I feel this is one subject where my past experience helps me form a solid opinion on the subject. I was one of those people who would have sworn that shooting with RAW was a total waste of time and space on my card... I was wrong. For those out there who are so determined to shoot in JPEG, but want a RAW image, just set your camera quality to shoot RAW and Fine JPEG simultaneously. Once you do that, then go and try to edit the SAME photo in RAW and JPEG, one can see the differences immediately.... you lose too much information in the Jpeg while the RAW maintains its fidelity... Even if you could change a JPEG into RAW, why would you?
Beautiful shot.... well composed, clean.... but I'm a Dodgers fan.... hehehe
R.G., trust me, I've been there and done that.... You're right.... Again, just better to shoot the RAW image first... I tried it the other way, my images never came out as well as with when I edited RAW upfront, saved as PSD, and then later converted them to JPEG. I think that's what you're saying, right?
R.G. that's your answer. I can't add anything to that. Just shoot RAW. If space on your drives is an issue.... Only keep the RAW files of photos you intend to edit and dump the rejects. I know, letting go of my images is hurtful to me, but after a few months, and I see I have no intention of finishing those files.... bye bye. But, I DO keep the RAW files of the original captures I do edit... forever. This saves a TON of space on your hard drives and leaves you with enough space to do multiple edits on your good photos. Some of those PSD files from my Nikon D3 are enormous!!!! Go back to your older files, and dump the ones you will never refinish... :lol:
I don't mean to be cheapo here.... I shoot professionally. Sometimes with other photographers who use Nikon and Canon lenses. I'l be damned if anyone can tell the difference between a Sigma or Tokina lens as opposed to Nikon or Canon.... If money were no object, I'd probably buy the Nikon lens, however, I can't justify the expense. A Nikon 24-70, 2.8 new costs $2,100, the same lens in Sigma $1,200... Sorry, but c'mon.
If money is no object... the 14-24mm Nikkor.... Tokina makes a very good one as well... MUCH LESS $$, almost the same quality....
The top... straight on.... with emphasis on the eyes.... :)
mickley wrote:
I have the (unfortunate?) task of making some old railroad photos useable for publication, meaning that I have to make up the screens for the printer (the guy with ink on his clothes).
Some of the photos (and some of the negs) have really poor gray-scale range. In Photoshop CS, I have to use levels, curves, shadow control, etc. to try to bring a photo back to life. Sometimes the photos seem to have the subject illuminated by gas lamps, in that the lighting is quite uneven. It doesn't help that in most cases, the photos include steam locomotives, which are unevenly black and thus a bear to fix.
Are there any plug-ins that would help automate or make easier the process?
I have the (unfortunate?) task of making some old ... (
show quote)
I might take a shot with Alien Skin Exposure 5... they have some awesome enhancements for black and white photos... may take shot with B&W infrared?
The "Best" is relative.... I defy anyone to tell me they get a better photo from a Canon over a Nikon and vice versa... it's about personal preference. However, if you know someone well, who has a professional grade Nikon, it's useless asking that person about a Canon camera... it's all in the interface, and what you prefer... BOTH are great reliable cameras that, if used properly, take the best quality photos for the price.
Just had my camera in for a cleaning with a reputable local camera repair shop in Miami. In other words, a repair shop that has something to lose if they don't do what they're supposed to do. I would never accept ANY dust on my mirror or sensor after a cleaning.... no way... take it back and make them do it right.
Been there and done that.... all I ended up doing was moving around the dust... and just in case, if you mess up the sensor while trying to clean it, find out how much it is to replace it... you won't try to do it yourself when you see how much it will run you.
Been meaning to calibrate my monitor for a long time now... Windows 7 seems to cover all the bases and it doesn't cost a penny extra.... Don't know if it's my imagination, but the monitor output on my Samsung looks great!
shstrang98 wrote:
Hello All
I was wondering is there a way to calibrate my monitor without having to spend hundreds on a device that attaches to the monitor face.
I'm concerned with brightness and color accuracy and my pics can vary wildly from monitor to monitor.
thanks a bunch