Posts for: steve_stoneblossom
Feb 5, 2024 09:50:57 #
User ID wrote:
That "axiom" crops up all over UHH, usually delivered as if its "The Great Wisdom". That alone should inform you that its bogus. Even worse, one version of it is often attributed to Adams, a loud clear warning of its dubiosity.
I would argue that the axiom is not restricted to the world of photography.
Feb 5, 2024 08:38:10 #
CHG_CANON wrote:
... That Canon owners buy, use and achieve more success...
Doesn't this premise contradict the "user vs tool" axiom?
Jan 22, 2024 08:57:54 #
Jan 15, 2024 07:51:37 #
Robinbiorra wrote:
I own a D7100 which I am quite happy.....but I hav... (show quote)
I currently own both D700 and D750, as well as D7100.
I bought the 700 when it was introduced, it was a light-years upgrade from my previous D70. Great low-light performance. But 12mp has its limitations; if you often find yourself cropping your images severely, you may find yourself wishing you had more to work with. If I were to be honest (with myself), I would say that I mostly keep it for sentimental reasons; I really loved using it in its time, but now it's an emergency backup.
The 750 is my workhorse. Also great in low light, more mp, easier when I need to crop, and a full frame sensor.
The 7100 is also a good camera, but not as good in low light. I bought it because I was gifted a 17-55/f2.8 lens when I was shooting with the D70, which I loved and wanted to be able to use without reducing the pixels of the 700 (gotta love good glass). I still use it with my full frame lenses (the 17-55 was damaged, now only zooms 17-~35), particularly when I want a bit more reach, but only in good light situations or on a tripod.
Personally I would recommend the 750. But I am not familiar with the other cameras you're considering. And while the 700 was and is a great camera, there are better choices going forward.
Dec 5, 2023 09:29:24 #
CHG_CANON wrote:
Think back to when you knew nothing about 30 megapixel sensors. Would you still want to be that person?
I am the same person, only pixelated.
Dec 4, 2023 08:29:50 #
CHG_CANON wrote:
Successful photographers do the one thing the unsuccessful are unwilling to do: they always buy the camera with the most pixels.
Two pages back you made the exact same statement, but about full frame cameras. Are you getting sloppy, or are you satirizing your own satire?
That question is rhetorical.
Sep 18, 2023 23:53:50 #
SalvageDiver wrote:
I use PS and Topaz Photo AI, Sharpen and set to motion blur. Varied the amount until the motion blur was minimized.
Note that if you try this over the whole image, the amount of motion blur will vary so it make take a few tries for different areas and then blend the best parts together.
Note that if you try this over the whole image, the amount of motion blur will vary so it make take a few tries for different areas and then blend the best parts together.
Thank you.
Sep 18, 2023 12:29:23 #
SalvageDiver wrote:
This is simply motion blur, not a fast enough shutter speed for panning effects relative to the motion of the plane.
This effect isn't just on the fins, but throughout the images, especially the details in the cowling. It can be also seen in the details around the wheels and the reflections on the tail.
When you solve for the motion blur, the fin images, you illustrated, become very similar.
Attached is image 2 with and without motion blur
This effect isn't just on the fins, but throughout the images, especially the details in the cowling. It can be also seen in the details around the wheels and the reflections on the tail.
When you solve for the motion blur, the fin images, you illustrated, become very similar.
Attached is image 2 with and without motion blur
May I ask how you reduced the motion blur?
Sep 18, 2023 08:07:05 #
ecblackiii wrote:
It was the panning speed, which did not match the airplane's movement.
Based on OP's enlargements I would agree. Speed, in conjunction with the direction of camera movement in relation to the actual movement of the airplane.
It appears that neither shot panned 100% parallel to the plane's flight path, hence in one photo the bolts angle from upper left to lower right, while the other angles from lower left to upper right.
I don't know if a faster shutter would be possible, but that might help. Nevertheless, nice job!
Sep 5, 2023 16:56:06 #
olemikey wrote:
Now that I look closer I see the wink!! sorry....s... (show quote)
Personally I think that the park services advice to keep 100 yds from bears much closer than I would want to get.
Sep 5, 2023 16:03:59 #
olemikey wrote:
I hope you are joking - a really bad idea....a Grizzly mother and cubs..any closer is an invitational death wish!!!!
Hence the 'wink'.
Sep 4, 2023 08:19:51 #
Jon Erdmann wrote:
I tried cropping this, but resolution would suffer greatly...
Why not just get closer?
Aug 14, 2023 07:31:53 #
So easy to accidentally change that setting! Glad you resolved the issue.
Jul 28, 2023 08:40:26 #
In the event of someone stumbling upon this thread in hopes of solving a similar problem, I took the easy way out. Rather than trying to sync LRC, I merely installed the updated version on my wife's computer. I continue to do 99% of post processing on my computer, and the 1% I need the updated features I process on the second, then copy the finished product onto the external hard drives of both. I'm not concerned about the LR catalogs not matching, I know if what I'm looking for is not on one, it's on the other.
Jun 5, 2023 12:49:58 #
The premise is that dividing the image dimensions by 300 gives you the approximate largest size for a good quality print. You can print larger, but quality will decrease. But 3 times larger? Perhaps, if the original image is a very high quality image. I guess a lot depends on what you feel is acceptable quality.
Full disclosure, I have limited printing experience.
Full disclosure, I have limited printing experience.