Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Posts for: donmikes
Page: 1 2 next>>
May 11, 2020 11:34:49   #
These are scans of Kodachrome slides I took many years ago.








Go to
May 10, 2020 12:00:25   #
GeorgeK wrote:
September 2018 when we could travel.


Many excellent photos are posted by UHH members, but this is not one of them.

Cinque Terre is a beautiful area -- five very picturesque towns situated at the base of mountains along the sea and linked by a hiking trail above them. Since you were hiking, I expected a series of photos with interesting perspectives. Instead you submitted a seascape that one could see in thousands of places throughout the world and which hardly reflects the unique characteristics of Cinque Terre. The photo is also not particularly interesting from a light or composition standpoint -- a third of the image is out-of-focus, uninteresting foliage, and there is nothing exceptional about the sky or the sea.

You received a few of the usual "nice capture" responses, but how many people do you think clicked on the link and then immediately clicked off in disappointment? I don't want to be mean, and I understand the idea, "if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all". I also understand that there is a wide range of talent and experience among the members, and I don't want to discourage anyone from contributing, but I think some blunt, honest critique is warranted.

You are not the first one to have difficulty with the basic question, "will viewers find this interesting?."
Go to
Dec 20, 2019 07:34:43   #
Ron Krause wrote:
I just purchased a new lens (Tamron 18-400) and B&H sent me a TAP-in CON. I am completely lost as to how to us it, what it does and how to go about using it. Is it something I must do or is it a correction device. I would appreciate any and all advice. Thanks in advance to all. Everyone have a great holiday season!!


The menu on my Nikon D7000 includes an option to fine tune autofocus, and it seems to be lens-specific. While I have never had the need to use this feature, I wonder if it would produce the same results as the Tamron tap-in console.
Go to
Dec 5, 2019 14:54:42   #
I'm considering buying a Tamron 100-400mm lens for bird photography with my Nikon D7000. (Although there are obvious advantages to longer alternatives such as 150-600, I don't want such a big heavy lens.)

I am somewhat put off, however, by the idea that I should also buy a tap-in console to ensure that the lens focuses properly. Is it unreasonable to expect that a product should work well upon receipt, rather than asking customers to purchase additional products to properly calibrate it.?

I'd be interested in hearing others' opinions on this issue, as well as whether owners of this lens really find the console necessary and helpful.
Go to
Nov 23, 2019 17:09:38   #
davidrb wrote:
You present a classroom example. Now, go out and shoot in real time situations. What do you want the image to be? What background are you after? At what distance will your rig be from your subject? In what surroundings is your subject? Other than the subject what else do you plan to include in your image? And the most critical question: What are the lighting conditions at the time of shooting? Answer these questions and then decide your aperture. Knowing which apertures result in different results will allow you to decide. Only one way to learn that, do it!
You present a classroom example. Now, go out and ... (show quote)


This is not a classroom, non-realtime example. I have shot probably 1000s of bird pictures at various apertures and considered all the factors you mention. In my experience:
- shooting at 5.6 to achieve a soft background has still produced nice sharp images of the main subject.
- I do not perceive much of a difference in image quality between F5.6 and F8 - not enough to justify sacrificing soft
background objectives.

Nevertheless, I often shoot at F8 because i want to assure myself that I have attempted to achieve the sharpest possible image, whether or not I can see the difference.

I'm simply interested in others' thinking about these tradeoffs.
Go to
Nov 23, 2019 10:52:31   #
WDCash wrote:
What camera and lens are you using? I did a bunch of testing with my sigma 120-400 and found my IQ begins to improve at 6.3 and significantly at f7.1. So I try to stay at or above 7.1. Sometimes opening all the way for close shots but normally going for as much sharpness as my lens will give.
But depending on your lens it may be different. Example, I'm hoping to purchase a Canon 100-400 type II . This lens is always tack sharp from f4 up


I am using a Nikon D7000 with a Nikon 18-300 zoom. At 300mm, the maximum aperture is 5.6. I've shot many bird photos at 5.6 and have been happy with the sharpness. More often, I shoot in the 8-10 range to get max sharpness.

I plan to buy a Tamron 100-400 in the future.
Go to
Nov 22, 2019 14:37:28   #
We know that mid-range apertures of most lenses (often around F8) generally produce sharper images than larger apertures and also are somewhat more forgiving if the focus point is slightly off subject. On the other hand, larger apertures can produce the softer, out-of-focus backgrounds that are often desired and also, at a given shutter speed, allow use of a lower ISO setting. I'm interested in hearing how experienced bird photographers address these tradeoffs for birds in stationary positions as well as birds in flight. What are your usual priorities? To what extent are you willing to sacrifice some sharpness to achieve a pleasing, out-of-focus background?

