Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register ☰
Posts for: markymark
Page: <<prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 next>>
Mar 16, 2013 22:43:26   #
(Photo Gallery)
Old house I use to visit 60 years ago
Nicely done.
buffyjean wrote:
I used to live down the road from this old house.
I love old barns and houses.
Go to
Mar 13, 2013 09:53:17   #
(Photo Gallery)
FLASH UNIT
JUST PLAYING AROUND AND HAVING SOME FUN WITH MY NEW TRANSLUCENT UMBRELLA


Go to
Mar 12, 2013 11:35:03   #
(Main Photography Discussion)
New Gimbal head to seriously consider
I wish I would have known this before I bought the side kick, totally over priced but it works.
Go to
Mar 12, 2013 10:59:08   #
(Main Photography Discussion)
Taking pictures from the waist down?
I guess that some peoples best features are from the neck down, personally I have size 13 feet and they are not my best asset!
Kentee wrote:
Recently, I received one of those "pass-around" bunch of photos. This one was photos taken at Walmart of less-than-thrilling people who were customers. You've probably received one or more of these delights.

Perhaps, in this case, throwing away everything below the neckline would be an improvement.

Then, on second thought.........
Go to
Mar 12, 2013 09:49:44   #
(Main Photography Discussion)
Taking pictures from the waist down?
Thanks I was about to ask the same question.
Jim Peters wrote:
brianae515 wrote:
I've seen a lot of local photographers in my area take pictures of people from the waist down, completely cutting off their heads and usually down to the subject's chest. They are good pictures and creative at times but it just seems a little odd to me. I just wanted to know what some of the members of UHH think of this technique if you've seen it before. I personally have never tried it and haven't gotten any requests for it yet.

Could You Show Some Examples Of What You Mean?
quote=brianae515 I've seen a lot of local photogr... (show quote)
Go to
Mar 9, 2013 02:14:47   #
(Photo Gallery)
Flower shot
Below is the (store original file)

Here is the download for the original file

Go to
Mar 8, 2013 22:41:31   #
(Photo Gallery)
Flower shot
I took this shot and am looking for suggestions on how I could improve the lighting and maybe aperture settings. Side light with diffuser, opposite side gold refector. Aperture 10. Not worried about the background that I can always change.


Go to
Mar 6, 2013 14:47:44   #
(Main Photography Discussion)
Low iso+increased exposure vs high iso
Thanks I will try your way and see for myself.
mikemilton wrote:
markymark wrote:
I have the same camera body the 5D Mark ll and find that with close up shots a little under exposed works great compared to increased ISO in post processing.


Actually, I find that the 5DmII is really weak in the area of shadow noise and does not tollerate any significant pulling of the shadows in post. Of all the camera bodies I've owned it is my least favourite. The 1Dx is just fine to at least ISO 6400 and not bad at all with very modest noise at 12800. It also is much more able to pull up shadows at low iso but shooting high ISO is a better choice.
quote=markymark I have the same camera body the 5... (show quote)
Go to
Mar 6, 2013 13:43:49   #
(Main Photography Discussion)
Low iso+increased exposure vs high iso
I have the same camera body the 5D Mark ll and find that with close up shots a little under exposed works great compared to increased ISO in post processing.
mikemilton wrote:
mfeveland wrote:

I'm a little confused. Why would you underexpose 5 stops and then overexpose by 5 in post-processing ?


One would not do that. However, the original question amounted to why not to do exactly that.

Another way to ask the question is: Is high ISO noise worse than the results of increasing the exposure of a low iso shot in post processing. This question is actually quite camera-body specific particularly if you are not talking extreme changes.
Go to
Mar 6, 2013 13:15:07   #
(Main Photography Discussion)
Low iso+increased exposure vs high iso
If that works for you great, P.S. I checked out your sites and you have some very nice photos, I love the macro.
hangman45 wrote:
markymark wrote:
Sorry I don't understand your question, what I am saying is it is better to bump up an under exposed shot when using camera raw,then using a higher ISO as far as noise goes, when you are talking about one stop not 2 or 3.
RDH wrote:
markymark wrote:
If I was hand holding a camera I would prefer to shoot in a low ISO and under expose by say one stop and have no shake or blur. Compared to taking a shot in an higher ISO when using raw, but not more then a stop or so. In CS5 camera raw there is a slider in the detail section for color and luminance noise in works excellent. But that is just me.
Shine11 wrote:
why are shots not taken in dark places at a low iso and the exposure changed on raw converter ?????.... Do you loose a lot of quality as in more than if you took with a high iso and left all other settings the same ???
If I was hand holding a camera I would prefer to s... (show quote)


