sportyman140 wrote:
Annie, Hi, I have read and still refer back to the bool on Exposure from Photo Workshop by Jeff Wignall. Great book and great lessons in book to help with learning Exposure. Amazon.com has it on its site less expensive than a bookstore or other online services. It is well worth the money.
Thanks, I might just have to buy that one. MaryElizabeth :thumbup:
Thanks guys, appreciate your comments and views. He's the best dog, and loves to play with whatever those things are from the truck, lol. MaryElizabeth
JBTaylor wrote:
MaryElizabeth wrote:
Not that I don't agree, he should pay his taxes. Most of what is happening in terms of investigations is just retaliation, with not much to go on. It all drama!!!
What I am really wondering, is if Sinatraman feels the same way about all multimillion dollar corporations, because each and every one of them funnels money out of USA or/and Canada to avoid paying taxes, from the car you drive, the appliances you buy, the clothes you buy, and the food buy from factory farms. The saddess part of this, is that the government actually makes it possible for them to do this. To think otherwise is to walk around with heads in the clouds. Be informed, and not from what you hear from mainstream news conglomerates.
Not that I don't agree, he should pay his taxes. M... (
show quote)
Most of the cases I've heard about involve multinational companies that make the money abroad and leave it there instead of bringing it into into the US which would subject it to our tax rates.
quote=MaryElizabeth Not that I don't agree, he sh... (
show quote)
well if you really want to know the truth about it all, I will send you alternative news link, because it goes way deeper than making the money aboard and leaving it there. If you want ...
Not that I don't agree, he should pay his taxes. Most of what is happening in terms of investigations is just retaliation, with not much to go on. It all drama!!!
What I am really wondering, is if Sinatraman feels the same way about all multimillion dollar corporations, because each and every one of them funnels money out of USA or/and Canada to avoid paying taxes, from the car you drive, the appliances you buy, the clothes you buy, and the food buy from factory farms. The saddess part of this, is that the government actually makes it possible for them to do this. To think otherwise is to walk around with heads in the clouds. Be informed, and not from what you hear from mainstream news conglomerates.
MWAC wrote:
totally off topic but MaryElizabeth... I love that statue and the quilt. :)
Oh thank you. The Madonna was the last thing my dad bought for my mom before he died, when I was 10. When mom died, 3 years ago, I brought the statue home with me. The quilt, the one behind the statue, I made with a group of kids at school many years ago. When they all moved on to higher education, I brought it home with me. The small table quilt that the statue was sitting on, was the first one that I pieced each section of the design together myself before actually quilting. That was a lot of time involved for such a little thing. I think I will just stick to buying the panel already pieced and just quilt, LOL. Thanks for checking out my first go around with AE settings. :D
Ok, here's what I have, LOL. Hope it at least passes. I sure did learn a bunch about the camera, over and above AE whilst doing it.
Camera - Canon - XSI 450D
Lens - EF 50 mm 1:1.8
Thanks a lot MWAC, much appreciated. :?
IS0 1600 -- SS 1/320 -- AE 1.8
ISO 1600 -- SS 1/20 -- AE 8.0
ISO 1600 -- SS 0''3 -- AE 22
ISO 1600 -- SS 1/8 -- AE 13
Peekayoh wrote:
MaryElizabeth wrote:
planepics wrote:
Peekayoh wrote:
tk wrote:
And on some examples we see the difference in light that enters the camera.
Jennleept wrote:
...........Shot with Canon 7D, 24-105 f/4.0L lens. Also, since I didn't see anything excluding it, I edited the last 2 with fill light as of course they were darker.
You might accuse me of splitting hairs but I'm going to say it anyway. The above are just two examples of the problem but I don't want you to think I'm picking on you.
It's true that a wide open aperture will admit more light than a smaller aperture however, that should not affect the overall exposure. In (A)perture priority mode, as you close down the aperture (make it smaller) your camera will automatically lengthen the shutter speed to compensate. Think of it like filling a bucket with water, it will take twice as long to fill the bucket if the tap is only half open.
Anyway, apart from differences in Depth of Field, your pictures (in this thread) should all have the same light levels. If not, well that's a lesson for another day.
quote=tk And on some examples we see the differen... (
show quote)
I normally would agree with you, but not this time (unless my camera did something wrong or I did. The first picture, taken at f32, on page 17, was so dark I couldn't even see it on my LCD screen and it was very dark when seen on the computer. I used my free trial version of PSE10 to lighten the pics and then transferred them to Picasa. I tried to get the original pic so I could post, but I can't seem to undo what I did.
quote=Peekayoh quote=tk And on some examples we ... (
show quote)
Now that migraine is gone, I am hoping to play and post my homework tomorrow. Just when I thought I was understanding, I thought I figured out the light, and thought what Jenn said about the light being the same, good analogy about the hose and water pressure, by the way. So help me here, the light should be the same right, just takes longer to move through???
quote=planepics quote=Peekayoh quote=tk And on ... (
show quote)
Pretty much so MaryElizabeth.
The bucket analogy works well because the individual Photosites (or Pixels) on the sensor are like buckets that get filled with Photons (the elementary particle of light). Each time you open the Aperture by one stop (say from f/5.6 to f/4), the Aperture exactly doubles in area so it lets in twice as many photons.
