| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Michael Gray" |
| Date: |
07 Jun 2007 02:48:14 AM |
| Object: |
Jonah? A small Australian "Whale" Shark. |
http://www3.nationalgeographic.com/places/promo/australia/photogallery/gamba/enlarge/3.jpg
or
http://tinyurl.com/yvkbd6
.
|
|
| User: "Smiler" |
|
| Title: Re: Jonah? A small Australian "Whale" Shark. |
07 Jun 2007 10:00:28 PM |
|
|
"Michael Gray" <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:iudf6312hb0jafvca5mk4rcvrf1oen6g2n@4ax.com...
http://www3.nationalgeographic.com/places/promo/australia/photogallery/gamba/enlarge/3.jpg
or
http://tinyurl.com/yvkbd6
Great picture, thanks.
Smiler,
The godless one
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: Jonah? A small Australian "Whale" Shark. |
08 Jun 2007 01:43:51 AM |
|
|
In article <iudf6312hb0jafvca5mk4rcvrf1oen6g2n@4ax.com>,
Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote:
http://www3.nationalgeographic.com/places/promo/australia/photogallery/gamba/e
nlarge/3.jpg
or
http://tinyurl.com/yvkbd6
I know they're filter feeders, but I don't think I'd want to get to
close to one anyway.
--
John #1782
"We should always be disposed to believe that which appears to us to be
white is really black, if the hierarchy of the church so decides."
- Saint Ignatius Loyola (1491-1556) Founder of the Jesuit Order.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Pangur Ban" |
|
| Title: Re: Jonah? A small Australian "Whale" Shark. |
07 Jun 2007 09:02:58 AM |
|
|
Michael Gray proclaimed:
http://www3.nationalgeographic.com/places/promo/australia/photogallery/gamba/enlarge/3.jpg
or
http://tinyurl.com/yvkbd6
And tours are offered to swim with them???????
Not me! Nope! Uh-uh! I prefer goldfish!
Pang
--
Quam bene vivas refert, non quam diu.
Seneca
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Jonah? A small Australian "Whale" Shark. |
07 Jun 2007 06:16:03 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 07 Jun 2007 08:02:58 -0600, Pangur Ban <Whistleblower@att.net>
wrote:
- Refer: <mn.39e27d76be40e5eb.73271@att.net>
Michael Gray proclaimed:
http://www3.nationalgeographic.com/places/promo/australia/photogallery/gamba/enlarge/3.jpg
or
http://tinyurl.com/yvkbd6
And tours are offered to swim with them???????
Not me! Nope! Uh-uh! I prefer goldfish!
Listen for the Jaws music when you sprinkle their foodflakes!
--
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pangur Ban" |
|
| Title: Re: Jonah? A small Australian "Whale" Shark. |
09 Jun 2007 06:40:00 AM |
|
|
Michael Gray used the keyboard to articulate :
On Thu, 07 Jun 2007 08:02:58 -0600, Pangur Ban <Whistleblower@att.net>
wrote:
- Refer: <mn.39e27d76be40e5eb.73271@att.net>
Michael Gray proclaimed:
http://www3.nationalgeographic.com/places/promo/australia/photogallery/gamba/enlarge/3.jpg
or
http://tinyurl.com/yvkbd6
And tours are offered to swim with them???????
Not me! Nope! Uh-uh! I prefer goldfish!
Listen for the Jaws music when you sprinkle their foodflakes!
Hrmmmm - maybe I'll not visit the fish pond at my friends anymore.
--
Aut viam inveniam aut faciam.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Neil Kelsey" |
|
| Title: Re: Jonah? A small Australian "Whale" Shark. |
07 Jun 2007 07:45:25 AM |
|
|
On Jun 7, 12:48 am, Michael Gray <mikeg...@newsguy.com> wrote:
http://www3.nationalgeographic.com/places/promo/australia/photogaller...
or
http://tinyurl.com/yvkbd6
That's a PHOTOGRAPH? Holy crap!
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Popelish" |
|
| Title: Re: Jonah? A small Australian "Whale" Shark. |
07 Jun 2007 12:48:01 PM |
|
|
Neil Kelsey wrote:
On Jun 7, 12:48 am, Michael Gray <mikeg...@newsguy.com> wrote:
http://www3.nationalgeographic.com/places/promo/australia/photogaller...
or
http://tinyurl.com/yvkbd6
That's a PHOTOGRAPH? Holy crap!
