Check out Underwater Photography Forum section of our forum.
fine art lilies
Jan 30, 2014 08:54:26 #
These are my fine art lily images
Jan 30, 2014 09:02:33 #
Jan 30, 2014 09:03:45 #
Check out People Photography section of our forum.
Jan 30, 2014 09:10:45 #
Jan 30, 2014 09:13:12 #
Jan 31, 2014 08:48:00 #
nekon wrote:
These are my fine art lily images
Fabulous series nekon, love all of them! :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:
Jan 31, 2014 10:32:07 #
Check out Astronomical Photography Forum section of our forum.
Jan 31, 2014 10:44:55 #
nekon wrote:
These are my fine art lily images
Looks like you've finally learned about noise reduction. It looks like an old dog really can learn new tricks.
Jan 31, 2014 14:46:21 #
dsturr wrote:
Looks like you've finally learned about noise reduction. It looks like an old dog really can learn new tricks.
Most of these were made with point and shoot cameras, and this old dog learned the tricks as a pup.I don'use noise reduction software, I just get exposure right.
Jan 31, 2014 15:07:25 #
Jan 31, 2014 15:33:05 #
Check out Software and Computer Support for Photographers section of our forum.
Jan 31, 2014 15:34:36 #
nekon wrote:
Most of these were made with point and shoot cameras, and this old dog learned the tricks as a pup.I don'use noise reduction software, I just get exposure right.
2048.jpg (Faded Rose) was made wtith your Panasonic and it's noisy; color and luminance. The gray scale image in this series has some posterization. Getting it right out of the camera is great but 8 bit files don't react well to PP. There's only 2048 levels to work with. Of course they may look just fine to you but I'm just telling you what I see. You should have shot raw + JPEG. Sorry to be the only negative voice here.
Jan 31, 2014 16:00:58 #
dsturr wrote:
2048.jpg (Faded Rose) was made wtith your Panasonic and it's noisy; color and luminance. The gray scale image in this series has some posterization. Getting it right out of the camera is great but 8 bit files don't react well to PP. There's only 2048 levels to work with. Of course they may look just fine to you but I'm just telling you what I see. You should have shot raw + JPEG. Sorry to be the only negative voice here.
n
Negativity doesn't worry me, as there are faults in every image you'll see-the important thing is the impact each image has on the viewer, and no amount of nit-picking can kill that-if you wanted to, you could find fault with Ansell Adams,Henri Cartier-Bresson,Gene Smith,etc,But you can't kill the impact, or the sales.
Jan 31, 2014 17:48:49 #
nekon wrote:
n
Negativity doesn't worry me, as there are faults in every image you'll see-the important thing is the impact each image has on the viewer, and no amount of nit-picking can kill that-if you wanted to, you could find fault with Ansell Adams,Henri Cartier-Bresson,Gene Smith,etc,But you can't kill the impact, or the sales.
Negativity doesn't worry me, as there are faults in every image you'll see-the important thing is the impact each image has on the viewer, and no amount of nit-picking can kill that-if you wanted to, you could find fault with Ansell Adams,Henri Cartier-Bresson,Gene Smith,etc,But you can't kill the impact, or the sales.
Glad to hear you say that. It's a step back or two from "I always get it right in camera-The example given on natural hdr post processing was part of my photoshop tips for people who can't get it right in camera." That's basically asking someone to look for faults. And what I found wasn't nit-picking. It would have been if I pointed out those to a newbie. Now don't go and take it back.
Jan 31, 2014 19:23:35 #
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Check out Traditional Street and Architectural Photography section of our forum.