Check out Commercial and Industrial Photography section of our forum.
Posts for: DanielB
Mar 10, 2023 19:12:41 #
DIRTY HARRY wrote:
Photographer Bunny Yeager - Model Lori Shea 1954
A great photojournalistic shot. Really like the capture and it's an interesting note it was 4-5 years before I was born.
Mar 10, 2023 19:04:39 #
dennis2146 wrote:
That is a beautiful photograph of dog and flushing bird but it sure is not a pheasant. I am guessing scaled quail instead. I could be wrong but definitely not a pheasant. Well done.
Dennis
Dennis
Thank you. I trust your judgment on the species of bird. I'm more of a bird of prey guy myself.
Mar 10, 2023 17:12:19 #
Hello UHH friends,
It's been a long break for me here on UHH and with my photography in general... life just gets in the way sometimes. Retirement is on the horizon and I hope to get a lot more photography in when the big day comes.
I recently did a shoot for a dog trainer and his group of dogs and owners. This is Gigi flushing a pheasant from the brush. I admit I got lucky on this shot but luck is okay by me. I hope to post more soon from this shoot. I hope you enjoy.
It's been a long break for me here on UHH and with my photography in general... life just gets in the way sometimes. Retirement is on the horizon and I hope to get a lot more photography in when the big day comes.
I recently did a shoot for a dog trainer and his group of dogs and owners. This is Gigi flushing a pheasant from the brush. I admit I got lucky on this shot but luck is okay by me. I hope to post more soon from this shoot. I hope you enjoy.
Check out People Photography section of our forum.
Mar 10, 2023 16:59:55 #
chip94 wrote:
I know a lot of the viewers here don't care for the ink and piercings but most of the models I work with have some of each
Looks like the one Tattoo may be a memorial to a loved one in the military?
Dec 30, 2022 17:03:14 #
par4fore wrote:
Purchased camera $778.00 br Shipped with tracking ... (show quote)
I don't trust eBay at all. I've been burned a few times by unscrupulous vendors and eBay will not back you up at all.
Dec 11, 2022 17:38:18 #
Nukepr wrote:
I recently found several rolls of developed film that had never been processed. It is three rolls of 35mm film, Kidak Max, Ektachrome and Tri-X pan and thre rolls of 127 verichrome pan. I am in florida, but will be happy to mail film if I know where to send it. Help, please
Good chance it's no longer good. Sad but true.
Dec 11, 2022 17:30:19 #
jerryc41 wrote:
This is funny. A friend sent me pictures of a few of us playing at the library fair yesterday. One of the pictures was an extreme crop - very noisy. When I tried to save it so I could use deNoise, it kept saving as the full-size picture. then I realized that he sent me a 1.4MB image, and I was seeing only a small portion of it. Topaz did a great job of de-noising. With Topaz working this well, I don't have to spend $49 for Luminar's DeNoise.
Topaz is all I use now. For me it's bank.
Check out True Macro-Photography Forum section of our forum.
Dec 11, 2022 17:24:08 #
bsprague wrote:
Or lens with a bigger diameter!
"Bigger Diameter?" You mean a lens with a lower f-stop (f2 - 2.8).
Dec 11, 2022 17:19:58 #
DanielB wrote:
Addendum to my quote. I have used my phone on occasion but nothing can or will ever replace the versatility of my camera system.
Dec 11, 2022 17:16:07 #
Rongnongno wrote:
*sigh*
Dec 11, 2022 17:06:28 #
Ysarex wrote:
You've got to be kidding -- seriously!? Setting noise reduction to high turns the entire photo into a smear -- see below. The loss of detail is entirely unacceptable and the SOOC JPEG is wastebasket rubbish. I want reasonable noise filtering with the detail retained. I can have that but not if I shoot SOOC in this case. That's the point.
Totally agree. No way I'd ever use in camera noise reduction. Further more this SOOC argument is redundant and ridiculous. Even the great Ansel Adams processed his images.
Check out The Pampered Pets Corner section of our forum.
Dec 11, 2022 16:59:13 #
rmalarz wrote:
Archi, here's a SOOC from my 4x5. No processing whatsoever. Not much to look at but SOOC.
--Bob
--Bob
LOL -
Aug 12, 2022 22:22:28 #
Chicago312 wrote:
I agree. This is not banding; it’s a meteor and aircraft.
Next time, take several shots of the same scene without making any changes to settings or position. You should see your line/“banding” move across the different shots.
Next time, take several shots of the same scene without making any changes to settings or position. You should see your line/“banding” move across the different shots.
That is not what he is pointing out. Download and look carefully from the point of the arrow across the entire image. It's a darker baring not the typical banding we see in sky images.
Aug 12, 2022 22:20:06 #
Dan Thornton wrote:
This is it.
That is not typically what we look for when you say banding. That is a different artifact entirely - I'd call it baring for lack of a better term. But that may be a shutter issue. Is your shutter set to second shutter release? Do you only see it on long exposures and high ISO's?
Aug 12, 2022 22:08:56 #
Bridges wrote:
If you don't understand the question, I assume your answer is no.
That is, does anyone! I started to ask the question differently, but after posting, noticed my question turned into gutter language! Sorry.
That is, does anyone! I started to ask the question differently, but after posting, noticed my question turned into gutter language! Sorry.
Yep - I do.
Check out Film Photography section of our forum.