negitives of the craft came back "amber" with no image and the boat negitive came back "Black" as exposed. My settings never changed from start to finish. The more I think about it...I usually only use that high speed for fasst moving objects. So, common sense would tell me that I would have been foolish to use such a high speed at that time. Maybe my usual 500 or lower with an apiture of about 4.5. Honestly, I can't remember it was so long ago. But, the more I think about it, why would I go any higher then a 500 speed setting for something not in motion. Plus, that is the setting that I leave it on all the time. The only time I changed it to over 500 is to shot birds or fast moving objects. I am so confused. 250/4.5 is my usual optimal setting for just about all my nature shots.

[edit on 11-11-2005 by SkyChild_5]

I really think I had it on my regular setting more I think about it. Around 250/3.5 or 4.5. I sure hope someone can help me out here.

[edit on 12-11-2005 by SkyChild_5]