Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Posts for: CamB
Page: <<prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 112 next>>
Jan 5, 2024 13:19:05   #
R.G. wrote:
A quick browse produced this:-

Every MacBook Pro, Studio Display and Pro Display XDR undergoes a state-of-the-art factory display calibration process on the assembly line......
A quick url=https://www.google.com/search?q=is+th... (show quote)


I'm sure Apple calibrates to make sure the displays work well and that all the displays look the same, but you still have to calibrate it for your work flow. At the very least it is going to be too bright to match prints from your printer. If you are selling your prints or delivering for a client there are expectations that just can't be met without proper and occasional calibration.
Go to
Jan 5, 2024 12:18:22   #
A. T. wrote:
Does anyone have the new Apple Studio Display? I ask because I just purchased the display and when I went to the area to calibrate the monitor, there were a host of choices and I have no clue which one would be the best for digital photography. I'm sure I could go to Youtube and get other people's suggestions but I thought it better to get answers from those that I trust here in the forum. The monitor is the 27" 5k retina display. Thanks in advance for any suggestions.


I calibrate mine with the x-rite studio device. It has me set brightness at four (little boxes). For non photo work I run it at about eight. I have to remember to turn it down for photos to match to printer. It is a super bright display. These settings are made quickly from the keyboard.
Go to
Jan 2, 2024 16:17:26   #
CHG_CANON wrote:
The UHH link above (Recommended resizing parameters for digital images) included another link in the references to something called the "Always up-to-date guide to social media image sizes".

https://sproutsocial.com/insights/social-media-image-sizes-guide/

A casual glance at the content of that site will show all the references are based on the pixel resolution of the image files; there are no references to the file size (bytes) nor the JPEG quality.
The UHH link above ( b color=blue url=https://ww... (show quote)


"all the references are based on the pixel resolution of the image..." Thats why I don't bother with pixel resolution in this way. I don't use it in viewing or emailing in printing. Years ago I figured out what gives me the best quality for my files in megapixels and resolution. About eight presets covers everything. It took some testing, but I find that is so much easier to understand than numbers on a side. I would probably use a chart like yours if I was designing web pages.
Go to
Check out The Dynamics of Photographic Lighting section of our forum.
Jan 2, 2024 12:43:35   #
wrbeng65UHH wrote:
This is not a camera question. I need some advice on exporting photos to Facebook and selected individuals. I have a Nikon Z8 and shoot in RAW. I use Lightroom classic for my editing. When I have an edited photo that I am happy with and wish to share it with a friend or post it on facebook the resolution reduces significantly. The process I follow is to export the photo or a group of photos to a folder on my desktop retaining maximum resolution. Then I select them for posting on Facebook or attach one or more to an email and send. I always make a point to select maximum resolution. The pictures, although clear and properly exposed in Lightroom, are grainy and in poor focus in the Facebook post and when the email is opened. How can I correct this process so clear and properly exposed photos are posted and received by others. Thanks in advance for helpful responses.
This is not a camera question. I need some advice ... (show quote)


This is always interesting. I have a way I export pictures for various different uses and then when a question like yours comes along I find out every one has their own and different way. The key is to size them yourself before sending them off. Almost no one ever needs a full size file of your picture. How I do it. Simple. I've made a bunch of presets in Lightroom. I base all my presets on Megapixel size and never bother with the math about how long a size is. My Facebook preset is (1.5 megapixels / Resolution 100 / Quality 100) Thats it. Everything I send to facebook are these settings. I have no idea what length the edges are and I don't care. I highlight a picture, give it this preset and send it to my desktop. Drop in into Facebook then delete it. I never save these little files. I can't see the point. Bottom line: size it for your destination. Don't send bigger files than are needed. Make all decisions yourself. Don't leave it up so someone else.
Go to
Dec 28, 2023 12:23:30   #
Delderby wrote:
By the same token it seems that you are not au fait with most other editors!


