Talk:A Week With Christian Chandler - Revision history

CaptainCornbread: /* Also photogeekery. */ new section

2012-08-26T01:51:42Z

Also photogeekery.: new section

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:51, 25 August 2012
Line 49:		Line 49:

	And a few more thoughts: Chris began here a trend that would follow him until this day: He has no idea how to light stuff. The thinks that if he can see stuff, then the camera can see stuff. Indoors photography, as everyone knows, needs light. Lots of light. His school has bigass fluorescent lights, so the photos there don't look half bad, but when he's in his room, he assumes that the light from the windows is enough. Nope, it's not. And you don't photograph stuff against light, because that makes the background visible and the subject's face disappears in shadow. The only reason we can see anything in his YouTube videos is because the webcams have relatively tolerable dynamic range, so we get the pee-yellow instead of utter goddamn darkness. (Though he still manages to sometimes shoot himself against light, like in that one angsty video he once posted.) --''[[User:Wwwwolf\|wwwwolf]]'' <span style="font-size:smaller;">([[User talk:Wwwwolf\|wake me when you need me]])</span> 12:04, 12 October 2009 (CEST)		And a few more thoughts: Chris began here a trend that would follow him until this day: He has no idea how to light stuff. The thinks that if he can see stuff, then the camera can see stuff. Indoors photography, as everyone knows, needs light. Lots of light. His school has bigass fluorescent lights, so the photos there don't look half bad, but when he's in his room, he assumes that the light from the windows is enough. Nope, it's not. And you don't photograph stuff against light, because that makes the background visible and the subject's face disappears in shadow. The only reason we can see anything in his YouTube videos is because the webcams have relatively tolerable dynamic range, so we get the pee-yellow instead of utter goddamn darkness. (Though he still manages to sometimes shoot himself against light, like in that one angsty video he once posted.) --''[[User:Wwwwolf\|wwwwolf]]'' <span style="font-size:smaller;">([[User talk:Wwwwolf\|wake me when you need me]])</span> 12:04, 12 October 2009 (CEST)

			== Also photogeekery. ==

			Someone got their underexposures and overexposers mixed up so I fixed them. Most of the photographic mistakes I see here are fairly typical for a student who's never really done film beyond snapping photos and getting the roll developed at walgreens. The light bar on that photo of the photo of his mother (how meta!) is probably a light leak from him fucking with the film. [[User:CaptainCornbread\|CaptainCornbread]] 18:51, 25 August 2012 (PDT)

Clydec: 27 revisions

2010-01-03T08:48:17Z

27 revisions

← Older revision	Revision as of 04:48, 3 January 2010
(No difference)

VanKrause: /* Photogeekery */

2009-10-12T10:04:09Z

Photogeekery

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:04, 12 October 2009
Line 47:		Line 47:

	Here's a few tidbits in case anyone's wondering about the fingerprint and smudge on page 7. Someone described it as "milky"; this is just a tiny little bit wrong, but understandable. Here's how conventional photography works: You snap a photograph on the camera, and it goes on the film, producing a negative image. It is then projected on photographic paper; the more light the photographic paper receives, the darker the final picture becomes. Since light parts are dark and dark parts are light on the negative on the film, this works out just fine. However, if anything obstructs the projection on the paper, it leaves that part of the print white. So, if anything "milky" appears in the picture, that's an immediate clue to me that some crap was sitting on the paper when the picture was enlarged. (See [[wikipedia:Photogram]] for dramatic examples.) So my theory is that someone had handled chemicals grubby-handedly when slapping the paper in an enlarger, projected the image on a dirty paper, and whoop, we have crap. It's been years and I don't remember enough about the processes to say for sure, but that's my theory. --''[[User:Wwwwolf\|wwwwolf]]'' <span style="font-size:smaller;">([[User talk:Wwwwolf\|wake me when you need me]])</span> 11:54, 12 October 2009 (CEST)		Here's a few tidbits in case anyone's wondering about the fingerprint and smudge on page 7. Someone described it as "milky"; this is just a tiny little bit wrong, but understandable. Here's how conventional photography works: You snap a photograph on the camera, and it goes on the film, producing a negative image. It is then projected on photographic paper; the more light the photographic paper receives, the darker the final picture becomes. Since light parts are dark and dark parts are light on the negative on the film, this works out just fine. However, if anything obstructs the projection on the paper, it leaves that part of the print white. So, if anything "milky" appears in the picture, that's an immediate clue to me that some crap was sitting on the paper when the picture was enlarged. (See [[wikipedia:Photogram]] for dramatic examples.) So my theory is that someone had handled chemicals grubby-handedly when slapping the paper in an enlarger, projected the image on a dirty paper, and whoop, we have crap. It's been years and I don't remember enough about the processes to say for sure, but that's my theory. --''[[User:Wwwwolf\|wwwwolf]]'' <span style="font-size:smaller;">([[User talk:Wwwwolf\|wake me when you need me]])</span> 11:54, 12 October 2009 (CEST)

