# Accidentally Taking Pictures Through Clothing?



## Vautrin

So odd question here.

I took a number of picture with my olympus evolt 510 with the intention of stitching them together for a pano.  I stitched them together, and one of my friends noticed a random woman in the pictures had her nipples clearly visible through the clothing.  And I'm not just talking about seeing the outline, I'm  talking about really seeing them.

It's not like she had holes there because she was wearing BOTH a sweater and a shirt.

What caused my camera to have seeming xray vision?  Is this  a fluke thing?  Has anyone ever had this happen before?

Thanks,

Dan


----------



## Josh66

:addpics:


----------



## chrisburke

O|||||||O said:


> :addpics:



lol


----------



## kundalini

+1


----------



## newrmdmike

hehehehehe!


----------



## AdamBomb

We can't help you without seeing EXACTLY what you are talking about!


----------



## JerryPH

This has to be THE most rediculous thread I've ever read since I came here.


----------



## stsinner

JerryPH said:


> This has to be THE most rediculous thread I've ever read since I came here.



You must be a hit at parties.


----------



## JerryPH

I am the life of the party, always... however, I do not come to Beyond the Basics to party... I come here to learn PHOTOGRAPHY. 

Want to party, use the appropriate forum for it... please.


----------



## viridari

Jerry's party-pooping aside, it was almost certainly a result of your flash.  Party goers wouldn't have noticed this in ambient light.  But the tabloids and celeb web sites regularly feature photos of celeb nipples that have been revealed from camera flash passing light through a dress and reflecting back out again.

I'm not sure if I can post links to examples here without having a moderator smite me so I'll err on the side of caution.  Without even trying, examples came up quickly for Jessica Simpson and Uma Thurman in Google.


----------



## stsinner

How about this one?  Do you think she saw THAT in the mirror..  I think it's a good question.  Nothing you can do about it-they're already out wearing what they're wearing, so I guess the only thing left to do is appreciate it...  

http://thesurfacenews.blogspot.com/2006/09/barbara-streisandnipple-slip.html


----------



## Ejazzle

stsinner, BAN!!! 

hey op, can i borrow your camera? I'll test it out. make sure the "x ray vision" is gone.


----------



## KhronoS

Ejazzle said:


> stsinner, BAN!!!


Ban for what? There is nothing offensive even for 10 year old kis. you can see this every day on the street.

Pff, nowadays everyone seems to overreact...


----------



## bahandi

KhronoS said:


> Ban for what? There is nothing offensive even for 10 year old kis. you can see this every day on the street.
> 
> Pff, nowadays everyone seems to overreact...



it's you who seems to be over reacting... lol


----------



## ANDS!

> I come here to learn PHOTOGRAPHY.



Must be hard when you know everything.

In any case, it is the flash that did it.  If you visit the Celebrity Gossip websites, you'll see tons of photos of celebs getting "caught" because they wore shear garments, and the cameras flash is able to illuminate the already thing clothing.


----------



## JerryPH

It sure must be.  How do you deal with it?  *I* come here to learn.  How about you, mr know-it-all???

I mean... how difficult is it to use the proper part of the forum for banter?  There are at least 3 other proper places this could have been placed.  What does THIS have to do with the foundations of photography?

Makes me laugh.


----------



## abraxas

Vautrin said:


> So odd
> ... noticed a random ... her nipples clearly visible ... I'm  talking ...
> 
> ... like she had ... BOTH a ...
> 
> ... have seeming xray vision?  ... fluke thing?  Has anyone ever had this happen before?
> 
> ...



Yes.  I've experienced this phenomena several times under different conditions.  Tell me, were they big, brown, puffy and supple, or were they small, red and erect?


----------



## stsinner

JerryPH said:


> It sure must be.  How do you deal with it?  *I* come here to learn.  How about you, mr know-it-all???
> 
> I mean... how difficult is it to use the proper part of the forum for banter?  There are at least 3 other proper places this could have been placed.  What does THIS have to do with the foundations of photography?
> 
> Makes me laugh.



Wow..  I've come here after being turned off by two other photography forums and finding very friendly people here..  After reading about meet-ups and such, it's surprising to find a dick like you posting your angry posts here..  Perhaps you'd be happier at the Digital Photography School, where they only allow one post per day, and it can't be over 400 pixels wide or you'll get an "infraction.."  

Come on, man, we're all just here to enjoy life and enjoy photography, and if someone does or posts something that you don't like just walk away, go take a hot bath or just go relax in some other way..  No need to be such a dick when this is just a hobby..  I only do this for fun-never plan to make money off of it, so my dick-tolerance is pretty low, as you can imagine..  

Lighten up.


----------



## stsinner

abraxas said:


> Yes.  I've experienced this phenomena several times under different conditions.  Tell me, were they big, brown, puffy and supple, or were they small, red and erect?




I'm with the 7k+ posts guy...tell us about them....


----------



## ANDS!

Jerry your posts come in two flavors:

Self Appointed Volunteer Forum Moderator, and Condescending "Regular Guy".  I think we're seeing a bit of both here.



> I mean... how difficult is it to use the proper part of the forum for banter?