This is true. LR and PS are all I use or have ever used.
Go to
Dec 27, 2023 21:18:31   #
terryMc wrote:
That same photography could probably be tuned up just as well with any of dozens of phone apps.


Well, I don't buy this either. It seems that maybe you're not a Lightroom user.
Go to
Dec 27, 2023 19:39:09   #
terryMc wrote:
Anyone who thinks Lightroom has a "steep learning curve" is going to be in trouble when trying to enhance any photo. Better just shoot jpegs and use them SOOC. Lightroom is sliders and brushes, the epitome of amateur photo editing.


I agree that most of Lightroom is not "a steep learning curve." It's just another program to learn and there is lots of help online. I would not call it "the epitome of amateur photo editing." It's not PS by any means but every version offers more options and I believe (without any proof) that a large majority of professional photography we see is mostly tuned up and adjusted in Lightroom.
Go to
Check out Bridge Camera Show Case section of our forum.
Dec 27, 2023 18:35:59   #
ATxGuy wrote:
Good. I do own a Nikon, a Coolpix 1000. Do you mind sharing how you make a slideshow of your photos? I use a Mac Air pc to show them.

ATxGuy


I’m a Mac guy. I use Boinx Photomagico for slideshows. It’s Mac only but the final output is a Quick Time Movie File. It plays on anything.
Go to
Dec 26, 2023 01:15:35   #
globetrekker wrote:
In Lightroom Classic, to apply lens correction to all photos I just imported, I enabled correction for one photo and then selected all the other photos and pasted the lens correction settings. This seems kinda laborious. Is there a more efficient way to apply lens correction? And will I always have to apply lens correction to every new batch of photos I import?

Thanks for your thoughts.


This is really simple. Highlight all the picture files you want to include. Go to develop mode and work on the one picture that comes up. When satisfied click on Sync. A setting screen will pop up. Put a check mark by what you want to effect and hit Synchronize. All highlighted photos will now make the change. I use this all the time to adjust files affected by theater lighting.
You can work on one file first and then pick and highlight the files you want to reflect this change. It's Sync in develop mode.
Go to
Dec 8, 2023 12:57:25   #
Real Nikon Lover wrote:
I can't imagine modifying any image on any card without backing up. My workflow includes backing up all images on the card, separate folders for RAW and JPG. My working folder is PP (Post Processing) final photos are moved to folder with image name and sig (signature). I tag final images with subject:birds, family, macro, event name.

I never erase the SD card until all images are backed up in at least two ways.

The same work flow for me. After a shoot or vacation or walk in the woods, I don’t relax until the card is downloaded and backed up.
Go to
Dec 4, 2023 15:19:55   #
User ID wrote:
You mentioned memory of what you thought you saw as if thaz not very trustworthy. For me, OTOH, thaz the Gold Standard.

I choose to make MY picture, not something based on an "objective" measurement, or on instrument readings.

I dont use much daylight (as shown below).


Not mentioned yet...when shooting a show on a stage, there is no white balance. The lighting director throws in color and luminance at whim to satisfy her creative desires. It comes down to shooting for the highlights and figuring out the white balance later. One thing that is pretty consistent is that reds and blues almost always over saturate. Often (actually most of the time) if you are having trouble figuring out the best white balance, you can desaturate the reds and blues a little, sometimes a lot, and many other colors, and the best exposure, will fall into place. This is not for a football game or a bride, but this is standard operating procedure for me to make a "show" reproduce in my photo files the way my eye perceived it.
...Cam
Go to
Check out Sports Photography section of our forum.
Dec 2, 2023 14:05:53   #
Indiana wrote:
So, I have never heard the term used as it relates to photography, but it is probably out there, and I just haven't seen it; it's called, static photography. As I see it, it would incorporate Landscape, Architecture, and other immovable objects that are stationary just waiting to be photographed. Nothing moves...they are static. In real estate it is called fixity of location. So, this title (static photography) just groups know entities into a category that covers several well established labels. I'm not quite sure how the term would be used other than as a conversation starter, but even then it has some value and utility. Just my thought of the day.
So, I have never heard the term used as it relates... (show quote)