Made with a very wide angle lens (note the bending of the
water surface) that allows something up very close (the
shark) and something much further away (the swimmer) to both
be in fairly good focus. You have to use the light
absorption and scattering by the water to estimate how far
behind the shark the swimmer is. They may be roughly the
same size.
This is the same effect that makes your nose look huge when
you look at up close to a mirror.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Painter" |
|
| Title: Re: Jonah? A small Australian "Whale" Shark. |
07 Jun 2007 03:54:10 PM |
|
|
John Popelish wrote:
Neil Kelsey wrote:
On Jun 7, 12:48 am, Michael Gray <mikeg...@newsguy.com> wrote:
http://www3.nationalgeographic.com/places/promo/australia/photogaller...
or
http://tinyurl.com/yvkbd6
That's a PHOTOGRAPH? Holy crap!
Made with a very wide angle lens (note the bending of the
water surface) that allows something up very close (the
shark) and something much further away (the swimmer) to both
be in fairly good focus. You have to use the light
absorption and scattering by the water to estimate how far
behind the shark the swimmer is. They may be roughly the
same size.
That would be a very, very small shark. These creatures can go at least 30
feet long and I've seen a dead one that was over five feet *tall*.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Neil Kelsey" |
|
| Title: Re: Jonah? A small Australian "Whale" Shark. |
07 Jun 2007 05:00:18 PM |
|
|
On Jun 7, 1:54 pm, "Mike Painter" <mddotpain...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
John Popelish wrote:
Neil Kelsey wrote:
On Jun 7, 12:48 am, Michael Gray <mikeg...@newsguy.com> wrote:
http://www3.nationalgeographic.com/places/promo/australia/photogaller...
or
http://tinyurl.com/yvkbd6
That's a PHOTOGRAPH? Holy crap!
Made with a very wide angle lens (note the bending of the
water surface) that allows something up very close (the
shark) and something much further away (the swimmer) to both
be in fairly good focus. You have to use the light
absorption and scattering by the water to estimate how far
behind the shark the swimmer is. They may be roughly the
same size.
That would be a very, very small shark. These creatures can go at least 30
feet long and I've seen a dead one that was over five feet *tall*.
Yeah, I think the swimmer's just in front of the shark. Those things
are enormous, I thought they got up to 50' long? On a related note,
has anyone seen the NG documentary on the Greenland Shark? Those
things are almost as big, and as weird as Jesus. I got to know
(through work) some of the guys that work at the mini-sub place in
North Van, and they do the underwater filming fo National Geographic,
and were under the Arctic ice sheets making that documentary. What a
job that would be!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Painter" |
|
| Title: Re: Jonah? A small Australian "Whale" Shark. |
07 Jun 2007 09:40:31 PM |
|
|
Neil Kelsey wrote:
Yeah, I think the swimmer's just in front of the shark. Those things
are enormous, I thought they got up to 50' long? On a related note,
has anyone seen the NG documentary on the Greenland Shark? Those
things are almost as big, and as weird as Jesus. I got to know
(through work) some of the guys that work at the mini-sub place in
North Van, and they do the underwater filming fo National Geographic,
and were under the Arctic ice sheets making that documentary. What a
job that would be!
Unlikely. The swimmer is darker than the shark which makes him farther away
in water as visibility drops off rapidly.
I suspect the wide angle lens, if not photoshop.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Jonah? A small Australian "Whale" Shark. |
07 Jun 2007 06:15:02 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 07 Jun 2007 13:48:01 -0400, John Popelish <jpopelish@rica.net>
wrote:
- Refer: <u7WdnaPgmKYP2fXbnZ2dnUVZ_riknZ2d@comcast.com>
Neil Kelsey wrote:
On Jun 7, 12:48 am, Michael Gray <mikeg...@newsguy.com> wrote:
http://www3.nationalgeographic.com/places/promo/australia/photogaller...
or
http://tinyurl.com/yvkbd6
That's a PHOTOGRAPH? Holy crap!
Made with a very wide angle lens (note the bending of the
water surface) that allows something up very close (the
shark) and something much further away (the swimmer) to both
be in fairly good focus. You have to use the light
absorption and scattering by the water to estimate how far
behind the shark the swimmer is. They may be roughly the
same size.
