On Sun, 12 Nov 2000, Chuck Skinner wrote:
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of James Lewis
> > Sent: Sunday, November 12, 2000 6:21 AM
> > >
> > > A black reflector, also known as a negative reflector, does exactly the
> > > opposite of what a white reflector does.
> >
> > who came up with this term? it make no phyical sense.
No, it does not!
> I've never heard anyone actually refer to it as a "black reflector". The
> more common usage, at least in my experience, is "negative reflector". It
> may not make much sense in a physical sense, but as a practical matter it is
> actually a pretty descriptive term. Where one would use a reflector to add
> ambient fill to the dark side of a subject, one uses a negative reflector to
> remove ambient fill.
This is kind of what I suspected in my other email... (i.e. remove =
block ambient light from that side, behind the "black reflector" and
prevent the ambient light, or flash, that comes from the other side of
subject from reflecting to the other side as a normal white reflector
would do.)
but doesn't give us any clue why Canon has a schematic picture of a scene
where they point one slave flash directly to a black reflector in their
EOS 3 prochures. That does not agree what you wrote about it either. I
just think that who ever made that at Canon did not know what they were
doing. :-)
Bye,
Hugo.
************************************************************
** Hugo G�vert **
** [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.hut.fi/~hugo **
************************************************************
** Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent **
** life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none **
** of it has tried to contact us. -- Calvin. **
************************************************************
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
