Happy to hear this.
In that regard, we no longer have to have any concern about your children and grandchildren. You have insured them a bright future.
Jackinthebox wrote:
The controversy is just about over. Just un-employed "scientists" hanging on for dear life to keep the controversy going. Al Gore got filthy rich and is loosing interest. He does not need any more money but the "scientists" need their conventions with great lunches and expense accounts.
I know, you are all wondering what side I am on.
I convert to sRGB and view on the same monitor - it often looks like UHH uses a proprietary color space - the new colors are unpredictable. The tonality also changes.
When I look at the images on my computer (pre download) they are right on.
Two thumbs down to the UGG algorithms. :thumbdown: :thumbdown:
"it is clear that I have out grown the current users"
The other interpretations are that you did not offer enough and they (we) just got bored.
mooseeyes wrote:
OK, 49 views and not a single creative person wanting to take a chance on this image.
Here is something that I put together. A theater poster, with the soon to be released Greatest Hits CD, as a central image.
I am thinking maybe it is time for me to leave UHH. It has been both fun and interesting; however, it is clear that I have out grown the current users.
God Bless and Good Luck to all.
Ken
I am a bit confused.
Do you mean that you were using a 10X closeup filter on an 18-55? If that is the case, there is a good bit of image degredation from the 10X single lens filter. There may be other problems, but this is a given.
TERRIES11 wrote:
oh sorry i was using an 18-55mm lense at 55mm
conkerwood wrote:
Perhaps not the catchiest title I have ever come up with. This was one of those, 'I was there, that looks great, grab it before the light fades, sort of shots. But I wish I had spent a little more time with my settings as the right hand side of the mirror is slightly OOF. But I am interested in any thoughts insights or suggestions.
Peter
I think this is a great grab shot that captured a moment in time. It is the type of reflection that I like to capture in my rear view mirror but never can get it right.
Regarding the OOF area, it may have nothing to do with the photo technique, but may be a result of the curvilinear reflecting surface.
What I would change - not much. My preference would be to diminish the background a bit more and to delete the post underneath. My view would be to increase the sharpness of the central part of the object and not to sharpen as it fades to the periphery.
I hesitate to make my thoughts a suggestion; we may just see different refinement. I would be proud to have made this capture.
Hoot72 wrote:
I'm afraid of those who attack Trey Gowdy's "Upcoming Performance" well before that performance begins.
Kinda like pre-judging ain't it?
What, I thought Benghazi was all about pre-judging. Sounds like the kettle is calling the pot black.
Let us start the show with the dogs and ponies and allow the screen of smoke to rise.
Smells fishy to me - like red herring.
Los-Angeles-Shooter wrote:
Your sources are biased and not primary. Good purposeful entertainment -but not of much value.
Set your level for factual information and believe as you wish.
sarge69 wrote:
I don't agree 200%. Although annoying to read some of the crapola here, it is everyones right to post something they feel is funny, sad or politically stupid. Don't read the section if it annoys you.
Sarge69
200% - guess you got to vote twice
Los-Angeles-Shooter wrote:
No evidence of a Communist involvement. Water fluoridation was pushed by various companies based on specious "research." It provided a way to make money with a horribly poisonous waste product of aluminum production. Many European countries did major investigations of water fluoridation and concluded that there were no benefits and that there was severe risk. Your single anecdote has no scientific validity. Especially compared to the numerous studies showing toxic effects and lack of benefit to teeth.
No evidence of a Communist involvement. Water fluo... (
show quote)
Sorry, but there are volumes of great research that support communal fluoridation.
Screamin Scott wrote:
Believe what you want....Do you have any source to refute the authors statement ?
Actually, the problem would seem that the author of the article has not listed sources for his statements.
It is like the statement: 90% of statistics are made up on the spot. One has to ask, what is the original research to provide proof.
The photos are impressive; however none are familiar.
ted45 wrote:
We actually made it to page 3 without name calling, character assignation, or just plain stupid remarks. Then the King Liberal shows up. Nicely done Richard!
Actually, the name calling started in the very first post by the OP!
Nightski wrote:
Lightchime, I like this image, but there are a couple of things that bother me. Why is it so bright? Did you use flash? For me, the image would have more atmosphere if it was taken by only the light of the lantern. I want it to be more rustic.
The lamp is rustic. The wood looks new. I wonder if there is a treatment you could apply in post to make the wood look more weathered.
The lamp is rustic and the post is relatively new and sheltered from the elements. Please refer to my post - it is the fifth one down.
I suppose that I could have some type of grunge treatment to age it, but I really don't care for it in landscapes or portraits.
Yes, flash was used and the lantern appears well aged.
It seems as though I am the only one who likes the brightness of the wood and the lantern. I have exchanged PM's and said that I would rework the image to others' preference.
By the way, the lantern is very dim and a longer exposure would have brought up everything; it would have not stood out unless it was dodged. Under the circumstances, not being able to use a tripod and disliking noise immensely, the long exposure was not in the cards.
The other thing which was disappointing is that the upload is very unsatisfactory when compared to the preuploaded JPEG.
Thanks for comments. They are eagerly accepted.
abc1234 wrote:
Lightchime, two things to consider. How about running a linear gradient from the left edge to over the vertical post to darken the post? It is too bright for my taste.
The post is too prominent for me. Could you have shot this from the other side to emphasize the lantern instead?
The answer to your second question is that in the given environment, it doesn't make much difference - I have tried it many times. and this is by far the better view.
I believe that your suggestion regarding the linear gradient would have worked nicely. I could have also burnt it in.
We have different concepts here. I wanted to bring out the wood and the lantern. I think that your thoughts are very valid and appreciate what you have to say. I consider your thoughts valuable and nicely expressed. I will have a look your at your suggestions in the near future.
As a side bar, given my preferences as stated above, I found the colors to be muted and the background lighting was different than before the download. I was embarrassed as I looked at it. The composition remained the same, but the time spent in LightRoom was largely negated and, to its determent, the image was severely downgraded.
I think your comments are very helpful and look forward to seeing them again.