Posts: Jack 13088 | Ugly Hedgehog

AzPicLady wrote:

Well, how did I do?

I’d say you should be proud of that.

AzPicLady wrote:

Power lines and poles certainly do mar the landscape. But they're a necessary evil. I've actually thought about trying to remove this pole. Someday I'll get courageous!

I would try and deny it ever happened if it turns out badly.

(Photo Analysis)

Why do these look different?

AzPicLady wrote:

…Sure wish the pole hadn't been there, but I'm glad they have power!

I bet ya the recently added AI aided distraction removal stuff in Photoshop could easily make the pole disappear and replace the hole with made up background stuff. I still suffer from a PTS like reaction whenever I click “Edit in Photoshop” where I suddenly can’t remember where to click to start. So I have a notebook with a story board script to follow. It really is as easy as making a rough selection to identify what you want removed then clicking go get it and it comes back with three guesses to pick from. I have always been fine with one but if not it will make three more. Sort of an excellent power grid remover. I wager that the view from the top of Everest will be spoiled by an ugly power line passing through.

(Main Photography Discussion)

JEPG vs. RAW there must be 200 posts about this -- what if both are WRONG!

Fell into the trap and clicked on this topic. I have a personal policy of avoiding topics with a “vs.” in the title since the are almost always passionate shouting bases in misinformation. But I did view this video.

This guy (Simon?) did the best job I have seen contrasting RAW vs. JPEG in an understandable and unbiased yet accurate discussion. The attempt to simplify compression and JPEG are a bit weak but a good attempt but without a working knowledge of the appropriate mathematics it is pretty good.

At any rate the compresses raw, CRAW, that he is talking about is nothing new. Nikon, for example, offers lossless compression of either 12 or 14 bit data and since lossless means reading the file returns all of the data from the sensor why wouldn’t you use it? I assume other manufacturers have the same.

Good video anyway.

(Main Photography Discussion)

Do you like what he had to say?

It has been long enough since my original post to add my take on the question he posed. Although I believe Steve intended to present a balanced view of the question his examples reinforced the view that the technology aided the proficient photographer more than the budding want to be. He spoke of how the automation raises the keeper rate for both the photographer who knows how to achieve his vision and the photographer who hopes enough shots with tack sharp focus on something will yield a prize winner. An unstated problem is to avoid spending a fraction of the national debt on the next great thing.

If one doesn’t know Steve and know he is primarily a wildlife photographer that has shared many outstanding photographs. I enjoy his stuff even though I don’t ever expect to photograph BIF. Nor do I covet a giant long lens. His style is very unassuming teacher who wants to help the viewer improve his results. I find him a good “read”. Read his Bio, https://backcountrygallery.com/bio/ . Of course, his titles are “click bait” the derives income from views.

I am not surprised, nevertheless disappointed, by personal attacks on someone you don’t know. But I suppose that must be expected.

(Main Photography Discussion)

Do you like what he had to say?

Dennis833 wrote:

I'm glad I've reached retirement age because it's going to be very difficult to make a living from taking good landscape photographs.

I found your site to be most excellent. However, there were no photos of the Twelve Apostles. Shouldn’t a camera with AI produce splendid versions without you taking the lens cap off?

(Main Photography Discussion)

Do you like what he had to say?

Jack 13088 wrote:

This morning I read a thought provoking post by Steve Perry on his web site that opened with, “ Warning - you might not like what I have to say.” I thought it would be amusing to throw a match in that gas can. What do you think on the topic Is Technology Killing Photography?

His post was in his Backcountry Gallery https://backcountrygallery.com/is-technology-destroying-photography/

(Main Photography Discussion)

Do you like what he had to say?

This morning I read a thought provoking post by Steve Perry on his web site that opened with, “ Warning - you might not like what I have to say.” I thought it would be amusing to throw a match in that gas can. What do you think on the topic Is Technology Killing Photography?

(Main Photography Discussion)

How Many Megapixels Do You Need? | Ask David Bergman from Adorama Camera

selmslie wrote:

Something left out of a recent part of this discussion is that a 24MP Dx crop sensor automatically provides a 1.5x increase in effective focal length. That would make a 500mm lens behave like a 750mm lens without having to crop. And a 2x telephoto would take it to 1500mm.

The loss of sharpness in the process might be no worse than from heavily cropping a full frame, high MP sensor.

Any serious birder should already be aware of this.

