Posts for: Bloke
Oct 18, 2013 10:36:56 #
jerryc41 wrote:
I use externals for that.
I use both... Internal to spare harddrive daily, and weekly backup to external. My *essential* stuff - emails, spreadsheets, etc. - also gets backed up daily to an offline site.
Once you have lost important stuff in a hardware failure, you tend to get paranoid about backups!
Oct 18, 2013 10:31:45 #
CaptainC wrote:
For fine detail work, a pen and tablet is far superior to a mouse. For many processing functions, a mouse works just fine. It is the small detail stuff where the pen shines.
It does take a while to get used to it. I'll bet it took me at least 30 seconds. Maybe 25.
I will say that a pen is much faster and if you do a lot of retouching, the guy with a pen will beat the fastest guy with a mouse and when time matters, the pen wins.
It does take a while to get used to it. I'll bet it took me at least 30 seconds. Maybe 25.
I will say that a pen is much faster and if you do a lot of retouching, the guy with a pen will beat the fastest guy with a mouse and when time matters, the pen wins.
You finally convinced me... I have been wavering about this for a few weeks now, and this thread just pushed me over the edge. I just ordered a small Wacom tablet - pen *and* touch - from Amazon for $103 including tax and postage. I do quite a bit of retouching, and at that price it's worth a try, I reckon.
Oct 17, 2013 10:00:15 #
Niagara Falls
Not a good time for a walk on the pier!
Oct 17, 2013 09:45:57 #
I am a great lover of B&W stuff, but I have to say, the colour version of your shot was so good, that in this case I think I still prefer that. Nothing wrong with these, by any means, but I think the colour was better.
Oct 17, 2013 06:13:13 #
Well, like I said, it certainly makes uploads smaller and faster. Other than my initial 'raw/negative/master' copy, I process all my jpegs through it. It saves sometimes dozens of MB per folder. I know disk space is cheap these days, but why waste it?
Like I said at the top, I have no connection with the company. I just think this product is good enough that I share info with photo-friends when I can. It's certainly worth a look for anyone who takes as many photos as some people here do.
Like I said at the top, I have no connection with the company. I just think this product is good enough that I share info with photo-friends when I can. It's certainly worth a look for anyone who takes as many photos as some people here do.
Oct 16, 2013 22:30:25 #
donnz wrote:
nope thats how it came out of my camera,and how I saw it.
its the same way my telescope see it as well
hey maybe its because we stand upside down here in new zealand
Don :XD:
its the same way my telescope see it as well
hey maybe its because we stand upside down here in new zealand
Don :XD:
Most telescopes (at least astronomical ones) do show things upside-down. The extra lens to revert the image would absorb too much light.
As far as being down under, I'm not sure. I guess that *could* be the reason, I suppose. I've never really thought about that, and it's getting late; my brain has shut down for the night.
Just never seen the poodle upside-down in a photo before, that's all...
Oct 16, 2013 11:07:38 #
GeorgeH wrote:
Since the District is just across the line from Virginia, I imagine that District residents mosey down to Ol' Virginia to a gun show and load up on firearms. Same sort of thing for Illinois residents. How many gun show vendors do any sort of address or background check? Very few, I'd wager!
You have to be careful... I live in PA and have a concealed carry permit. This is not recognised by the Peoples Republic of Maryland, however. Given that I live less than a mile from the Mason-Dixon line, and it would be a felony if I were stopped for a traffic issue while carrying when on the other side, I have to be very aware of just where I am while driving...
Oct 16, 2013 10:59:37 #
Did you print it upside-down on purpose? Nice shot, anyway!
Oct 16, 2013 10:57:12 #
Oct 16, 2013 10:51:50 #
Dlevon wrote:
Great Pictures! Enjoy the camera! Don't waste your time with the tripod. I'm in and out of the house and in 10 secs., I've got my photo. Have yet to use a tripod with it! Great stabilzation on the camera. Be careful about all your settings.
