Yikes. An eco-friendly roach.
<laughing>
Nice pics, Tom
Thank you for all who have replied. I've not posted in quite awhile. I came on today to update password as I had a notice about a data breach with uglyhedgehog.
Seems to be a few folks who are either very thin-skinned as to take everything as a personal insult without actually asking. Cowardly and Trumpian.
Linda From Maine wrote:
I'm holding on tight, Bill
And your topic will disappear faster than a mouse in a room full of cats
fourlocks wrote:
On my Nikon, I routinely adjust aperture, speed and ISO but I have my metering set to Center-weighted, ignoring Matrix and Spot modes. I shoot mostly outdoors often on a single subject so this seems the most appropriate...or is it? Do the metering methods deserve a lot of attention at the "enthusiast" level? How do you Hoggers set up your cameras' metering and why? Yes, I did a search but only found one similar post relating to Canon, which seems to have different names and four meter modes so it didn't help me.
On my Nikon, I routinely adjust aperture, speed an... (
show quote)
Since I can review the exposure before clicking the shutter, I check and then adjust EC as needed. I also shoot jpeg+raw and sometimes use the in-camera raw processor.
speters wrote:
If you have ISO on auto, you no more shooting in manual!
Ok. So if I follow the process of choosing all elements of exposure but set my camera to “vivid” or one of those “film modes”, am I still shooting manual?
leftj wrote:
It's a type of labor.
Or that annoying book that comes in multiple translations that no one ever consults....
RRS wrote:
Not to be a snob but you said it yourself "It seems I do have a repeating complex" and that would include your usage of " BS and bull shit" in almost all your reply's. I do find it interesting to sometimes hear and read opinions that differ from my own and to look at both sides of the coin. When one has to revert to such language it kind of degrades the message. The only snobs that I have come across in all my years of photography have been some of the members of the PPA ( Professional Photographers of America) with all their blue and red ribbons that they wore around their necks and that was a sign of having superior knowledge or a pecking order among their peers. I don't wear a sign that says "Manual Raw Shooter" nor would I ever put anyone down for their choice in how they shoot. The finished product, the print , speaks for itself. I do agree that many more photographers do shoot in a mode other then manual and do produce award winning shots. I just don't see a problem with how anyone shoots and it's sad if you feel that you have been put down by those that shoot in the manual mode. Time to get over it.
Not to be a snob but you said it yourself "It... (
show quote)
Yep. And dont confuse me with the facts, either. Those not open to new ideas always have the choice of scrapping the toys and moving to a hut in the woods w/o running water or that annoying internet thingy where people have the audacity to confront others with alternative ways of doing things. Oh the horror of it all.
CHG_CANON wrote:
You're not keeping up, the kids on campus this semester are saying: GIRITC = Get it right in the camera
Great. More alphabet soup. When it’s acceptable in Scrabble, I’m all in.
ELNikkor wrote:
fastest lens on the block!
Or in the camera bag gathering lint.
melueth wrote:
Thanks for all this info. I'm a neophyte at this kind of stuff, but really love taking star trail shots that i blend. I'm just wondering, when you are looking at the night sky to capture a shot like this, what did your naked-eye view of this shot look like before the shot? Is it close to what's in this shot? For all the night skies i've looked at, i can never seem to actually see this, so i'd never know where to shoot for it. Am i just never out there late enough at night, primarily between Florida and Maine? Or should i be watching for this kind of view/shot through the astronomer's ephemeris?
ML
Thanks for all this info. I'm a neophyte at this k... (
show quote)
Today’s electronics can “see” more than the naked eye. The telescope enables us to increase magnification. In the same way, the human eye does not have the capability to gather enough light to view the sky in all of its brilliance. In a sense, it’s no different than the use of a super telephoto lens to bring distant objects closer than we can humanly see. So, no. No matter where you are on earth—and no matter the conditions, you’ll never see the sky with the same brilliance as you can capture under the best conditions.
However, because of light pollution (from Florida to Maine) you will never see a sky like you would in a dark sky location such as the desert Southwest. (My image was captured on a ranch 50 Miles from Santa FA New Mexico.)
Light pollution, here, is defined as any artificial light. Even on the darkest nights, there exists light from nearby cities....
Hope this helps.... if you google “dark sky locations” you should be able to identify the best locations near you.
JD750 wrote:
If this works for you that is great. There are very good reasons, and times, to shoot raw. But bad skills with the camera are not one of them. I suggest that spending time developing shooting skills, to get exposure right in the camera, rather than trying to save badly exposed shots behind the computer, is a better use of time. When shooting to build skills, JPEG is a better choice as it is more demanding of correct exposure. It is the "medicine ball" format.
A GIRITC raw shot, when post processed has a lot more potential than what is available trying to save a poorly exposed raw image.
If this works for you that is great. There are ver... (
show quote)
There are times when âÂÂgetting it right in the cameraâ is restricted by the light. For example: I recently captured my first ever image of the Milky Way. Shooting wide open @ 3200 @ 20 seconds (the max to avoid unintended âÂÂStar trailsâÂÂ) resulted in an underexposed image. Using the raw processor built into the camera, I was able to adjust the exposure by 3.0 EC. If you viewed the initial image next to the raw processed result I believe you would agree that this âÂÂget it right in the cameraâ mentality is not for every situation. See attachment
Ha ha. Love the secret agents.