			And a few more thoughts: Chris began here a trend that would follow him until this day: He has no idea how to light stuff. The thinks that if he can see stuff, then the camera can see stuff. Indoors photography, as everyone knows, needs light. Lots of light. His school has bigass fluorescent lights, so the photos there don't look half bad, but when he's in his room, he assumes that the light from the windows is enough. Nope, it's not. And you don't photograph stuff against light, because that makes the background visible and the subject's face disappears in shadow. The only reason we can see anything in his YouTube videos is because the webcams have relatively tolerable dynamic range, so we get the pee-yellow instead of utter goddamn darkness. (Though he still manages to sometimes shoot himself against light, like in that one angsty video he once posted.) --''[[User:Wwwwolf\|wwwwolf]]'' <span style="font-size:smaller;">([[User talk:Wwwwolf\|wake me when you need me]])</span> 12:04, 12 October 2009 (CEST)

VanKrause: New section: Photogeekery

2009-10-12T09:54:13Z

New section: Photogeekery

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:54, 12 October 2009
Line 41:		Line 41:
	*Those things on the bed in the top right picture? I'm pretty sure the one at the back is a hat, you can see the rim facing to the right just below the white on the front of it. I'm not sure what the black blob in front of it is though. Didn't he have a fanny pack with his Ash Ketchum outfit? That may be what it is, although the shit photography makes it look like some power cable's sticking out of it. I doubt it's his mom's undergarments, my guess is it's the hat and fanny pack from this outfit: [http://cogsdev.110mb.com/cwcki/index.php/Image:0647-CWCAshAnime.jpg] [[User:SirCucumber\|SirCucumber]] 00:57, 22 September 2009 (CEST)		*Those things on the bed in the top right picture? I'm pretty sure the one at the back is a hat, you can see the rim facing to the right just below the white on the front of it. I'm not sure what the black blob in front of it is though. Didn't he have a fanny pack with his Ash Ketchum outfit? That may be what it is, although the shit photography makes it look like some power cable's sticking out of it. I doubt it's his mom's undergarments, my guess is it's the hat and fanny pack from this outfit: [http://cogsdev.110mb.com/cwcki/index.php/Image:0647-CWCAshAnime.jpg] [[User:SirCucumber\|SirCucumber]] 00:57, 22 September 2009 (CEST)
	*Yes, it does look like a bra but if you look closely, it looks like Chris's unattached fanny pack and a side view of Chris's Ash Ketchum hat. --[[User:Champthom\|Champthom]] 03:02, 22 September 2009 (CEST)		*Yes, it does look like a bra but if you look closely, it looks like Chris's unattached fanny pack and a side view of Chris's Ash Ketchum hat. --[[User:Champthom\|Champthom]] 03:02, 22 September 2009 (CEST)

			== Photogeekery ==

			Apologies if I went a bit into too much detail in describing the photography failures. As someone who used to do black-and-white photography years ago, some of this stuff was just a little bit gut-wrenching. Chris has failed on so many fields!

			Here's a few tidbits in case anyone's wondering about the fingerprint and smudge on page 7. Someone described it as "milky"; this is just a tiny little bit wrong, but understandable. Here's how conventional photography works: You snap a photograph on the camera, and it goes on the film, producing a negative image. It is then projected on photographic paper; the more light the photographic paper receives, the darker the final picture becomes. Since light parts are dark and dark parts are light on the negative on the film, this works out just fine. However, if anything obstructs the projection on the paper, it leaves that part of the print white. So, if anything "milky" appears in the picture, that's an immediate clue to me that some crap was sitting on the paper when the picture was enlarged. (See [[wikipedia:Photogram]] for dramatic examples.) So my theory is that someone had handled chemicals grubby-handedly when slapping the paper in an enlarger, projected the image on a dirty paper, and whoop, we have crap. It's been years and I don't remember enough about the processes to say for sure, but that's my theory. --''[[User:Wwwwolf\|wwwwolf]]'' <span style="font-size:smaller;">([[User talk:Wwwwolf\|wake me when you need me]])</span> 11:54, 12 October 2009 (CEST)

Champthom: /* Bra on page 5? */

2009-09-22T01:02:12Z

Bra on page 5?

