exposure – Picture with blue streak

I am trying to figure out why this picture has this blue streaks in this picture.

I know this is taken as a selfie in a cheap non backed mirror ( it was a hand held and the mirror became unglued from the plastic. ) It’s in my bathroom under my cabinet/cupboard. My plant light is in back.

This is not me but I will include some pictures I took to attempt to recreate the original. I also have somewhat of a glowing blue.
Thank you!

Remove Watermark from any photo PERFECTLY for $1

Remove Watermark from any photo PERFECTLY

I will professionally remove the watermark from any photo.

I will give you a discount if you have more than 10 photos for a single order.

My service for this offer includes the following:

• Remove watermark

• Free Retouching

• 24-hour Express delivery


I will give a 10% discount if there are more than 10 images.

FOR CUSTOM ORDERS, please contact me and I will respond as quickly as I can.

If you have any concerns, please do contact me as well.


Why Work With Me?

• Updates client regularly

• Friendly Communication

• Always online

• High-Quality Work

• Fast Delivery Time


delete picture from the photo library using the command line?

After installing my wife’s new mac some pictures ended up in heic format. Which is not conveinient for her.
I converted the files using ImageMagick.
Somehow the files where not picked up by the photo application so I imported the converted files back in the library.

Now, I would like to delete the “old” heic files. Is it possible to delete them from the command line without corrupting the library ? Please tell me how ?


airplanes – Who took this picture of a Concorde during the 1973 eclipse, and how?

I also believe this is an artist’s concept. I haven’t been able to find the artist, but I found a similar painting by Don Connolly:

Concorde 001 races the the moon's umbra on June 30, 1973, achieving an amazing 74 minutes of shadow time.

Concorde 001 races the the moon’s umbra on June 30, 1973, achieving an amazing 74 minutes of shadow time.

(c) 1999 Don Connolly. All Rights Reserved. Concept by Bob Morris,
Research and composition by Don Connolly and Bob Morris, coronal shape
from Wendy Carlos’ image of the 1973 eclipse, corona orientation and
“bead” location calculated by Fred Espenak, NASA.

The artist and the researcher mentioned above have also written an article (pdf) about the ‘making of’ of the painting. They describe how they took a photo of a scale model of the Concorde at a specific angle, to use as a starting point for the painting.

We chose to create a view of the eclipse as if photographed by a 35 mm
camera with a 1000 mm lens. As per Fred Espenak’s NASA eclipse
bulletin diagrams, this gives a corona nearly filling the film frame,
and thus our picture frame. The one photo known to exist of the 1973
corona is that by Wendy Carlos (shown at left).

Wendy Carlos Eclipse

The angle of the corona and the placement of the bead of sun at Concorde’s “exit point”
from the umbra were calculated by Fred Espenak, of NASA.

the view of Concorde against the sun must be from below. To portray
Concorde as roughly the same width as the sun, which we had
anticipated would be aesthetically pleasing, the SST’s wingspan must
subtend about 0.5 degrees. The distance to the “camera” below Concorde
must therefore be its half-wingspan (12.75 m) divided by tan(0.25
degrees), half the angle subtended by the sun. That is, (12.75
m)/(0.00436) = 2924 m – about 3000 m.

Light is required on Concorde’s
underside in order to “visualize” it! Where do you get this light?
Well, on the edge of the umbra, from the penumbral region – and at
17,000 m, from outside the penumbral region as well!

That gives two
choices: Concorde has just entered the umbra, or Concorde is about to
exit the umbra. At these two positions, you will also have the
formation of a diamond ring. To see Concorde enter the umbra, a west
African observer would be facing the eclipsed sun – some 63 degrees
above the horizon, just north of east – his back to the SST’s flight
path. Thus, Concorde would appear to dive down from above and behind
the observer, and disappear into the umbra. To see Concorde leave the
umbra, an observer in east Africa would be facing the eclipsed sun –
about 74 degrees above the horizon, just north of west – his front
facing the SST’s flight path. An invisible Concorde would rise up over
the horizon and exit the umbra. Now a plane “diving down” looks like
it is about to crash, while one rising up is “triumphant”. So it had
to be Concorde exiting the umbra.

