Urban Legends: Photography

ACDCROCKS wrote in post #2292463
heres a question of mine. Does a comfact flash wiegh more when it is full of pictures? Even down to the Smallest amount?

If you're being serious, no. They're all 1s or 0s anyway. If it's not a 0, it's a 1... and they have the same mass.

If you're not being serious, no WONDER why my 1D feels so darn heavy at the end of the night....

KevC wrote in post #2289446
Grainy, OOF, way under (or over) exposed images are almost always great pieces of fine art.

This only applies to known great photographers, who obviously must have intentionally shot it that way. If the likes of us do it, we must have ***ked it up and are trying to pass it off as fine art.

For some sixty years most folks think the flag being hoisted in the famous picture, Mt. Sarabahi (sp??) It was not staged and the newly released movie should put that one to rest, or not.

KevC wrote in post #2292534
If you're being serious, no. They're all 1s or 0s anyway. If it's not a 0, it's a 1... and they have the same mass.

I had a feeling that electrons weigh more than holes, or is that unlikely?

joeseph wrote in post #2293155
I had a feeling that electrons weigh more than holes, or is that unlikely?

Well, it's a bit more than that. There really aren't holes, there are just atoms which have all, or most, taken a charge or atoms which are all randomly charged. In the case where we have a charge, we call 1 and in the case where they are all random we call 0. The number of electrons and atoms stays the same. This is over simplistic as you can get into a whole quantum thing where particles jump from dimension to dimension, but hey, who's gonna notice one or two missing quarks.

gjl711 wrote in post #2293750
Well, it's a bit more than that. There really aren't holes, there are just atoms which have all, or most, taken a charge or atoms which are all randomly charged. In the case where we have a charge, we call 1 and in the case where they are all random we call 0. The number of electrons and atoms stays the same. This is over simplistic as you can get into a whole quantum thing where particles jump from dimension to dimension, but hey, who's gonna notice one or two missing quarks.

Careful what you say....you could end up being referred to as being a "quark" low!

Woolburr wrote in post #2293833
Careful what you say....you could end up being referred to as being a "quark" low!

Heck, I am way more than a quark low. But I am graviton rich. I keep looking for that perfect shed extra graviton diet but alas, no one has yet invented the “shed pounds with the new high tech quantum” diet book yet. Also, my wife keeps telling me to stop looking at all the pretty girls bosons and I have to keep reminding her that I can’t as they are responsible for the weak force and my photon receptors are drawn to their bosons not because of a conscious decision but by quantum physics. Then she smacks me in the head knocking loose a few lecherous leptons bringing me back into equilibrium.

sandpiper wrote in post #2292874
This only applies to known great photographers, who obviously must have intentionally shot it that way. If the likes of us do it, we must have ***ked it up and are trying to pass it off as fine art.

Applies to other arts too. In the case of painting, for example, Picasso and Mondrian's first strokes were of the more "traditionnal" kind. Had they begun with the work they're known for, I don't think they'd be as popular since they wouldn't have got very far.

Urban legends:

-A more expensive/technologica​lly advanced camera takes better pictures.

-Good photographers don't retouch their pictures - ever.

-Digital photography is easier than film, thus inferior and of lesser quality.

gjl711 wrote in post #2293883
Heck, I am way more than a quark low. But I am graviton rich. I keep looking for that perfect shed extra graviton diet but alas, no one has yet invented the “shed pounds with the new high tech quantum” diet book yet. Also, my wife keeps telling me to stop looking at all the pretty girls bosons and I have to keep reminding her that I can’t as they are responsible for the weak force and my photon receptors are drawn to their bosons not because of a conscious decision but by quantum physics. Then she smacks me in the head knocking loose a few lecherous leptons bringing me back into equilibrium.

Holy crap dood....make that over two quarks low!!! Head smacks suck.

joegolf68 wrote in post #2292896
For some sixty years most folks think the flag being hoisted in the famous picture, Mt. Sarabahi (sp??) It was not staged and the newly released movie should put that one to rest, or not.

That's one I had heard- that they hoisted the flag and were asked to do it again so they could get pictures of it being hoisted.

terrorists use huge canon pro bodies and big white lenses to photograph potential targets in broad daylight and some times, i hear they also use big tripods too and wear beige vests and cary big bags of photographic equipment... and, they look like you and me!!

If you take a picture of a dead persons eye you can capture the last thing they saw when alive.

BearSummer

BearSummer wrote in post #2300647
If you take a picture of a dead persons eye you can capture the last thing they saw when alive.

BearSummer

Hey, I know that ones true, I saw it on TV.

mrclark321 wrote in post #2291642
Heard the one about the couple that was robbed in Jamaca, only thing not taken was there toothbrushes. When they got home there was a picture mailed from the thiefs. One thief snapped a pic of the other with a toothbrush up his a$$. Not sure if it's an urban legand or not

Dan

I heard it that they got home and develpoed there film ....(whats film) and found the picture of their toothbrushes being used on the rump lol

BearSummer wrote in post #2300647
If you take a picture of a dead persons eye you can capture the last thing they saw when alive.

BearSummer

What you'd see in my dead eyes is a conclusive test that Nikon takes better pictures then Canon. Heart failure.