Note: I realize that this forum is birds in flight or on water, so technically does not cover not birds on land. If you believe the question is better suited to the general forum, please redirect it.
Go to
Oct 24, 2019 19:16:13   #
artBob wrote:
You seem to have an attitude about something,

So, I am very confused, with your accusations, I think, of eliteness, when in reality I am caring about true assessment and fulfilling one's life.


As the OP, I appreciate the helpful comments and suggestions from the OTHER respondents and agree with Linda's viewpoint.
Go to
Oct 24, 2019 14:13:55   #
artBob wrote:
You make very good points.

For a serious photographer, I wonder why they would even want to imitate a painting. For the most part in the art world, "faux" is a bad word. To make a clay sculpture look like bronze, for example, or to try to make watercolor look like oil paint. Such fakery almost always comes off second rate.

If photography is a real art, and I think it is, making it fake being an oil painting makes no sense.


It is possible to be a serious photographer and still want to satisfy one's curiosity about the capabilities of editing software. I prefer photography to oil painting, but sometimes I have an image that I think might also look good as an oil painting. Having no painting skills, I like to play around with a simulated effect.
Go to
Oct 24, 2019 14:01:56   #
Linda From Maine wrote:
Is there anything in the guided edits tab? I've only peeked in that area once as I'm usually in "expert" mode for working with layers. Which filters did you try - the ones in the drop-down menu at top? Often the adjustment sliders in the filter window can produce more pleasing than the default one-click.

How much have you worked with the specialty brushes? How about layers? Can you explain more about what has not worked for you?

If you are interested in other software (free), from a PP Forum topic I found:
https://www.mediachance.com/dap/ (Dynamic Auto Painter)
and https://fotosketcher.com/


.
Is there anything in the guided edits tab? I've on... (show quote)



Linda,

I've tried most of the drop down filters and used the various sliders. I've also used the impressionist brush but primarily with the basic options rather than the specialty choices. As i said. I tried many of the techniques shown on YouTube, which include use of layers.

Below is one attempt that worked pretty well using the palette knife filter, but I haven't been able to achieve the same effect with another photo. The second one was done using the techniques described here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=phl48dTE1KI

Thanks for the suggestions about other software.




Go to
Oct 24, 2019 13:34:52   #
E.L.. Shapiro wrote:
Question: What aspects of an oil painting are you trying to imitate or simulate? For example, texture, canvas or linen slabs, brush strokes, glaze, etc.?

If you would post an image that you want this special effect applied to, I may be able to provide you with a simple method.


I selected canvas in one of my attempts, but generally I have been experimenting and have not been trying to imitate any particular style.

Please feel free to try your hand at these if you wish:




Go to
Oct 23, 2019 13:59:04   #
I would like to learn what techniques others use in Photoshop Elements (NOT Photoshop) to make a photo look like an oil painting. My experiments with the various filters as well as with many of the techniques demonstrated on YouTube have usually produced outcomes that look like bad photos -- or really bad paintings. (I have Elements 15.)
Go to
Jul 25, 2019 17:03:03   #
Numerous edits, most important of which were cropping, adding person walking, and adding a bit of mist.


(Download)
Go to
May 22, 2018 11:03:47   #
Recently, another member posted a very good photo and attributed the results partly to the nice saturation he had achieved by slightly underexposing the image. He mentioned that he had learned this technique during his Kodachrome film days.

I also used this technique when I used to shoot film and initially did the same in my early days of shooting digital. I never do so anymore and have come to believe, however, that this is not necessary and perhaps counterproductive. In post-processing, it is easy to change exposure and there are many other possibilities to change saturation – not only the saturation and vibrance sliders, but also a combination of adjustments to highlights, shadows, white point, black point, contrast, clarity etc. Also, underexposing narrows the dynamic range that could be achieved by correctly exposing or overexposing (expose to the right).

Am I correct?
Go to
Apr 12, 2018 12:58:21   #
Here is a method that works well for me:

On the Iphone
-Select the photo(s) you want to transfer.
-Click the the icon that appears below as a rectangle and arrow.
-Click Icloud Photo Sharing (You don't need to have stored photos on Icloud or use Icloud Drive.)
-Click Shared Album.
-Click New Shared Album (important, if you want the photos to go to you only.)
-Type in the name the new shared album.
-Click Next.
-Type in your email address
-Click Next
-Click Post

On Your Mac
-The photo will appear in your shared photos section (in my case in Iphoto, but I assume Photos works the same way.)
-Click file
-Click import to library
-Once in the library, you can process the photo as you wish, move it to Lightroom etc.

Perhaps there is a way to have the transfer go directly from the phone to Lightroom and skip Iphoto or Photos, but not being a Lightroom user, I can't help you there.
Go to
Page: 1 2 next>>
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.