It should be obvious that the image projected on the sensor does not change with the size of the sensor. But be careful with the pixel counts. It is easier to understand the issues with an example. Suppose the cropped sensor has a common crop factor, 1.5. Since 1.5 squared is 2.25 a 54 Mpixil full frame has the same number of pixels in tha cropped area as the full 24 Mpixel sensor. So the cropped sensor pixels are bigger. Is that good thing or a bad thing? I think it is a good thing because the bigger pixels are about one stop more sensitive and one stop better dynamic range. But does that really matter? The apparent sharpness is likely the same. I cannot speak for a serious birder.

(Main Photography Discussion)

How Many Megapixels Do You Need? | Ask David Bergman from Adorama Camera

gwilliams6 wrote:

How Many Megapixels Do You Need? | Ask David Bergman from Adorama Camera.

A good explanation of megapixels, resulting image quality, print size requirements, optimum viewing distance and more .

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R_gtjudp9dY

Do yourself a favor and actually watch the video before commenting.

Cheers and best to you all.

Found it, watched it and liked it.
I’m clearly in the geezer camp with a short attention span so I didn’t pick any nits.

Speaking from the perspective of a nerdy engineer with over 40 years of experience in a business I would have to kill you if told you about it. Actually, since I am not a politician I would find my self carrying a box with artifacts from my career to my car wondering if I needed a lawyer. He is technically right on.

Early on he quietly told us that good glass and nailing the exposure trumps megapixels. Personally 25 megapixels is mort than sufficient for my photography. As I ponder jumping to mirrorless I notice the big three don’t pay a great deal of attention to that market. To me big three brands are similar like say Buick, Olds and Pontiac were back in the day. And they all seem to being rushing megapixel overkill. I would prefer better noise and dynamic range to more pixels any day. That trade off is verified by both analysis and practice.

(Main Photography Discussion)

BIF pointers Please

doclrb wrote:

I recommend Steve Perry ‘s website for information and guides. To date, all videos are free and the publications are reasonably priced.

doclrb

I second this.

(Main Photography Discussion)

Tip Lightroom Classic Feature - Copy Name

DirtFarmer wrote:

MeToo. It does sound like a useful feature. Guess I need to experiment more and look around LR to see what else I’m missing.

Once, maybe ten years ago, I went on a treasure hunt clicking and right clicking on everything I saw to see what was available under that rock. I had the silly idea that I could create and maintain a configuration control document. The result was there are an unmanageable number of useful hidden features. A seriously humbling exercise. I must concede that all treasures I found were, in fact, covered in The Lightroom Queen’s book. It is clear that a similar hunt in Photoshop would be even more frustrating. In either case additional functionality is being added at exhausting rate.

(Main Photography Discussion)

File can not be found

DirtFarmer wrote:

There's your problem.

If you define a reasonable folder structure, there should be no reason you ever have to move a file. Copy, maybe. But moving files implies that they were put in the wrong place initially.

The first thing I do when I put my card in the reader is place the image files in their forever home. Do it once, do it right.

I suggest that the folder structure need not be organized the way you the user wishes to look for a particular group of files. The database called the Library provides all the tools necessary to allow you to view them in multiple way that you may choose without regard to your initial choice of the forever home organization. Being a fool is organize the forever home by date shot, period. The structure is by year, month and day shot. For example 2024/202404/22042024/IMG1776. This allows setting up the Import once and forever. Viewed from outside LrC this organization is ideal for managing backups and external drives.

I prefer Collections to Key Words for personalization within LrC and add a descriptive collection during import. My motto is no thinking no screwup.

(Main Photography Discussion)

File can not be found

DirtFarmer wrote:

I recommend Copy or Add, depending on whether you ... (show quote)

Bingo! This is the best summery of these choices I have read. I suspect DirtFarmer is actually comfortable with how computers manage files. Coincidentally file management is mostly what you are doing in the Import dialog.

Once up one a time in a galaxy far far away when slow rotating disks were common I used Move when importing scanner created files because copying large files from thither to yon was excruciatingly slow where a move on the same disk is nearly instantaneous. But now with m.2 drives it is no worries.

(Main Photography Discussion)

Colour Filters in Black & White Photography

If you use LrC (and I assume ACR however you access it) be aware that it includes a number of excellent B&W profiles that you can try by simply hovering over a thumbnail. Easy to use and dramatically different. Unfortunately they are applied behind the scenes so I don’t know has to learn what they do. There is a strength slider that lets you adjust the amount of pop.