We use cookies to personalize content and ads and to analyze the traffic on our websites. We also share information about your use of our websites with our partners for email, advertising and analysis. View details

What's new?
Chemical industry

Chemical industry

2,065 57

Chemical industry

Sinar 9x12 dia with double exposure:
The first just after sunset and the second during the night to get the star effect on the lights.
Corporate image for the company's annual report.

Comments 57

  • Günter Kramarcsik 11/28/2004 21:27

    Schade, daß es mit der Galerie nicht klappte. Dafür stelle ich es in die "wahre Galerie". Gruß Günter
  • Kerstin Braun 09/18/2004 19:40

    Nice, the small lights. For an industry is it a nice
    atmosphere. I like this photo. Greetings. Kerstin
  • Ulrike aus irgendwo im nirgendwo 09/09/2004 15:26

    wirklich sehr schade ;-(((
  • Octávio Diaz-Bérrio 09/08/2004 17:33

    @ Ralf:
    Good for you!
    But is it reason enough for you to IGNORE me?
    That reaction is surely not normal!!! :-)

    Have also a nice life!

    And, as I am more polite then you, I sign:
  • Octávio Diaz-Bérrio 09/08/2004 17:26

    @ Harald:
    From your profil:
    "Die Benutzung industrieller Anlagen als Vehikel für pseudo-intellektuelle (möchte-gern-künstlerische) Arbeiten lehne ich ab."
    With Google automatic translation to English:
    "I reject the use of industrieller plants as vehicles for pseudointellectual (like-gladly-artistic) work."

    From my profile:
    >>"The photographer must transform into a vision the day-by-day reality!" this is what I say to my pupils.
  • Octávio Diaz-Bérrio 09/08/2004 16:30

    @ Ralf:

    Have you had a good lunch? Can you read English?
    I do not think so... my answer, if you pay attention, was to Harald... and I think he is old enough to take care of his answers! :-)

  • Octávio Diaz-Bérrio 09/08/2004 15:14

    @ Harald:
    OK! I was probably in bad mood the other day... But your action was not polite.
    The truth is that you answer Peter Frank (frankyboy) question before I had the time to read it!


    And, saying it again, I do not like it!

  • Harald Finster 09/08/2004 12:02

    @Octavio: it is common FC practice, that people discuss techniques and related issues in the context of a photograph. That's why, I gave a short explanation about the 'stars' in my first comment.
    As I found your answer "since when do you use the diafragm to make stars?" quite misleading, I gave a longer explanation with examples.
    I do also hope, things are clear now - let's talk in a civilized manner again and enjoy photography instead of fighting wars :-)
    Greetings Harald
  • Octávio Diaz-Bérrio 09/08/2004 1:41

    @ Ralf:

    >>I do not understand the meaning of your phrase
    >The meaning of my message is quite simple:
    >If you chose to ignore the opinion of Harald
    >Finster, one of the most respected industry
    >photographers in this community, I'd like to ask for
    >the same 'honour'.
    >That clear now? Fine.
    Hello Ralf!
    When Harald wrote this:

    he was answering a question made to me under a photo of mine.

    Politely I tryed to say it with my answer:

    >Octávio Diaz-Bérrio, 6.09.2004 um 16:16 Uhr
    @ Harald:
    I am also a teacher of photography and this photo is mine!<

    If Harald want to give lessons to someone, of course I am not against, but he has other ways, like for instance a fotomail, and not under my photo; but instead he goes on with explanations...

    And I felt his gesture unpolite.

    I have nothing against Harald, or any other member of FC. I did not join FC to buy wars. :-)

    So if I made myself understand - and I know it is hard to be understood when we all are discussing in a third language - I gladly put him (Harald) as a buddy.

    I hope everything is clear to all. :-)

    Best regards,

  • Der Lorenzo 09/08/2004 0:23

    Was´n los hier ??

  • D.R. Dark 09/07/2004 22:42

    [ bissige Bemerkungen nach Klärung von Missverständnissen gelöscht ]
  • Octávio Diaz-Bérrio 09/06/2004 21:52

    @ Harald:
    I do not like that other people come to my gallery and give answers to questions made to me!!!
    I am able to speak for myself!

  • Harald Finster 09/06/2004 18:00

    @Octavio: sorry, if my explanation was not clear: I intended to explain to Peter, that it is extremely unlikely, that the reason for the stars on ** this ** photograph is the diaphragma. (And you already mentioned, that you used a star-filter).
    However, a diagragma ** does ** create star-effects (unfortunately in most situations).

    A few examples:

    Zeiss Distagon 40/4.0 5 Blades -> 10 'rays'

    Schneider Symmar S 210/5.6 7 Blades -> 14 'rays'

    Zeiss Tele Tessar 350/4.0 8 Blades -> 8 'rays'

    Ergänzung 6.9.2004 22:15
    da ich - warum auch immer - inzwischen auf "Ignore" stehe:
    es wäre nett gewesen, wenn Du mich in höflicher Form darauf aufmerksam gemacht hättest, dass Du an sachlichen Beiträgen nicht interessiert bist.
    Ich habe meine Kritik sachlich geäussert, Dich nicht persönlch angegriffen und versucht, die Frage von Peter sachlich und mit Beispielbildern zu beantworten.
    Die FC ist ein Diskussionsforum, und hier hat normalerweise jeder die Möglichkeit zu einer offenen Diskussion - so verstehe ich jedenfalls den Sinn der FC.
    Schade, dass Du das anders siehst :-(

    Greetings Harald
  • Octávio Diaz-Bérrio 09/06/2004 17:16

    @ Peter:
    First of all I had not yet thank you for your ancient proposal to *gallery* of my "Old Bond":
    "Peter Frank (frankyboy), 12.08.2004 at 9:46h
    ein sensationelles fshion foddo" (!?)
    In the meantime retired by Admins - Akt they say!
    You can see it here:

    Second: since when do you use the diafragm to make stars? Just a filter on the second exposure!

    @ Harald:
    I am also a teacher of photography and this photo is mine!

    Regards to both of you,
  • Harald Finster 09/06/2004 16:24

    @Peter: if the diaphragma would be the reason for the stars, it would be one with only four iris blades - a very strange construction :-)
    As each blade causes a 'ray' in both directions, you will always get a number of 'rays', which is twice the number of blades in case of an odd number of blades.
    In case of an even number, the 'rays' of opposite blades overlap, so, that the number of 'rays' equals the number of iris blades.
    Greetings Harald