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:02, 21 September 2009
Line 40:		Line 40:

	*Those things on the bed in the top right picture? I'm pretty sure the one at the back is a hat, you can see the rim facing to the right just below the white on the front of it. I'm not sure what the black blob in front of it is though. Didn't he have a fanny pack with his Ash Ketchum outfit? That may be what it is, although the shit photography makes it look like some power cable's sticking out of it. I doubt it's his mom's undergarments, my guess is it's the hat and fanny pack from this outfit: [http://cogsdev.110mb.com/cwcki/index.php/Image:0647-CWCAshAnime.jpg] [[User:SirCucumber\|SirCucumber]] 00:57, 22 September 2009 (CEST)		*Those things on the bed in the top right picture? I'm pretty sure the one at the back is a hat, you can see the rim facing to the right just below the white on the front of it. I'm not sure what the black blob in front of it is though. Didn't he have a fanny pack with his Ash Ketchum outfit? That may be what it is, although the shit photography makes it look like some power cable's sticking out of it. I doubt it's his mom's undergarments, my guess is it's the hat and fanny pack from this outfit: [http://cogsdev.110mb.com/cwcki/index.php/Image:0647-CWCAshAnime.jpg] [[User:SirCucumber\|SirCucumber]] 00:57, 22 September 2009 (CEST)
			*Yes, it does look like a bra but if you look closely, it looks like Chris's unattached fanny pack and a side view of Chris's Ash Ketchum hat. --[[User:Champthom\|Champthom]] 03:02, 22 September 2009 (CEST)

VanKrause: /* Bra on page 5? */

2009-09-21T22:57:22Z

Bra on page 5?

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:57, 21 September 2009
Line 38:		Line 38:

	Is that his hat on the bed on page 5 or is it a bra? I couldn't entirely tell because of the pictures. Was he taking his mom's undies at that young of an age? [[User:Meeko\|Meeko]] 00:20, 22 September 2009 (CEST)Meeko		Is that his hat on the bed on page 5 or is it a bra? I couldn't entirely tell because of the pictures. Was he taking his mom's undies at that young of an age? [[User:Meeko\|Meeko]] 00:20, 22 September 2009 (CEST)Meeko

			*Those things on the bed in the top right picture? I'm pretty sure the one at the back is a hat, you can see the rim facing to the right just below the white on the front of it. I'm not sure what the black blob in front of it is though. Didn't he have a fanny pack with his Ash Ketchum outfit? That may be what it is, although the shit photography makes it look like some power cable's sticking out of it. I doubt it's his mom's undergarments, my guess is it's the hat and fanny pack from this outfit: [http://cogsdev.110mb.com/cwcki/index.php/Image:0647-CWCAshAnime.jpg] [[User:SirCucumber\|SirCucumber]] 00:57, 22 September 2009 (CEST)

VanKrause at 22:20, 21 September 2009

2009-09-21T22:20:34Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:20, 21 September 2009
Line 34:		Line 34:
	*Deth is on target. SOMETHING traumatizing had to happen to Chris at the hands of teenage stoners.Although he does appear to take the more feminine classes, ie, Comtemporary Living. --[[User:Jump\|Jump]] 02:34, 4 May 2009 (CEST)		*Deth is on target. SOMETHING traumatizing had to happen to Chris at the hands of teenage stoners.Although he does appear to take the more feminine classes, ie, Comtemporary Living. --[[User:Jump\|Jump]] 02:34, 4 May 2009 (CEST)
	:That's an interesting thought, Chris must have had a different reason to hate other guys back then other than "they take all the girls" or "they tempt me", I'd like to know the real reason Chris doesn't like any other male other than his father.([[User:Drlugae\|Drlugae]] 23:12, 27 May 2009 (CEST))		:That's an interesting thought, Chris must have had a different reason to hate other guys back then other than "they take all the girls" or "they tempt me", I'd like to know the real reason Chris doesn't like any other male other than his father.([[User:Drlugae\|Drlugae]] 23:12, 27 May 2009 (CEST))

			==Bra on page 5?==

			Is that his hat on the bed on page 5 or is it a bra? I couldn't entirely tell because of the pictures. Was he taking his mom's undies at that young of an age? [[User:Meeko\|Meeko]] 00:20, 22 September 2009 (CEST)Meeko