Amazing that you seem to know the OP's intentions better than the OP?  He had a technical problem, probably an embarassing one at that, that he doesn't seem to know the answer to and would like to correct for future reference.  I'm sorry that the thought of a properly exposed nipple is blush-worthy to you, but nothing in the OP's original post would suggest this is anything OTHER than a request for information.  Yet here you are, AGAIN, finger waging a poster because they've somehow offended your posting sensibilities.

If the thread is so offensive, alert a mod, and move on.



> Wow.. I've come here after being turned off by two other photography forums and finding very friendly people here.. After reading about meet-ups and such, it's surprising to find a dick like you posting your angry posts here.. Perhaps you'd be happier at the Digital Photography School, where they only allow one post per day, and it can't be over 400 pixels wide or you'll get an "infraction.."



Relax.  The last thing we need is for individuals like Jerry to feel validated in their self-righteousness; so lets cool it on the name calling - it'll only feed the     troll.


----------



## viridari

ANDS! said:


> Jerry your posts come in two flavors:



I found a nice feature.

If you go to his profile page, then click on User Lists on the profile page, a little menu slides down.  One of the options is to Ignore him.

I almost never use this feature in forums.  But every now and then you find someone where it's almost mandatory.  

If he consistently wrecks the threads for you, just dump him in your ignore list and go on with life.


----------



## ANDS!

Not at all.  Ignoring a person is ultimately futile, as they are still free to spread their "Love and Kisses" without anyone attempting to act as a balance.  Its self-defeating if the ultimate goal is to have a positive constructive forum.


----------



## PatrickHMS

Maybe Jerry can be kind of a party pooper at times, but he KNOWS his photography (technically)  and equipment better than MOST of us, and for that part, I definitely value his input.


----------



## LWW

PatrickHMS said:


> Maybe Jerry can be kind of a party pooper at times, but he KNOWS his photography (technically)  and equipment better than MOST of us, and for that part, I definitely value his input.


I was going to post pretty much exactly that, but you already have ... so I'll add a few more thoughts:

1 - I have no doubt the OP wanted to learn.

2 - I have no doubt the early responses were made in jest in response to a topic which begs for humor.

3 - Jerry probably was bugged by it.

4 - Whenever I see a topic I find bothersome, I just move.

5 - I value freedom of speech.

6 - Maintaining the right to discuss what I wish dictates that I must tolerate the same in others ... even when their speech involves things I prefer not to talk or hear about.

LWW


----------



## Mike_E

Yep, full moon.


----------



## bigtwinky

stsinner said:


> Wow.. I've come here after being turned off by two other photography forums and finding very friendly people here.. After reading about meet-ups and such, it's surprising to find a dick like you posting your angry posts here.. Perhaps you'd be happier at the Digital Photography School, where they only allow one post per day, and it can't be over 400 pixels wide or you'll get an "infraction.."
> 
> Come on, man, we're all just here to enjoy life and enjoy photography, and if someone does or posts something that you don't like just walk away, go take a hot bath or just go relax in some other way.. No need to be such a dick when this is just a hobby.. I only do this for fun-never plan to make money off of it, so my dick-tolerance is pretty low, as you can imagine..
> 
> Lighten up.


 
No offense, but its often threads like this and posts like this that turn those other forums (whether photography related or not) to ****s.  You may have a personality conflict with someone, thats all fine and normal.  We live in a world of differences.  If you want to voice them, specially when it resorts to blatant name calling, I'd strongly suggest getting it off your chest via a private messages.

Leave the h8 out of the threads and thus, net drama is limited.


----------



## Chris of Arabia

As amusing as the subject appears to some, TPF is not a locker room and we'd like to keep it that way. I'd also be grateful if those who feel the need to go throwing out insults at other members would 'cease and desist'.

Thank you for listening.


----------



## abraxas

ANDS! said:


> Not at all.  Ignoring a person is ultimately futile, as they are still free to spread their "Love and Kisses" without anyone attempting to act as a balance.  Its self-defeating if the ultimate goal is to have a positive constructive forum.



It's not a "kill switch."

Although Jerry offers some useful technical information, it's nothing that can't be dug up, say, by a couple searches in Google (as he often suggests) or reading a cheap magazine.

I get put off by the negativity.  There are some fine photographers here, even some professionals by all definitions of the term.  I get tired of reading that they should not exist.  And the crap about having more business background to be a successful photographer--By who's definition of success?  I've heard it many times, "It's not how you blow, but who you blow."  This theory of business being more important than art pisses me off.  I make my living for the most part from photography.  I have and will continue to do things the way I damn well please. I also am a success many times over by my definition.  Maybe I'm not the world's best, richest, biggest, fattest or best looking- but I'm fed up with the implication that I'm less than, insufficient, stupid, or weak because I do things the way I like to do them- mistakes and all.  

It's just not worth picking the peanuts out of his ****. So I use the ignore option. However, sometimes it's not enough.
[/rant]

Warning:  Take this for what it's worth-  Unlike character flaws such as narcissistic behavior, where others can actually "help" through humiliation, compulsive flaws have to be recognized from within.  The result is usually shunning and being outcast from the group by the group.  I hate when that happens to anyone.  Just something to think about.  Loosen up, take photos and don't talk down to people.


----------



## Big Mike

This thread has outlived any usefulness it may have had.


----------