This is the same effect that makes your nose look huge when
you look at up close to a mirror.
These whale sharks can get HUGE.
Juveniles the size of a double-decker Greyhound bus.
--
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Popelish" |
|
| Title: Re: Jonah? A small Australian "Whale" Shark. |
07 Jun 2007 07:03:45 PM |
|
|
Michael Gray wrote:
On Thu, 07 Jun 2007 13:48:01 -0400, John Popelish <jpopelish@rica.net>
wrote:
- Refer: <u7WdnaPgmKYP2fXbnZ2dnUVZ_riknZ2d@comcast.com>
Neil Kelsey wrote:
On Jun 7, 12:48 am, Michael Gray <mikeg...@newsguy.com> wrote:
http://www3.nationalgeographic.com/places/promo/australia/photogaller...
or
http://tinyurl.com/yvkbd6
That's a PHOTOGRAPH? Holy crap!
Made with a very wide angle lens (note the bending of the
water surface) that allows something up very close (the
shark) and something much further away (the swimmer) to both
be in fairly good focus. You have to use the light
absorption and scattering by the water to estimate how far
behind the shark the swimmer is. They may be roughly the
same size.
This is the same effect that makes your nose look huge when
you look at up close to a mirror.
These whale sharks can get HUGE.
Juveniles the size of a double-decker Greyhound bus.
I have no argument with the fact that these sharks can get
very big. I am just saying that this particular shark is
smaller than it appears in this photo. The photo has been
composed to exaggerate its size. The nose of this shark is
a lot more crisp in its details than the details of the
swimmer are, indicating that the swimmer is further away
from the camera than this shark's nose is. An actual very
huge shark would be much harder to photograph, because most
of it would be too far away to show up clearly in an
underwater photo. This shark's dorsal fin shows this effect
a little. A really big one would fade into the gloom before
the dorsal fin appeared. So they cheated with a smaller one.
I used to be a photographer, so I tend to evaluate photos
from that perspective. I cheated a lot. ;-)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Jonah? A small Australian "Whale" Shark. |
07 Jun 2007 11:37:08 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 07 Jun 2007 20:03:45 -0400, John Popelish <jpopelish@rica.net>
wrote:
- Refer: <lr-dneez8b0_AfXbnZ2dnUVZ_gmdnZ2d@comcast.com>
Michael Gray wrote:
On Thu, 07 Jun 2007 13:48:01 -0400, John Popelish <jpopelish@rica.net>
wrote:
- Refer: <u7WdnaPgmKYP2fXbnZ2dnUVZ_riknZ2d@comcast.com>
Neil Kelsey wrote:
On Jun 7, 12:48 am, Michael Gray <mikeg...@newsguy.com> wrote:
http://www3.nationalgeographic.com/places/promo/australia/photogaller...
or
http://tinyurl.com/yvkbd6
That's a PHOTOGRAPH? Holy crap!
Made with a very wide angle lens (note the bending of the
water surface) that allows something up very close (the
shark) and something much further away (the swimmer) to both
be in fairly good focus. You have to use the light
absorption and scattering by the water to estimate how far
behind the shark the swimmer is. They may be roughly the
same size.
This is the same effect that makes your nose look huge when
you look at up close to a mirror.
These whale sharks can get HUGE.
Juveniles the size of a double-decker Greyhound bus.
I have no argument with the fact that these sharks can get
very big. I am just saying that this particular shark is
smaller than it appears in this photo. The photo has been
composed to exaggerate its size. The nose of this shark is
a lot more crisp in its details than the details of the
swimmer are, indicating that the swimmer is further away
from the camera than this shark's nose is. An actual very
huge shark would be much harder to photograph, because most
of it would be too far away to show up clearly in an
underwater photo. This shark's dorsal fin shows this effect
a little. A really big one would fade into the gloom before
the dorsal fin appeared. So they cheated with a smaller one.
I used to be a photographer, so I tend to evaluate photos
from that perspective. I cheated a lot. ;-)
I hear what you say.
I should have used the clip from David Atenborough's "Blue Planet"
which shows (throught a noraml lens, side on) a diver touching one of
these monsters, and it was even bigger than this one looks, so there
is no need to cheat!
--
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