VanKrause at 17:11, 31 August 2009

2009-08-31T17:11:01Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:11, 31 August 2009
Line 5:		Line 5:
	::*Yeah, but 46 is quite a leap from 14. Then again, we are dealing with someone who thought it was April when it was really August or think it was the 17th when it was really the 27th. --[[User:Champthom\|Champthom]] 19:04, 31 August 2009 (CEST)		::*Yeah, but 46 is quite a leap from 14. Then again, we are dealing with someone who thought it was April when it was really August or think it was the 17th when it was really the 27th. --[[User:Champthom\|Champthom]] 19:04, 31 August 2009 (CEST)

	:::*Exactly, there's a history of this. He'll get a portion correct (the four) and then fuck up the rest of it. But, going with your argument, it's quite a leap to think that a house number wouldn't just go up one or two numbers, but 32. --[[User:LizardPie\|LizardPie]] 19:10, 31 August 2009 (CEST)		:::*Exactly, there's a history of this. He'll get a portion correct (the four) and then fuck up the rest of it. But, going with your argument, it's quite a leap to think that a house number wouldn't just go up one or two numbers, but 32. --[[User:LizardPie\|LizardPie]] 19:11, 31 August 2009 (CEST)
	==To do==		==To do==
	Transcribe this and add humorous commentary and stuff we've learned from it. --[[User:Champthom\|Champthom]] 23:32, 25 March 2009 (CET)		Transcribe this and add humorous commentary and stuff we've learned from it. --[[User:Champthom\|Champthom]] 23:32, 25 March 2009 (CET)

VanKrause at 17:10, 31 August 2009

2009-08-31T17:10:22Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:10, 31 August 2009
Line 5:		Line 5:
	::*Yeah, but 46 is quite a leap from 14. Then again, we are dealing with someone who thought it was April when it was really August or think it was the 17th when it was really the 27th. --[[User:Champthom\|Champthom]] 19:04, 31 August 2009 (CEST)		::*Yeah, but 46 is quite a leap from 14. Then again, we are dealing with someone who thought it was April when it was really August or think it was the 17th when it was really the 27th. --[[User:Champthom\|Champthom]] 19:04, 31 August 2009 (CEST)

			:::*Exactly, there's a history of this. He'll get a portion correct (the four) and then fuck up the rest of it. But, going with your argument, it's quite a leap to think that a house number wouldn't just go up one or two numbers, but 32. --[[User:LizardPie\|LizardPie]] 19:10, 31 August 2009 (CEST)
	==To do==		==To do==
	Transcribe this and add humorous commentary and stuff we've learned from it. --[[User:Champthom\|Champthom]] 23:32, 25 March 2009 (CET)		Transcribe this and add humorous commentary and stuff we've learned from it. --[[User:Champthom\|Champthom]] 23:32, 25 March 2009 (CET)

Champthom: /* Address difference */

2009-08-31T17:04:42Z

Address difference

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:04, 31 August 2009
Line 2:		Line 2:
	Chris's house, according to this, is at ''46'' Branchland Court. Do you think it's because Chris was just moving in, he got the address wrong or do you think they could have changed the house number (what circumstances would cause that though?)? Or some other option? --[[User:Champthom\|Champthom]] 18:44, 31 August 2009 (CEST)		Chris's house, according to this, is at ''46'' Branchland Court. Do you think it's because Chris was just moving in, he got the address wrong or do you think they could have changed the house number (what circumstances would cause that though?)? Or some other option? --[[User:Champthom\|Champthom]] 18:44, 31 August 2009 (CEST)
	:*I'd think that he just go the address wrong. The only circumstances I can think of to cause the changing of a house number is the addition or subtraction of other residences, but even then it isn't likely that they would change things because then they would have to go about changing the innumerable documents which are made that include any given property. It's not uncommon in other areas to have numbers seem to bounce around because the location has built up, I can't imagine his neighborhood would treat expansion any differently. --[[User:LizardPie\|LizardPie]] 19:02, 31 August 2009 (CEST)		:*I'd think that he just go the address wrong. The only circumstances I can think of to cause the changing of a house number is the addition or subtraction of other residences, but even then it isn't likely that they would change things because then they would have to go about changing the innumerable documents which are made that include any given property. It's not uncommon in other areas to have numbers seem to bounce around because the location has built up, I can't imagine his neighborhood would treat expansion any differently. --[[User:LizardPie\|LizardPie]] 19:02, 31 August 2009 (CEST)

			::*Yeah, but 46 is quite a leap from 14. Then again, we are dealing with someone who thought it was April when it was really August or think it was the 17th when it was really the 27th. --[[User:Champthom\|Champthom]] 19:04, 31 August 2009 (CEST)

	==To do==		==To do==