I think it would take more than image stabilisation on the camera to get results like these... If it keeps it that stable for 10 second exposures, how would you tackle a sports shot?
Oct 16, 2013 09:07:31 #
Wow! I don't know what else to say, just wow!
Oct 15, 2013 10:51:42 #
Nice... I am busy retouching some duck shots myself, but mine are much more sedate than these. Not as interesting, either!
Oct 15, 2013 10:48:25 #
tusketwedge wrote:
I wouldn't rush to buy or reduce all your pictures until I found out if you can reverse the process with no loss of quality.If your just going to keep them to just review on the computer thats fine, but if you think you might want a print done at a later date ,you could have issues.The best way(mho) is buy an external hard drive and save you picture at full size on it.
That is a good point. My process is to copy everything onto the PC twice. One is my 'raw' file - still jpeg but unprocessed in any way. The only thing I do to these is delete any obvious 'duds'. The other copy is my working set. I go through these and resize them (changing my camera's default 4000x3000 down to 2000x1500 - way big enough for any screen-based application. Then, they get processed through jpegmini, shrinking them from maybe 3 or 4 MB, down to sometimes less than 1.
Because I keep the originals untouched, I can always go back if needed. Sometimes, my tiny zoom lens can't get close enough to wildlife or something. In those cases, I crop the important bit out of the original, which helps a bit. I call this my 'internal zoom'.
I am attaching 2 photos here - one is the resized and jpegmini'd version, the 2nd one is the original, untouched one. There may be slight differences, because the size is shrunken before I process the 1st one. The sizes in KB are 1170, and 5213 - quite a difference!
Oct 15, 2013 10:10:21 #
Not bad at all...
I did some photography and darkroom work when I was in the military, and I have always liked a good B&W photo.
When you take colour out of the equation, the textures and contrast become much more important, and the effects can be stunning.
I did some photography and darkroom work when I was in the military, and I have always liked a good B&W photo.
When you take colour out of the equation, the textures and contrast become much more important, and the effects can be stunning.
Oct 15, 2013 10:03:55 #
Hi, I have no connection with this company or its products, but I came across this and thought it would be good to share.
I found a site called jpegmini, which will process your jpegs and reduce them in size without affecting the picture quality. I don't know how it works, but it does. They have a demo on the site where you upload a photo, and they process it then superimpose it on the original, with a slider to control the overlap. You really cannot see any difference.
I have a lot of photos, and it seems that a lot of you guys will have even more than me, and this program can save a lot of space - for storage, or even just for uploading/emailing. Depending on the photo, the reduction can take it down to anywhere between 20% and 60% of the original.
I know that logic dictates you don't get nothing for nothing, but as far as I have been able to see over the past few months, this program comes close.
You can upload your photos, and they will process them free in an hour or so. There is also a program you can download to do it on your own machine. The free version limits you to 20 photos per day, but it only costs $19.95 to buy the full version, which removes the restriction.
Before calling me crazy, at least go check them out! You owe it to yourself...
The link is: www.jpegmini.com
I found a site called jpegmini, which will process your jpegs and reduce them in size without affecting the picture quality. I don't know how it works, but it does. They have a demo on the site where you upload a photo, and they process it then superimpose it on the original, with a slider to control the overlap. You really cannot see any difference.
I have a lot of photos, and it seems that a lot of you guys will have even more than me, and this program can save a lot of space - for storage, or even just for uploading/emailing. Depending on the photo, the reduction can take it down to anywhere between 20% and 60% of the original.
I know that logic dictates you don't get nothing for nothing, but as far as I have been able to see over the past few months, this program comes close.
You can upload your photos, and they will process them free in an hour or so. There is also a program you can download to do it on your own machine. The free version limits you to 20 photos per day, but it only costs $19.95 to buy the full version, which removes the restriction.
Before calling me crazy, at least go check them out! You owe it to yourself...
The link is: www.jpegmini.com