Very nice landscape! I like the fact that the HDR and Topaz adjustments don't look overdone. Congrats on your new toy.
David Popham wrote:
Thanks Jim for the quick response. It is amazing how each day I discover just how ignorant I am. What's "Drop Box"? Does it cost to belong?
Dropbox is free, but they do have a premium service for a fee. The free membership gives you 2GB, and you can increase that when you refer others. The irl is
www.dropbox.com. Just go to that site, and you can register for a free account. It does integrate with your browser, I use Chrome, but it will work well with MS IE, and probably others (like Firefox, Safari, etc.).
There are other file sharing sites as well, Google also gives you 2GB, maybe more. You can sign up for Google+ to get that service. So that's another option.
Jim
David Popham wrote:
Hi James,
Thanks so much for taking on this challenge. I am quite new at post processing images and was able to persuade the family treasurer to fork out the dough for PS CS6 as my "retirement" gift <grin>.
Recently, I read about photo stacking in PS as a means of keeping all of the elements in focus. So I gave it a try, and the results bombed. However, what I was able to do was to still stack the photos and do the merging by hand. It was tedious. I also learned was that I would have to use "mirror up" to be successful.
That's the story. Now my question. If we do have a question (such as the one above) we wish to share, how would you like the image/images presented? For example, I think that my photostacking (six layers) problem could overwhelm this site.
Again, thanks so much for taking on this challenge.
David
Hi James, br Thanks so much for taking on this cha... (
show quote)
I've seen articles about focus stacking, but must admit I haven't tried it yet. It is intriguing, so I'm sure I'll make an effort sooner or later. Hopefully, someone here can offer some advice in the meantime.
Congratulations on your retirement and your acquisition of CS6.
As for sharing examples of your efforts, I don't think a file or two posted here will be a problem. I would try to follow the guidelines for posting found in the site's rules. If you have a large number of files, or large files in general, I suggest using Dropbox and include a link to the file or files you want to share. There are other file sharing sites as well.
Jim
naturepics43 wrote:
I've read on a lot of threads that EVERY image needs sharpening & some amount of PP.
I shoot mostly nature (birds) & close up flower & insect photos.
My main experience so far has been with Nikon NX2 software & very minor tweaks to the raw image. If it needs more than 1 or 1.5 on the sharpening slider I stop & move on to another image. Am I being too critical ? I also have PSE 9, but.......
Is there a way to judge how sharp an image needs to be before you spend time to "enhance" it?
I've read on a lot of threads that EVERY image nee... (
show quote)
I'm not sure every image needs sharpening, it depends on your subjective perception, how well focused the image is in the first place, camera shake, etc. Of course, if you're starting with a RAW file, white balance will always be applied by whatever conversion software you use typically. So, I guess it's fair to say some PP is done, even if it's just the conversion your camera does going from the data supplied by sensor to the jpeg you might end up with.
rmalarz wrote:
You should have years of fun with you new camera.
--Bob
I bought the FZ200 in lieu of a much more expensive long lens for my DSLR. I seriously considered the Canon SX50, for its ridiculously long zoom. But in the end, I opted for the FZ200 for the f2.8 through the whole range, albeit a more modest 600mm equivalent (but still generous).
romanticf16 wrote:
FYI they are roses.
I thought so, but I'm not very knowledgeable about flowers. My neighbor's yard is well landscaped though, I should get some more, and let them educate me as I do. They would probably like copies too.
Ernie Misner wrote:
A very nice shot and wonderful new camera. Life is good, huh? I think flowers past their prime sometimes have more interesting color. Great work.
Thanks, I actually meant to post a different one. This one isn't well composed, it's off center.
I agree that 'past their prime' can be interesting.
Experimenting with in-camera HDR and my new Lumix FZ200.
Unknown flowers in my neighbor's yard.
bcheary wrote:
http://www.lightstalking.com/ltr/
Thanks - I always appreciate a link to something I probably would not have stumbled on myself. You are a gentleman and a scholar!
Macromad wrote:
Hi, Thank you for starting and running this section. I have no doubt that you and all those who assist with advice will get all the credit and thanks you deserve. Look forward to learning more about this maze.
I appreciate your kind words and support! I must admit I am counting on the good will and expertise of participants. I have lots of good will, but little meaningful expertise.
I agree the nature of the software can be a technical maze, but I hope we can touch on more than just the button-clicks. When I was in the darkroom as a teenager, I quickly realized I could make a different print every day, even while using the same negative. I came to appreciate the art of the process that came after pressing the shutter release on the camera.
The art I speak of came from the imagination, not just the technical steps used to achieve the print. I've seen comments from time-to-time disparaging PP, implying, or even expressly stating, that getting 'it right in the camera' is superior. Maybe, but it misses the point to an extent. Were Ansel Adams alive today, would anyone say to him "you didn't get it right in the camera" when he revisited a negative in the darkroom 10 years after he made the original?
I contend PP is an important part of the process. Thoughtful adjustments can, and DO, make images better.
Jim
That's funny. I failed the Rorshach test...
Wow! The after image does look like an Audobon rendering. You did a fantastic job!
naturepics43 wrote:
Didn't mean to offend. I'm very interested in basic PP as I know very, very little about using my Elements 9. Looking forward to seeing what direction this new section takes. Thanks for the invite.
No offense taken - I was afraid I left the wrong impression. Thanks for checking into the PP section.
naturepics43 wrote:
When you say "clever creations", are you talking about the "way-out" PP techniques or will "basic" PP techniques be discussed or is this just to post "clever" PP'ed images ?
It wasn't meant to anything more than an invitation. Not being much of a writer, perhaps I chose my words poorly. Myself, I'm not that interested in 'way-out.' The floor is open.
Jim
Snap Shot wrote:
Jim,
Where do I find this section in UHH?
Here is a link directly to the section:
http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/s-116-1.htmlYou can also subscribe to this, or any other section, by going to the Home page (click Home at the top of this page), then click on "All Sections." This will display all the sections on UHH. From there, click "Subscribe" to any section you're interested in following. After you have done this, you will see the sections you've subscribed to when you go to the Home page.
Jim