paulclarke.com
The people photographer, working with the world's most interesting humans, dogs and brands. A graceful and melodious ape. paulclarke.com (đŸ“· Siobhan Hennessy)
2,139 posts
1,906 followers
398 following
Regular Contributor
Active Commenter
comment in response to
post
That's me!
comment in response to
post
I remember
comment in response to
post
this one was particularly shabby
comment in response to
post
I've been 6 times, including the epic NYE special
comment in response to
post
I love this show SO MUCH
comment in response to
post
He looks at the sky. "I hate bikers, but I have to help, you know how it is". All good, fist bumps, much happiness. (This is why we love it here. More in common etc etc)
comment in response to
post
!
comment in response to
post
Oh oh WOW
comment in response to
post
Until the plasterer arrives, yes
comment in response to
post
Heroic work. What a lovely space!
comment in response to
post
Not so much a 'tour' as a coffee-break though? This stuff makes me so angry. Far brighter people with far better motivations have spent far longer here: this guy's 'findings' don't merit any attention
comment in response to
post
That's pretty rubbish. I know a lot of people got in free or reduced
comment in response to
post
Can't wait!
comment in response to
post
I had that flashback too!
comment in response to
post
That would genuinely be hilarious
comment in response to
post
Finally, after years of being restricted to a quarter of a face, the whole thing! An absolute pleasure
comment in response to
post
excellent!
comment in response to
post
"When a grid's misaligned with the one that's behind....
That's a moiré!"
(not mine, remembered)
comment in response to
post
GLWT
comment in response to
post
too many eyes
comment in response to
post
technically, that's the former category - scanning frequency interference - rather than moiré, but yes, a fascinating phenomenon
comment in response to
post
my favourite definition of expert: one who has made all the mistakes possible in a relatively narrow field
comment in response to
post
thanks Lev, you're all heart
comment in response to
post
/ stand too close to the background, you can't do this. The other way of managing it is just to keep moving around the hall; some angles will just magically make the moiré vanish, and you just have to find them.
comment in response to
post
Oh, and the reason I said "they're too close to it" is that one way to manage moiré is to narrow the depth of field of camera focus, making the background slightly blurry (we do this by widening the camera's aperture - the light hole - don't ask how that works, it's not for tonight). If presenters /
comment in response to
post
/ stripes or dots when you choose clothes for TV appearances. The clashing of patterns and digital sensors affects video too. And "a moiré" sounds a bit like "amore" so I did the stupid song pun. And that concludes this bit of nerding for the night. You're glad you asked now, hey?
comment in response to
post
/ dots, we get an interference pattern. (Remember, from GCSE Physics? I thought not.) And that pattern manifests itself, horrible, as a pattern of violent curves and stripes, all over the picture. It's called the 'moiré' effect. It's also the reason that producers might ask you to avoid fine /
comment in response to
post
/ 'frequency' - albeit a geometrical one. They form a grid of tiny dots that the camera's trying to capture. But what's the camera sensor also made up of? You're ahead of me! Tiny dots (we call them pixels). And if the pattern of the sensor doesn't quite sit right with the pattern of the screen /
comment in response to
post
/ of the frequency (in Hertz; cycles per second) which for UK electricity is 50. Hence shutter speeds of 1/50, 1/100, 1/200 etc are all worth a shot. Or we cry. But there's another problem! Even when they're not refresh-flickering, screens are often made up of small dots. And dots also have a /
comment in response to
post
/ We fix it by slowing down the shutter, which helps reduce the chance of 'freezing' these unwanted bands. But if a speaker is speaking in front of them, then we'll need to shoot many more frames to be sure we're not also getting a blurry mouth now. Or we use shutter speeds that are some multiple /
comment in response to
post
/ at the wrong moment and you'll see weird bands of darkness or colour. Our eyes don't catch super-quick moments like that. But cameras do, and it's worse on the newer mirrorless systems, where the camera sensor is also 'refreshing' as it scans for light. They can clash, and screens look horrible. /
comment in response to
post
There are a couple of things that cause photographers to flinch when they see an event set has a big LED screen backdrop. Those things are separate, but both problematic. The first is screen flicker. Screens are constantly refreshing as their content changes. That refresh isn't instant: catch it /
comment in response to
post
[I can tediously unpack this for anyone who cares. It's mildly interesting.]
comment in response to
post
Exactly this! My work, conceptually and increasingly at a presentational level, has been judgement-centred for quite some time now, for similarly sensible reasons
comment in response to
post
I'd illustrate it with a picture, but it's not a great look (and guess who gets the blame for any pics that show those monstrous wavy lines in the background? not the designers of dotty LED screens, that's for sure)
comment in response to
post
Jaf.
comment in response to
post
Jaf
comment in response to
post
Oh no no. Much colder
comment in response to
post
Close. But no
comment in response to
post
Not that far away