Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Posts for: spectraflash
Jan 9, 2024 23:20:07   #
Great explanation by mwsilvers although I would add one caveat to shooting JPEG only: in the event you shoot some incredible images at some point, you may wish you had captured them with the deep data embedded within RAW files. Factors like greater bit depth and increased dynamic range can maximize image quality potential far better than in-camera JPEG processing.
Go to
Sep 12, 2016 21:02:56   #
There are many options for image processing and amateur photographers usually settle on a software solution without considering some critical facts. Adobe Photoshop with Lightroom costs 33 cents a day. For less than a cup of coffee, you can have the most widely used, industry leading software. These two programs are easy to learn and enjoyable to master. It's not like learning Quickbooks or Excel. The results of everything you learn are instantly and visibly tangible. It's a totally fun experience!

I'm a professional shooter and bought Lightroom a few years ago. Not only is the software very intuitive, it is a powerful, non-destructive editing package with features that balance efficient productivity and unrivaled creativity. Couple Lightroom with Photoshop, which I use for post-production clean ups, and you have an editing solution that no other software can begin to match. Photoshop offers so many advantages over other editing programs and there are dozens of top-rated, third party applications that dovetail into its interface. Countless plug-ins and presets are available, one of which is the recent free release of the Google Nik suite of plug-ins. There are hundreds of free online tutorials too. Youtube is a veritable library of free learning.

Gimp, DPP and the others have only a fragment of the image editing market share for a reason. They're inferior offerings compared to the Adobe solution. That said, you can get good results without Photoshop and Lightroom. But if you aspire to improve your photography, why would you limit your capabilities right from the start?

Best of luck to you.
Go to
Jan 11, 2015 19:55:24   #
There's lots of great advice here and it seems that basic unfamiliarity with the gear is a big part of the issue. Personally, I think the shots are quite decent, considering everything. Did you consider that some motion blur indicates action and movement in an image? It's not always a bad thing.

There's a great book on the subject that might enlighten you, if shooting action is your passion. It's called "Understanding Shutter Speed: Creative Action and Low-Light Photography Beyond 1/125 Second"

When I shoot movement in compromised lighting situations, a strobe is essential equipment, along with a fast lens. My go-to lens for action shots is the Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II. Along with my 600EX coupled to a flash bracket. Of course, you have to be fairly close for the flash to be effective, which varies, depending on the flash output, focal length, f-stop, etc.

You can continue to get great results with your existing gear, however, with a bit of knowledge. Consider checking out the book. And remember that some motion blur and grain adds to certain photos when shooting action and sports. Good luck.
Go to
Jan 11, 2015 01:06:51   #
This response is a bit technical for simply printing a cell phone pic, but it reveals basic imaging principles and may be useful for some people.

For most inkjet or photo printers, your target resolution should be minimally 150 pixels per inch (ppi) at the specified size. The ideal resolution would actually be closer to 250 ppi. You can easily re-size (not re-sample) in Photoshop to check the image dimensions and the largest printable size possible. In Photoshop, go to IMAGE > IMAGE SIZE > uncheck RESAMPLE > check CONSTRAIN PROPORTIONS and then vary the number in the RESOLUTION box to 150 or higher. You'll note the image dimensions change as you do this and that will tell you how large you can print it for optimal results. There are apps and plug-ins for up-sampling (adding pixels) but it's always better to print images at their native resolutions.

On another note, anyone making tonal or color adjustments to an image should realize that any modifications they make are specific to their own monitor characteristics. Unless a screen is calibrated using a colorimeter, the printed result will vary widely. (I've noticed some extreme editing in the examples posted here.) Consider reading up on color management and how an inexpensive colorimeter device can help you calibrate your display. A properly calibrated monitor is essential and allows you to edit your photos to achieve and print accurate color. Uncalibrated screens yield unpredictable, often disastrous results.
Go to
Jan 11, 2015 00:29:36   #
I concur. Watermarks detract from fully appreciating an image.
Go to
Jan 9, 2015 20:02:13   #
I buy a lot of gear and I've heard that Abe's isn't quite as "honest" as you might expect. B&H doesn't always have the lowest prices, but their prices are fair. I always consider that slight price differential to be the cost of peace of mind. B&H has the very best customer service in the industry and if you have an issue with your purchases, their policies will prove to be worthy of their prices every time.