The only location which was within
totality, but also had light on the underside of the SST, the
beginning of a diamond ring, and an aesthetically pleasing
composition. Concorde, with its multiple curves, is an incredibly
difficult aircraft to visualize from any specific angle. We attached a
Concorde plastic model to a ceiling, dropped a thread down to the
floor at 74 degrees, and then photographed the model along the thread
with long lens. That photo was the starting point for the artist’s
accurate portrayal of the aircraft.

This painting is also used on the cover of the book Racing the Moon’s Shadow with Concorde 001 by Pierre Léna.

Racing the Moon’s Shadow with Concorde 001

On the acknowledgments page of that book, we find a bit more info:

Cover illustration

So, if the photo in the original question is indeed a real picture, then this gives us already a very specific timeframe and location from where this photo would have been taken, with at least a 1000mm lens.

photo editing – Printing picture on a canvas

How the final print looks depends on making sure you have enough image resolution to support the physical dimensions of the image. If you have too few pixels, they will be stretched in the final print, and look blocky and out of focus.

To determine, look in the ‘Get Info’ on Mac or Properties in Windows for the image file, and it will list the pixel dimensions. You then need to find the reference from your printer service to see what they recommend. For example, here is what Mpix.com, a USA national photo print service recommends:

In your case the dimensions needed for a 16×24 image are 4000×6000 or as low as 1600×2400

enter image description here

studio lighting – Avoiding glare from wooden picture frames

I am trying to take a good picture of an old oil painting (a portrait) in a gold-painted wooden frame (no glass), and I’m having some trouble avoiding glare on the frame.

My basic setup is this:

  • painting is mounted on the wall, about 2m from the camera (mounted on tripod)
  • the room is completely darkened with no ambient light
  • two LED lights (5500K) are positioned about 2.5m from the painting, at roughly 30–40° angles, both shining through a shoot-through umbrella to diffuse the light
  • camera is set to F11 aperture and exposure times between 15 and 30 seconds

(It’s worth noting that, while I do have some basic gear, I am a hobby photographer, and I don’t have access to a proper studio or real, professional-grade gear like dedicated softboxes or diffusion screens. I have the two LED lights and a few umbrellas – two shoot-through, one bounce – but that’s more or less it.)

When I take the picture, the actual painting itself is fine – there is very little glare, despite the oil being very reflective and very black, making glare very obvious.

The wooden frame, however, is very three-dimensional and curvy, and the paint used on it seems to have a fairly high refractory index, so whatever I do, however I position and turn the lights, I get terrible glare on either side of the painting where the curved bits reflect the light straight back at the camera lens.

This wouldn’t be an issue if I could just crop out the frame, but unfortunately the frame itself is essential and must be part of the final image.

I’ve tried fiddling around with shooting several exposures, combining them to an HDR and brushing in adjustments to reduce highlights and whites, but that just ends up making the wood look like dark mahogany with bright white spots – the ‘dark’ parts of the wood are apparently bright enough that they count as highlights, and the glary parts are just shot out and unsalvageable.

Is there some way to avoid, or at least minimise, this wooden glare while still maintaining the frame well-lit?


Here is an example of a shot with the obvious glare on the wood:

Portrait with glare on wooden frame

photoshop – How to transform a picture with reference points on another picture?

I’m not sure about the scale difference. I’ve never tried that. But Photoshop’s PhotoMerge feature, which is used to create panoramic images from multiple smaller images is designed to do the rest of what you want to do.

If it can handle the different scale, all you would need to do is load the two images, then call up the function from File>Automation>PhotoMerge (menus may vary by version). It will give you a number of options to choose from and you may need to try different ones to see which works best for your specific images.

When you run the function, it will create a new image, using your two originals as layers in the new one, and matching and aligning them as much as it can, then masking out the layers to reveal one composite image. In doing so, it will twist and turn the images in the way you describe in order to make the major features of the images align.

You then have the option of doing whatever you want with those layers. Clear the masks and you will have two complete images. One or both may have been altered to suit, but they will align with each other, which seems to be your goal.

That is, IF it can handle the size difference.