How does NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC do it? (Page 8): If you had participated in as many threads as I have been in UHH, you would have seen dozens of my shots posted in some of my over 2200...

gwilliams6

Feiertag wrote:

Thank you for your congratulations to me. I have nothing to gauge your success that is happening around the world because you have not posted any pictures on this site. Why not illustrate your shots that are being published all over the world.

If you had participated in as many threads as I have been in UHH, you would have seen dozens of my shots posted in some of my over 2200 posts.

You can start with just a small collection of my 40+years as a pro, here on one of my sites:

https://www.facebook.com/GSWilliamsPhotography/

gwilliams6

burkphoto wrote:

Then there’s Daniel J. Cox, who used to use Nikons, but now uses Panasonic gear.

https://naturalexposures.com/

https://naturalexposures.com/portfolio/published-works/

Go to his blog page for more info. He occasionally visits UHH.

https://naturalexposures.com/corkboard/

Yes and many excellent pros who use great Panasonic gear, sorry for my omission Burk.

gwilliams6

Soul Dr. wrote:

Lot of noise on persons's body and swim trunks. What ISO was this taken at?

Also you are probably used to seeing jpegs. Jpeg compression programs also put in sharpness and noise reduction, especially at higher ISOs. I turned off all camera-based high ISO automatic noise reduction for my jpegs in my Sonys. And this shot was from the raw file, which DOES not add ANY noise reduction or sharpness. I prefer to do any noise reduction, sharpening or any other color or exposure corrections myself in post. It is important to know the facts when you choose to critique. Cheers

jdedmonds

PixelStan77 wrote:

Do National Geographic photographers use Photoshop... (show quote)

I don't think that the pyramid cover means that NG "moved" the pyramids; in my view it's much more likely that the shot was made with a telephoto lens.

BamaTexan Loc: Deep in the heart of Texas

I was in the Great Smoky Mountains National Park two weeks ago with a group shooting photos of bears. We all had "big" glass. A tourist driving by stopped and asked a lady with us if we were from National Geographic and she said YEP. Of course, we weren't but the tourist will have a tale to tell now :)

wdross Loc: Castle Rock, Colorado

gwilliams6 wrote:

It is not about spray and pray shooting. It is abo... (show quote)

A tool is a tool is a tool. If one wants to get paid for capturing the shot, first one must capture it. I too would shoot my Olympus at 60fps if I thought it would get the shot. Do not like shooting at even 18fps since it generates a lot of editing. But it is always whatever it takes to get the shot. That is not praying but planning.

gwilliams6

jdedmonds wrote:

I don't think that the pyramid cover means that NG "moved" the pyramids; in my view it's much more likely that the shot was made with a telephoto lens.

Yes they actually moved the pyramid in the manipulated photo to fit their cover's format. A very famous case.

gwilliams6

wdross wrote:

img src="https://static.uglyhedgehog.com/images/s... (show quote)

dragonlady9947

My photography instructor took the picture of Mt Rainier looking like it was floating in the sky above a cloud. Cover page of National Geographic. She used a Canon camera with a
Canon EF 400mm 2.8 L lens w/tripod. Sat outside for 3 days and finally got the shot. Simply submitted her shot as is. She doesn’t expect to ever get a shot like that again

wdross Loc: Castle Rock, Colorado

dragonlady9947 wrote:

My photography instructor took the picture of Mt Rainier looking like it was floating in the sky above a cloud. Cover page of National Geographic. She used a Canon camera with a
Canon EF 400mm 2.8 L lens w/tripod. Sat outside for 3 days and finally got the shot. Simply submitted her shot as is. She doesn’t expect to ever get a shot like that again

But I am willing to bet that if another cover shot appears before her again, she will get it.

traderjohn Loc: New York City

mrmess wrote:

YUP.....Who else can relate?? https://urlzs.com/Qn1u

Everyone "knows things" the greater question is how important are they.

Feiertag Loc: British Columbia, Canada

gwilliams6 wrote:

If you had participated in as many threads as I have been in UHH, you would have seen dozens of my shots posted in some of my over 2200 posts.

You can start with just a small collection of my 40+years as a pro, here on one of my sites:

https://www.facebook.com/GSWilliamsPhotography/

I have participated in numerous threads. You started 20 topics with only one B&W photo! Where are the dozens of your shots, that you claim are on UHH?

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

gwilliams6 wrote:

Yes and many excellent pros who use great Panasonic gear, sorry for my omission Burk.

No criticism intended... I specifically mentioned Dan because of his work that has appeared in Nat Geo.

NHSmitty Loc: Goffstown NH

mrmess wrote:

YUP.....Who else can relate?? https://urlzs.com/Qn1u

I can relate! Winter is here! That’s awesome.

Soul Dr. Loc: Beautiful Shenandoah Valley

gwilliams6 wrote:

Also you are probably used to seeing jpegs. Jpeg compression programs also put in sharpness and noise reduction, especially at higher ISOs. I turned off all camera-based high ISO automatic noise reduction for my jpegs in my Sonys. And this shot was from the raw file, which DOES not add ANY noise reduction or sharpness. I prefer to do any noise reduction, sharpening or any other color or exposure corrections myself in post. It is important to know the facts when you choose to critique. Cheers

I have been shooting with digital cameras since the mid 90s. So I don't need to know the facts to see noise in an image wether raw or jpeg. And I wasn't critiquing, just stating what I observed.
I assume that most images people post here are already post processed.