1
Qlueless 1 point ago +1 / -0

There was what sounded to me like full auto fire at the end which may have come from a dhs/ss sub machine gun which they haven't disclosed.

But if there was a pro involved they wouldn't have missed.

Also the shots came from his position as all those struck line up.

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2024/07/3d-model-posits-what-trump-assassination-attempt-butler/

They got lazy hoping someone would take him out for them.

1
Qlueless 1 point ago +1 / -0

I don't buy the claims. The Fenben craze took off on GAW because some spammer was plugging his site and amazon affiliate links under multiple accounts. When I was mod I removed tons of that shit.

2
Qlueless 2 points ago +2 / -0

That and his blocking of Styx because he couldn't take the L just made me sour on the guy so I unsubbed him.

1
Qlueless 1 point ago +1 / -0

"acoustic ballistics"

Never heard of it. Acoustic location is a thing but I doubt the credibility of anyone making those claims of 3 shooters & distances without a solid demonstration. They have to clearly identify the supersonic cracks and reflections off buildings at the location in question.

1
Qlueless 1 point ago +1 / -0

Okay. Just for future reference there's no industry standard but wedding photographers can shoot a couple thousand pictures per wedding. Most get culled because someone blinked or such.

1
Qlueless 1 point ago +1 / -0

Again, at f1.6, 50 iso, it's not outside the realm of possibility that's what the camera chose for exposure because it fits the conditions. Even if it was a manual setting, an A1 has plenty of range to recover the highlights and shadows at those settings.

I'm not the one getting blue in the face. The facts are on my side. You're grabbing at straws.

Edit: Also I replied to you in 4 minutes about the polarization filter. You think I googled that?

And just because it's your career doesn't mean you're good or know everything there is to know.

1
Qlueless 1 point ago +1 / -0

Polarization filters only work, well, when you're about 90 degrees turned from the sun. It also adds reflections (off the objective lens) and degrades sharpness. It's more suitable for removing reflections on cars if you take multiple shots from a tripod. If you want a bluer sky you can do that in post.

Did you really think you were talking to someone that hasn't used a camera?

It also doesn't refute anything I previously mentioned.

1
Qlueless 1 point ago +1 / -0

When it comes to exposure

F1.6 is F1.6

50 ISO is 50 ISO

1/8000 of a second is 1/8000 of a second.

the DoF of a 24mm at f1.6 at 20ft is 26.85 ft.

Depth of field in front 6.68 ft (24.90%)

Depth of field behind 20.16 ft (75.10%)

The Dof at 10ft is 5.33 ft

Depth of field in front 2.00 ft (37.50%)

Depth of field behind 3.33 ft (62.50%)

If you're set at 1.6 with aperture priority with an iso of 50 your camera is going to max the mechanical shutter speed when it's exposing for a mostly clear blue sky.

Yes I'm serious right now. You people keep going on and on about the shutter speed when it's a dead horse. Stop beating it.

1
Qlueless 1 point ago +1 / -0

Yeah I'm sure you do. The exposure is proper for f1.6. Making the most uncharitable argument still isn't evidence of anything nefarious.

https://files.catbox.moe/jkjrgn.png

1
Qlueless 1 point ago +1 / -0

"I would never shoot at 1/8000 unless I was at a sporting event."

So with an fstop of 1.6 and an ISO of 50 to 100 you're telling me that wouldn't give you a proper exposure? Especially when you are trying to include a fluttering flag in the background?

1
Qlueless 1 point ago +1 / -0

As stated and seen in uncropped photos, he was capturing the flag in the sky. Which was moving. He was also shooting at f1.6.

1
Qlueless 1 point ago +1 / -0

Yeah let's make the most uncharitable assumption he didn't take any other pictures at the event...

Don't strawman, steelman and then argue your points.

1
Qlueless 1 point ago +1 / -0

A 240GB card can hold over 2000 "uncompressed" raw images. I doubt he's shooting uncompressed and i doubt he skimps on cards. Your argument isn't valid.

1
Qlueless 1 point ago +1 / -0

"a small aperture risks blurring critical details"

Even wide open a 24mm lens has a large focal plane unless you're on top of your subject. It's enough to blur the audience but barely blurred the podium. And face tracking nails focus 99% of the time on flagship camera's now regardless of aperture.

2
Qlueless 2 points ago +2 / -0

"First a high speed camera that can capture a bullet traveling at 3000 feet per second is not something you would be usig at a Trump rally"

Nearly every professional photographer uses a flagship camera, why wouldn't he?

"Trump rally and have a camera capturing that many frames per second?"

because technology allows it. It gives photographers the ability to pick the best image without a subjects eyes closed, mouth open like an "o-face" which is unflattering outside of pornography.

"It would also fill any memory card up so quickly with over exposed garbage photos."

What is this, 2004? You can fit over 2000 raw uncompressed sony a1 images on this card. Also the photos were properly exposed. You don't know what you're talking about.

https://archive.ph/feGn2

https://archive.ph/U0mDX

Mills has taken memorable photographs of presidents going back to Ronald Reagan. But he has found a new, perhaps surprising, admirer in Trump, who, for all of his cries of “fake news,” has repeatedly singled out one photojournalist above all others for his omnipresence and talent. Aboard Air Force One last fall, the president peered through a tangle of arms holding voice recorders to find his favorite journalist peering at him: “There’s my genius photographer,” he said, gesturing toward Mills. At a round table during the G-7 conference in Quebec that year, Trump squeezed in between Prime Minister Justin Trudeau of Canada and German Chancellor Angela Merkel, chitchatting. Before the assembled press pool was shooed out, Mills caught Trump’s eye and, turning to Trudeau, crowed: “He’s the No. 1 photographer in the world,” adding, “Unfortunately, he works for the New York Times.” Trudeau and Merkel chuckled.

2
Qlueless 2 points ago +4 / -2

They didn't mention the audience that got hit or their positions probably because it's inconvenient to the narrative they're trying to paint.

0
Qlueless 0 points ago +1 / -1

Who the hell is TheWakininq?

Have you seen any other pictures of Diguiseppi?

She's heavier and thicker necked than that woman.

https://www.timesunion.com/news/article/reward-tampering-railroad-corinth-18298582.php

And "breaking new information" no link screen shot isn't breaking anything. It's clout chasing or a psyop.

view more: Next ›