And how will that reduce camera shake? Using a higher ISO will permit a higher shutter speed which will yield a correctly exposed photo with less camera shake. As has been pointed out the tolerance of high ISO is camera specific and must be considered.
quote=markymark If I was hand holding a camera I ... (show quote)
Sorry I don't understand your question, what I am ... (show quote)


That is all according to what camera you use 2 to 3 stops higher ISO does not cause much noise on my camera I can comfortably take mine to ISO5000 to get a faster shutter speed when needed
much less noise than trying to correct a image that was under exposed to get the same shutter speed at a lower ISO
quote=markymark Sorry I don't understand your que... (show quote)
Go to
Mar 6, 2013 12:51:50   #
(Main Photography Discussion)
Low iso+increased exposure vs high iso
Sorry I don't understand your question, what I am saying is it is better to bump up an under exposed shot when using camera raw,then using a higher ISO as far as noise goes, when you are talking about one stop not 2 or 3.
RDH wrote:
markymark wrote:
If I was hand holding a camera I would prefer to shoot in a low ISO and under expose by say one stop and have no shake or blur. Compared to taking a shot in an higher ISO when using raw, but not more then a stop or so. In CS5 camera raw there is a slider in the detail section for color and luminance noise in works excellent. But that is just me.
Shine11 wrote:
why are shots not taken in dark places at a low iso and the exposure changed on raw converter ?????.... Do you loose a lot of quality as in more than if you took with a high iso and left all other settings the same ???
If I was hand holding a camera I would prefer to s... (show quote)


And how will that reduce camera shake? Using a higher ISO will permit a higher shutter speed which will yield a correctly exposed photo with less camera shake. As has been pointed out the tolerance of high ISO is camera specific and must be considered.
quote=markymark If I was hand holding a camera I ... (show quote)
Go to
Mar 6, 2013 12:37:51   #
(Photo Contests, Challenges, Periodicals)
WPC 1309 - Leading Lines
The way I look at it, if a person recieves more then a few votes congrants, even if they have less then 1 full vote. I just hope I never recieve just one full vote! Joke.
tk wrote:
Hopefully they will learn from the other examples, IF they voted for themselves. It also may have been supportive friends.
Go to
Mar 6, 2013 12:00:49   #
(Photo Contests, Challenges, Periodicals)
WPC 1309 - Leading Lines
???
Big_Rudy wrote:
OK, Enough already!
Go to
Mar 6, 2013 11:53:35   #
(Photo Contests, Challenges, Periodicals)
WPC 1309 - Leading Lines
Again if just seems weird that in the concrete contest 28 people where tied with one vote. The people with more then one vote was spread out and the people with less then one vote was also distributed equally. You don't see 28 people with 2 votes. The orginial question was can you vote for yourself, excluding you it would appear that a lot of people do.
Bonkles wrote:
markymark wrote:
Can you vote for your own photograph, I have noticed a lot of one vote entrees with a full share of the vote. And I have noticed photographs below them with 3 or 4 votes. It would appear that the ones with 3 or 4 votes did not vote for their own work or at least voted for others as well. Just wondering, regards Markymark.


Hi

There is no point in voting for your own photo. It is not about the winning/receiving the most votes. Photography quality/ beauty is in the eye of the beholder within the group. I did receive one vote last comp but never vote for my own. Sometimes I vote for one photo I really like but there are many photos in my eye I cannot separate and will perhaps vote for more than one. When the results come out I then review to try and understand how perhaps I should approach the subject/next comp another time.

I hope that helps
quote=markymark Can you vote for your own photogr... (show quote)
Go to
Mar 6, 2013 11:38:03   #
(Main Photography Discussion)
Low iso+increased exposure vs high iso
If I was hand holding a camera I would prefer to shoot in a low ISO and under expose by say one stop and have no shake or blur. Compared to taking a shot in an higher ISO when using raw, but not more then a stop or so. In CS5 camera raw there is a slider in the detail section for color and luminance noise in works excellent. But that is just me.
Shine11 wrote:
why are shots not taken in dark places at a low iso and the exposure changed on raw converter ?????.... Do you loose a lot of quality as in more than if you took with a high iso and left all other settings the same ???
Go to
Page: <<prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 next>>
Home | Latest Digest | Back to Top | All Sections
Contact us | Privacy policy | Terms of use | DMCA
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.