Almost as dangerous as a slightly-sloped roof...
Hat tip to dragnet2
And.......
Posted on 08/07/2024 7:52:09 PM PDT by mbrfl
Doug Mills joins me for an in depth discussion of the technical details surrounding his historic photo and an incredible life on the road with Presidents of the United States of America.
(Excerpt) Read more at youtube.com ...
I’ve followed Doug Mill’s work for decades. The man is absolutely brilliant.
Maybe different carriers? Or such?
Or lies
>> shares technical information about the photo, such as shutter speed, pixelation, etc.
A lot of meaningful forensics there.
The photographer sacrificed what could have been a higher quality picture for the highest shutter speed his camera would give him. Why would a professional photographer sacrifice quality?
I think the SS was lying—I think their cell phone service worked just fine.
In addition I have listened to many other witnesses and not one of them complained about cell phone issues.
In high end pro cameras, 800 ISO is not what 800 ISO used to be There are all sorts of software to recover noise if it does pop up. If the image were blown up for print, there might be a concern. But his image will likely be shown on line or on a news paper page, 6 inches max. Noise will not be a big issue.
I’m going with lies.
1. To have only his subject in focus.
2. The leftist editors are always looking for the worst possible pictures to use of repubs, the best of dems, so you want to have as many as possible for them to select from.
A difference of a part of a second can make a big difference in facial expression.
I heard the photographer being interviewed on Grant Stinchfield’s program tonight on Real America’s Voice. It wasn’t Grant Stinchfield, but it was that time slot and he said he’s been to almost every Trump rally. The guy who was interviewing him knew him from all the rallies that they would go to. I can’t remember his name, but he was hired by Real America’s Voice to go to all the rallies. Anyway, the point is that they knew each other from many rallies
https://americasvoice.news/the-photo-that-stunned-the-world/
Not the same interview, but the same people I was just talking about
When photographing, if you want to get separation between your subject and background, meaning, you want an in-focus subject with background objects blurred, you open the lens aperture as wide as possible.
Think of lens apertures as akin to the pupil of an eye. The wider the aperture, the more light is let in and vice-versa.
My understanding is he had the lens aperture at f1.6, or f1.8 which is the photographic equivalent of getting your eyes dilated. To not overexpose the image, the shutter speed would be cranked up to a high speed in order to reduce the amount of light reaching the sensor and not over-expose the image.
Furthermore, a high shutter speed would work to the experienced photographers advantage in that should something dramatic suddenly happen... a large bird flying overhead craps and hits the subject square on the face, the photographer could freeze the action and get a shot news organizations around the world would eagerly pay for.
So, on the surface, I don't see anything out of the ordinary for the settings a professional photographer might choose in that setting.
Ultimately, by the time the photographer heard the shot, the bullet had already long passed by. No way the photographer could have timed that shot. It was a once in a career moment.
What are the chances he would have covered W’s obscure Florida trip to a school, and this Trump event, and come away from both with high-class pictures? I find that rather odd. Bush’s trip would have been nearly insignificant, had it not been that the 9-11 attacks happened.
This business of “planning errors” on July 13th really challenges anyone’s belief, and points toward a very sinister conclusion. Once one accepts that conclusion, one has to realize that events beyond our ability to predict or prepare could occur at any time.
One thing is obvious, you don’t have to be “Gibbs” to doubt all these coincidences being just random bad luck.
Yes, that's his claim - low depth of field. But his other settings were 3 stops beyond the large aperture f-stop/low depth of field setting that he used (maybe the cameras limit), and that gave him either a dark exposure or a grainy exposure if his ISO setting compensated for the darkness. He'd have had the same depth of field at 1/1000th of a second, and that would have been the proper lighting; not too dark. As it was he fixed his otherwise low light (high shutter speed) exposure with a grainy ISO setting, or fixed the end product with photoshop. I would think using a high ISO setting would be embarrassing for a professional if he didn't have a good reason to use it.
2. The leftist editors are always looking for the worst possible pictures to use of repubs, the best of dems, so you want to have as many as possible for them to select from.
Yes, that's for sure. He was shooting at 30 frames per second (or 20 fps according to other accounts). That gives him lots of images in a short period of time, and gives him a good selection of best & worst facial expressions if that's the goal, but with the Pro camera the fps rate has no bearing on his aperture and shutter speed settings.
Bottom line, the photographer chose either a dark exposure or an image on the grainy side, sacrificing quality, to get a stop-action shot.
“Has he been charged yet?”
#########
As of now, Trump has not been formally charged. However, FBI and DOJ investigations are ongoing.
Spokespersons for Adam Schiff say the Congressman and his committee will be looking into the matter as well.
It is highly likely that the bullet caught by the photographer was not traveling at the normal speed one would expect.
Based on audio recordings , that bullet was fired at subsonic speeds. An expert (and trainer) on the techniques used by snipers says that the rifles must have used sound suppressors (silencers). The combo of subsonic bullet speed and sound suppressors means that one could not normally hear the sound of the shot and that it would be traveling slow enough to be photographed with normal cameras.
AND, that bullet was not fired by Crooks.
He didn't.
This bullet and several others were not fired at NORMAL speed expected from say, an AR15 and it's basic ammo.
The 'sniper(s)' did not want to get caught so they use a special load which is deadly quiet. It also is not quite as accurate. The bullet itself is larger and weighs more than a standard bullet and with less of a powder load and/or use of a slower burning powder does not propel the bullet as fast.
End result is that if it hits it's target, it is just as deadly, but it is unlikely anyone will hear it.
“Does this photographer explain why he had his camera settings set for such a fast (enough to capture a speeding bullet) setting?”
Outdoors, moving subject, bright bright sunshine...
Shrink the aperture and fastest speed you can manage to prevent washing out the image. Coincidentally fast enough to capture a bullet trail.
He used the same settings I would use with that camera if I were trying to capture exploding watermelon shots in crisp juicy detail.
(But the apologists are out in force, and not bothering to explain why the top #Enemedia was there for the first time in ages, either.)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.