Sixty years of carrying a camera and I have never heard the term "static photography." I can probably photograph another twenty years without knowing what it is.
Go to
Nov 29, 2023 22:20:09   #
burkphoto wrote:
Lithium will probably be replaced by several other substances by the time my great great grandkids are born. There is so much energy research being done now, we are going to go through a period of intense competition for market share, as oil, coal, and gas are gradually replaced. 100 years from now, if we are still alive as a species, we may well have fusion power or some other super-efficient technology. We just don't know what we don't know.

Think back to the mid-1980s when early research into digital imaging showed promise. It took roughly ten years to get out of the lab and into "sandbox" mode: $30,000 Kodak dSLRs kludged together out of old Nikon and Canon film cameras. By the mid-2000s, Kodak was trying to control the bleeding of its film and paper businesses, as dSLRs were killing the film business. My former employer spent a couple million bucks on film scanners that we got about ten years' use from (1997 to 2007). Then we ripped out all our film processors and quit using film. I had run the film scanning operation. The scanners were great while we needed them for the film-to-digital transition. But I was very happy to see them go. There are just too many advantages to digital capture.

In 1996, as digital technology was in its infancy, the photo industry largely ignored it. That year, at PMAI, a consortium of companies introduced the APS film system. It was clever, but 30 years too late. In 2011, just 15 years later, APS was dead, and for all popular purposes, film had been replaced by digital cameras and smartphones. The masses never think things like that will happen, until they do. The "techies and scientists in the back room" have been at it for 10, 20, or 30 years before new products burst onto the scene and kick old ones to the curb in a shocking paradigm shift.

Development is a slow and mostly private process. Steve Jobs and his associates were dreaming about products like the iPad and iPhone as far back as 1982. There are videos of him talking cryptically about them then. It took a few decades "for all the stars to align properly..."

The Internet dates back to the mid-late 1960s and research at DARPA. But it was kept mostly in a university and government sandbox until the early-mid 1990s when Tim Berners-Lee gave us the first world-wide web technologies. 30 years later, what have we done?
Lithium will probably be replaced by several other... (show quote)


I always enjoy your perspective on things. More good comments.
Go to
Nov 29, 2023 15:54:39   #
ChrisW. wrote:
I know many shoot in RAW format and edit in Lightroom Classic. When you export files that have been cropped, color corrected, denoised, etc, are you concerned about the size of the file that you send to the client? Does anyone notice any quality difference?


I don't understand what there is to be concerned about. I shoot RAW and do most editing in LR. When my files look the way I want I check the clients needs, export my files as jpegs to satisfy those needs and send them off. If they need a file size different than what I send they just let me know and I send that file in a different size. This sometimes happens when I export for a news letter or web site and they need to make a poster. I have lightroom presets for any size and you can make a preset in about thirty seconds. No concerns, just doing business. Remember, you are not sending RAW files, always just a tuned up copy in a different format.
Go to
Nov 29, 2023 15:44:51   #
Joel B. wrote:
I've been running Proshow Gold on a windows 10 desktop sucessfully and like it. I just bought desktop with more power for video and Lightroom, and want to move Proshow to that platform. Since the company is gone there is no way to 'validate' the installation.

Does anyone have a workaround for this? A registry edit??

Thanks.


You're facing a problem today that will just get worse. It seems time to find, download and learn a new show program. The time you spend trying to make this old program work and keep working into the future could be better spent learning a modern program. It is important to keep up with current programs and upgrades or suddenly you find yourself in the position you are in. There have been suggestions here for other programs. It's time to make a switch. Not what you wanted to hear I'm sure, but, like getting your new computer, things move on.
Go to
Page: <<prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 112 next>>
Check out Traditional Street and Architectural Photography section of our forum.
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.