I can recount several purchases where B&H has come to my rescue. A new $3,500 body I purchased arrived and had a tiny black spec within the viewfinder... probably on the focusing screen. With a single call, they immediately re-shipped the camera without waiting for the defective one to be returned. On another occasion, B&H issued me a credit when the lens I purchased dropped in price by $100 the day after I bought it.

That level of customer care comes at a cost, however, which is the price difference between the rock-bottom deals you may find from vendors unlikely to match B&H's return policies.
Go to
Aug 15, 2013 00:21:52   #
It depends on the subject and the shooter's skill level. For instance, in sports or action photography, you have to shoot a lot and weed through to pick the great shots. Studio work is different and I'm siding with donrent in that planning is critical to making a perfect photograph. Subject matter usually determines the process. Personality is a factor too. Some love to shoot and cull through their images, others prefer careful setup to make a few well-executed photos. It's all good as long as you're being creative!
Go to
Aug 14, 2013 15:57:30   #
Vhopkins25 wrote:
Funny you say that, because I was wondering the same thing! Not exactly to that depth ;) but definitely the grand idea of it. I will check into it! Thanks for pointing that out!


You're welcome. You may want to check out the ColorMunki Smile from Xrite too. It's an affordable colorimeter from the best color solutions company out there. Also worth noting, when you first calibrate a display, it may look slightly unusual. This is a normal reaction as your eyes have become accustomed to viewing the screen as it was. It takes a little while to get used to the corrected display, particularly if the gamma was previously way off.

Good luck to you!
Go to
Aug 14, 2013 14:35:40   #
Hi, the exposure doesn't seem too bad to me, which makes me wonder if your screen is displaying images accurately. I'll admit being a bit of a gadget fanatic, but a colorimeter is really a vital piece of equipment.

I can't stress enough how important it is to gamma correct and calibrate monitors, and even laptops on a regular basis. All the color and tonal decisions we make are irrelevant unless our screens display images accurately. Even inexpensive colorimeters like the Pantone Huey, or the Datacolor Spyder can make a huge difference in displaying (and ultimately correcting) images accurately. There are more advanced options, like Xrite's Colormunki series of colorimeters and spectrophotometers too. These devices are crucial to every serious photographer's workflow.

Sorry for the rant -ya got me going on my color management speech there! :-D
Go to
Aug 14, 2013 00:36:06   #
Hi, It's a nice photo but as mentioned by others, looks lifeless due to the lack of catch light in the eyes. The light in this shot is coming in hard from the left side, making a very dramatic effect. Think of the eyes as spheres. The catch light would just hit the side of his eyeball, as shown in my example. I've added light in the left side only because the actual light source wouldn't reach his other eye. As for technique, it begins with observing the way eyes are lit under various lighting conditions. With practice, you'll be able to paint in the right shape and amount of catch light. However, I always try to capture the right amount of light in the eyes when shooting to minimize time consuming touch-ups. Also, when adding details, I always work on a separate layer which allows me to vary the opacity of the edits. Good luck.


Go to
Aug 13, 2013 22:29:40   #
I think this is a great shot as it is. The swans add an element of intrigue to the photo. Without the swans, the image would be less interesting. In a perfect world, there might be a distinguished character, perhaps smoking a pipe while admiring the doors. It might have improved the photo but details like that aren't something one can easily influence. As for depth-of-field, it's perfect as shot. The reason is, the foreground doors that are in focus have already defined that there is a row of interesting, colorful doors, each with a unique pattern. The distant doors do not need to be sharp since we've already surmised that there is a series of cool looking doors. We can tell they're all interesting to some degree, which is all that's needed to communicate the idea. It's like cropping off the top of a subject's head to better frame the face. We know what a head is shaped like so we don't always need to see all of it. We assume the rest of the person's head is there, just as we assume the other doors are equally interesting as the ones in focus. It's a great photo and thanks for sharing it.
Go to
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.