Some years back we had a family dinner on the first anniversary of my B.I.L's passing. I rather liked the light in this after dinner view of the table which had my Tilley hat on it.

It was thought that it could make a more memorable shot if I replaced my hat with the 'Cowboy' hat he was often to be seen wearing. The attached photo is what I've made from the original shot and a separate shot made of his hat at a later date and in a different location.

The room was shot on my Canon G16 point and shoot and the hat on my Canon 60D. I should have paid much more attention to the light and I think the size of the hat in the frame. It is a much more detailed image (which I've softened with a slight blur) but it still looks like it's dropped in.

I'm using AFFINITY v2, and I'm slow picking up pp but if anyone is able to offer some tips to assist in removing the floating appearance of the hat his siblings would appreciate it.

I'm not fully conversant with layers so the 'finished' image is all I have, apart from the originals. I'll be going back to restart this armed with better advice.

For most everyone, pixel resolution at 20MP is more than enough for any editing and / or printing needs. That 20MP to 20MP range is what the 'working professionals' need for a 2-page spread (magazine print), as if anyone was still printing or purchasing physical magazines in 2024. We see this reality in the slow upward migration of the top (flagship) pro DSLR models.

Examples:

Nikon
D3X - 24MP, 2010
D5 - 20MP, 2017
D6 - 21MP, 2020

Canon
1Ds-III - 21MP, 2007
1DX - 18MP, 2011
1DX-III - 20MP, 2016

Meanwhile, at the same time those flagship models were being released, all around the $6000 per body price range, even the entry-level models were reaching a standard 24MP resolution. The 'pro' full-frame models at one level-down from the 'flagship' bodies reached a 30- to 50MP range for the same timeframe, examples like the D810, D850 and 5DIV models, as well as the top full-frame mirrorless bodies typically all coming out around 45MP.

Personally, for my wildlife photography, I can 'see' the difference in cropping into the results in FF cameras with the same focal length lenses, where one body is 22MP and the other 24MP. I have more options with the images (camera) that has more pixels, even just a 2MP difference. I've also seen demonstrations of the massive print sizes and massive fine details of architecture and cityscapes captured at 45MP.

But again, for most everyone not shooting distant wildlife and not printing anything, buying bodies (sensors) beyond 24MP is just wasting money on capabilities you'll never need.

Several months ago and during a discussion about RAW data editing I sustained that the reason I was using proprietary software was because it made a difference when printing the files. Proprietary software PRESERVES the original colors of the file. This is not something that came from me, it was what my lab technician told me when I gave him for printing a RAW data converted to JPEG in Affinity Photo.

Several members of the forum argued that my technician was not correct. I keep on using proprietary software to edit my RAW data, Studio NX for Nikon and OM Workspace for Olympus. I sent an email to ON-1 about their RAW data software inquiring if I would get the true color of my files and this was the answer they gave me "We use our own RAW engine, so there will be differences between what you will get in either NX or Olympus software." I got a similar response from Affinity Photo. Nikon told me that their files are not compatible with Affinity Photo. I made no inquiries about Photoshop because I do not use it to edit my files anyways.

I rest my case.

I prefer to keep mine looking "natural". As if there wasn't any post-processing or editing done. So even when I do heavy post-processing, I still do it in a way that looks like any alterations are minimal.

But sometimes I see really good pictures that seem almost way too over-processed, yet still look amazing. I could never achieve that. Whenever I try going heavy on the sliders and masks, I end up with some cartoon-looking abomination.

So for me, I go with the natural look because I just don't know how to make good-looking heavily processed images. Not because I'm opposed to editing/processing or want to preserve the "natural look" or anything like that.

Do you think there are a lot of people like that? Those who only do "natural look" because they can't do the heavily-processed one and make it look good?

I didn't want to hijack a different thread, so I started this new one:

I have shot all of my images in RAW for many years as a pro.

I convert the files to DNG upon download. DNG file are "slightly" smaller than NEF.
However, I have found that is not necessarily true for Canon files.
I am seeing posts telling others to use the proprietary/native RAW setting over using DNG.

After years of use I don't know of any disadvantages of DNG, but I like the advantage of the sidecar (.xmp)
being incorporated inside the DNG format so that it isn't lost or disassociated.
Other than that, I don't know of the advantages.

What are the explicit advantages of using the proprietary RAW vs DNG? CHG_Canon has mentioned this before.

Let's all keep it civil.

I've been taking bird and wildlife photos with my Nikon 300mm F4 for a few years now and it's doing a great job. I also use a teleconverter that brings me up to 420mm at 5.6. But, alas, I want more reach. Right now my top two contenders are the Nikon 200-500 or the Tamron 150-600 g2. I love my Nikon glass, but I know I will want more, so I tilt towards the Tamron.

Also, I do like my prime and I get great results with it. I noticed Nikon has a 500mm f5.6 prime out there, but it costs over twice as much as the 2-500. Sigma also has a few long lenses not outrageously over priced, but just quite expensive, like a 300-800mm 5.6, a 500mm 5.6, and an 80mm 5.6.

I was wondering if anyone has experience with any of these lenses, I'd love to get your thoughts.

Oh yea, I upgraded from my D7200 to a Z-6 ~ it's awesome.

I am an amateur learn-as-I-go hobbyist. I use a Sony a6000 and am fairly comfortable with its basic features. I am renting a Sony a6500 body as a second camera for a big trip to Alaska. I won’t have much time to get familiar with it so can anyone give me some tips to help me out? Major differences to be aware of? Tricks? I’ve read lots of comparisons, know about the touch screen and that the menu may be simpler/different. (A Sony a6000 was not available for rent.). Also renting Sigma 100-400 with MC-11 adapter. Not sure which body I’ll put that on. Just have the two kit lenses otherwise. Hope to minimize lens changing). I will have a tripod/monopod but want to experience Alaska, not just see it through a camera lens. Taking several se cards and a portable hard-drive. We are doing a driving trip on our own, not a cruise. Denali, glacier hikes, kayaking, bears! Thanks.

Oh happy day the little brown truck just delivered my S7 yesterday , I only had a few minutes to shoot and the initial response is amazing , I found what you see in the screen is what you get , it’s so easy to adjust in the frame before shooting , and wow what great results , I got the package from Adorama with the 24-70 F4 and the adapter since I normally shoot with a D850 and D810. I will add some photos this week and hope others that go for Nikon are as amazaed as I am . Thanks the race is on with cannon ,Sony, fugi , Olympus all now in the race , I chose the Nikon because all my other lens will work, so I am in the mirrorless world now

At a work site, I have won some "points" that give me the option to get at no charge to me

Nikon D5600 with Nikkor 18-55 f/35.5.6 and 70-300 f/5-63 lenses plus Nikon Macro Kit Nikkor 40 mm f 2.8 + Nikkor 10-20 mm f/4.5-5.6 lens
or
Nikon D7200 w Nikkor 18-150 f 3.5-56 lens
or
Nikon D7500 w Nikkor 18-150 f 3.5-56 lens

I could probably pay an up charge for the Macro/Landcsape kit with the other cameras

My photography is places, buildings, outdoor stuff, things - not sports.
This will likely be my last photo purchase at my age as I keep things in good shape, a long time. Still use my D 200 without issue, for example.

I have an older Nikkor 28-200 lens

So, what makes the most sense here? Or none of the above?

Thanks