In order to get the same Exposure, it is necessary to cut the the shutter speed in half, so e.g. f/5.6 @1/50th gives the the same exposure as f/4 @1/100th.
quote=MaryElizabeth quote=planepics quote=Peeka... (
show quote)
Thanks a lot Peek, I think, lol.
Not to bore you with doggie shots, but it is the easiest for me whilst I play. I don't often have time to go photo opt hunting, but good old Sir Bentley is always ready and waiting...
So this is my first real attempt to play with notion, had dozens but only a few were worth even saving let alone posting.
Any suggestions??
His favourite toy, some part off semi truck, lol
Jennleept wrote:
Thank you for doing this! The summary was imformative and very to-the-point, which as a busy mom, I appreciate! And I love being able to focus on one aspect of photography, and just have fun with it! So speaking of fun, of course I shot one of my children! At the ball field, no less!! Point 1 - I would prob not normally crop with the subject dead center, but wanted to show more background. Point 2 - cropped out is the red slushee giving my son nice rosy red lips, something he would not admit ever!!!
Although the outcomes were as expected, I was pleased with the "bokeh" in image 1. Didn't really plan on that!
Shot with Canon 7D, 24-105 f/4.0L lens. Also, since I didn't see anything excluding it, I edited the last 2 with fill light as of course they were darker.
Thank you for doing this! The summary was imforma... (
show quote)
Hey Jenn, not photo info here, just wanted to tell you, you have one of the cutest wee boys, I have seen in a long time. So much expression on his little face. Great work mom and dad, lol
planepics wrote:
Peekayoh wrote:
tk wrote:
And on some examples we see the difference in light that enters the camera.
Jennleept wrote:
...........Shot with Canon 7D, 24-105 f/4.0L lens. Also, since I didn't see anything excluding it, I edited the last 2 with fill light as of course they were darker.
You might accuse me of splitting hairs but I'm going to say it anyway. The above are just two examples of the problem but I don't want you to think I'm picking on you.
It's true that a wide open aperture will admit more light than a smaller aperture however, that should not affect the overall exposure. In (A)perture priority mode, as you close down the aperture (make it smaller) your camera will automatically lengthen the shutter speed to compensate. Think of it like filling a bucket with water, it will take twice as long to fill the bucket if the tap is only half open.
Anyway, apart from differences in Depth of Field, your pictures (in this thread) should all have the same light levels. If not, well that's a lesson for another day.
quote=tk And on some examples we see the differen... (
show quote)
I normally would agree with you, but not this time (unless my camera did something wrong or I did. The first picture, taken at f32, on page 17, was so dark I couldn't even see it on my LCD screen and it was very dark when seen on the computer. I used my free trial version of PSE10 to lighten the pics and then transferred them to Picasa. I tried to get the original pic so I could post, but I can't seem to undo what I did.
quote=Peekayoh quote=tk And on some examples we ... (
show quote)
Now that migraine is gone, I am hoping to play and post my homework tomorrow. Just when I thought I was understanding, I thought I figured out the light, and thought what Jenn said about the light being the same, good analogy about the hose and water pressure, by the way. So help me here, the light should be the same right, just takes longer to move through???
ferrinmike wrote:
I guess the difference was this. Back on Feb. 26, 1979 I was living in Minot North Dakota, and the whole sun was covered, you only saw a glow around the edges. This eclipse you could see a ring around the moon. I remember it because my oldest son was born four days before the eclipse in North Dakota, sadly enough he just passed away 7 days ago, and services were in Saint George Utah, 20 miles away from the perfect RING OF FIRE.
fotowerks wrote:
A full annular eclipse results in what is known as "The Ring of Fire." Those who are viewing the eclipse outside the path of totality see a partial annular eclipse. The difference between a total and annular eclipse is that the moon is at a farther point in it's elliptical orbit about the earth, therefore obscuring a smaller portion of the sun resulting in the annular eclipse where you can see a "ring" of the sun around the shadow of the moon. In a total eclipse of the sun, the moon is closer in it's orbit and completely obscures the sun. Only the corona and resulting light is visible at totality.
A full annular eclipse results in what is known as... (
show quote)
I guess the difference was this. Back on Feb. 26,... (
show quote)
I am so very sorry for your loss. I too lost a son and know your pain, so no platitudes. Only know you and yours are in my heart throughout this agonizing time. Sending you lots of healing energy, and will keep you in my daily devotions. Many healing blessings.
:cry:
love the coke cola cases and satellite dish in the first shot. And such a beautiful girl in the second.
frenchcoast wrote:
MaryElizabeth wrote:
photo enhancement programs can remove watermarks, but they can not enlarge the picture, no matter how many pixels the original, it is sized down if facebook, and you end up with a pic no bigger than a couple square inches. My son is a graphic designer and know and understands the enhancement programs and have discussed it numerous times with me.
Everyone needs to remember everyone has a choice, don't like it, don't sign up. But please don't share things that are blatantly and sometime maliciously untrue about products that whilst not informed about. That's just not right.
photo enhancement programs can remove watermarks, ... (
show quote)
But thats the norm around here MaryElizabeth
quote=MaryElizabeth photo enhancement programs ca... (
show quote)
it's just not right, so my momma always said!