Can I fix the hot spots (Page 2): I was talking about working on copies of the the original not on the original itself. This way you don't effect the original at all....Rich...

bigwolf40 Loc: Effort, Pa.

Bill Houghton wrote:

What you are saying is somewhat correct. I have p... (show quote)

I was talking about working on copies of the the original not on the original itself. This way you don't effect the original at all....Rich

Bill Houghton Loc: New York area

bigwolf40 wrote:

I was talking about working on copies of the the original not on the original itself. This way you don't effect the original at all....Rich

Like I said, you are somewhat correct. What I am saying when the very first JPEG was created, in your camera it was compressed. Since it was compressed it has lost something. Not enough to be worried about but still it has lost. When you Save AS it lost again. Not your original, but the copy has lost.

You will not see a difference for save one to save two. but you will see a difference between save on and save 10 of the same file. Just look at the file size's. That will tell you something.

EnglishBrenda Loc: Kent, England

I noticed you have used f7.1. You might want to try a higher number to let less light in even when you use your ND filter. Try different combinations of f nos. and time and check the histogram on your camera each time which gives you a good idea as to whether you are in the right zone.

Meives Loc: FORT LAUDERDALE

catzeye wrote:

Is there any way to fix the hot spots in this scene. I was trying to get the water to show the silky effect. It was very overcast and I was standing under many trees. I shot in Raw and the setting were 1/10 7.1 ISO 100

Best for analysis to post and click on "store original" so we can see all the data. Bracketing would be my advise. Hot spots are hard to fix. HDR would help tool. David

bigwolf40 Loc: Effort, Pa.

Bill Houghton wrote:

Like I said, you are somewhat correct. What I am ... (show quote)

" Not your original, but the copy has lost." I understand what you are saying but as you said here in the quotes Not the original and that's what I'm talking about. Not losing anything in the original no matter how many times you make a copy of it. As you work on the copies only yes but the original Jpeg hasn't lost anything....Rich

big-guy Loc: Peterborough Ontario Canada

Nice to see someone caught the true problem in this case. :thumbup: :thumbup: Going to f22 (and the appropriate ss) would have given a nice silky effect.

Going up to 1/30 sec will negate the silky effect and that is what the OP wanted.

AlicanteBrenda wrote:

I noticed you have used f7.1. You might want to try a higher number to let less light in even when you use your ND filter. Try different combinations of f nos. and time and check the histogram on your camera each time which gives you a good idea as to whether you are in the right zone.

Rongnongno Loc: FL

bigwolf40 wrote:

I'm petty sure you can PP a Jpeg over and over a 1... (show quote)

I think that a simple switch to a better web compliant format is best, by far. It voids all senseless argumentation over how many times one has to save over before noticing the loss.

If you want to see the loos in one swoop... Create a white image, fill it with a gradient, any color. Save it as JPG and then save it a PNG. Tell me then saving the first time has no visible effect.

catzeye Loc: South Carolina

Rongnongno wrote:

Post the original I would love to try my hand at it. Note: post a PNG not a JPG better yet, post the raw somewhere I can pick it up.

Can you pick up the raw from here if I post it or do you want me to send it by email. I would love for you to work on it.

catzeye Loc: South Carolina

bigwolf40 wrote:

" Not your original, but the copy has lost." I understand what you are saying but as you said here in the quotes Not the original and that's what I'm talking about. Not losing anything in the original no matter how many times you make a copy of it. As you work on the copies only yes but the original Jpeg hasn't lost anything....Rich

I understand

catzeye Loc: South Carolina

Bill Houghton wrote:

Like I said, you are somewhat correct. What I am ... (show quote)

I understand what you are saying.

MtnMan Loc: ID

catzeye wrote:

Is there any way to fix the hot spots in this scene. I was trying to get the water to show the silky effect. It was very overcast and I was standing under many trees. I shot in Raw and the setting were 1/10 7.1 ISO 100

You should have set your f-stop to the highest your camera will do. You'll still get silky water if you get the shutter speed down.

If you don't have an ND filter a CP will also let you stop down about two stops.

Here's an example at 2 s, also in a light rain, at f22 with a CP. My camera also goes down to ISO 50.

(Download)

peter cook

try ND filters like LEE
or the lee big stopper it is 10 stops .
There are many ND filters that can greatly improve the photos in water falls etc
in fact you can ever in a lee system put as much as 3 filter on top of each other (STACKING).
It is amazing what filters can improve photos .
But you have to be able to pay for these filters they are dam expensive but you only live once so try it .
B&H and Adorma sell them

sidney Loc: London.Eng.

Try a Polorizer

Wahawk Loc: NE IA

Bob Yankle wrote:

I'll be watching closely. What does a PNG offer that a JPG does not?

Much larger file size with no compression. Minimum compression JPG offers equiv quality at smaller file size, but still larger than 'standard' JPG compression that most people use.

Wahawk Loc: NE IA

catzeye wrote:

Is there any way to fix the hot spots in this scene. I was trying to get the water to show the silky effect. It was very overcast and I was standing under many trees. I shot in Raw and the setting were 1/10 7.1 ISO 100

Next time you try, if possible use a tripod and shoot at least a 3-shot bracket and use HDR to combine to preserve the white water along with detail in the background trees. And be careful just where you are metering from.