Posts: Trabor | Ugly Hedgehog

This is intended as a response to the previous post not the OP
:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

Beats the heck out of "Tack sharp" whatever that means
Keep up the good work
It might be useful to include something with more detail fine line etc
Not complaining

(Main Photography Discussion)

Why should I buy the 200-500mm if I have the 28-300mm and a crop camera?

Alfonso wrote:

The 200-500mm is not a general-purpose, typical fa... (show quote)

Finally someone who knows what they are talking about
:thumbup: :thumbup:

(Main Photography Discussion)

Fix Moving subject

MtnMan wrote:

Sigh. Wish people would post only true stuff.

http://www.photokaboom.com/photography/learn/Photoshop_Elements/sharpening/adjust_sharpness.htm

Reading the referenced page it seems evident that the "motion blur" in the version of Elements referred to . is equivalent to "Sharpen/Motion" in PS which is not at all the same as "Shake reduction" in PS

"Shake reduction" does selectively reduce blur caused by a moving subject, or even two subjects moving in different directions, useful mainly if the shot has low noise and is otherwise well focused, otherwise results can be very ugly

I have found the "Sharpen/Motion" function in PS to have very limited usefulness , which would presumably apply to that function in "Elements"

I have found the Shake reduction function useful as a diagnostic tool helping to improve your (my) technique since it provides a visual display of the amount of shake and its direction in your picture

(Main Photography Discussion)

Tele Extenders

houdel wrote:

"In many cases" is a bit of an overstatement although damage can occur with some TE-lens combinations. The TE manufacturers do provide tables to identify which TE-lens combinations are suitable and which combinations are not recommended.

My response was with respect to the question posed by the OP which was to paraphrase "would a TE improve pictures taken with his 50-500 mm zoom" My response is still no.

If the goal is produce larger images of a bird for example without the bother of post processing then the TE is usefull

It is well known that a TE can improve picture quality when used with large expensive prime non zoom lenses, that fact is not related to the original post

If a specific lens has a resolution that is greatly inferior to the pixel resolution of a specific camera sensor, one can afford to throw away many pixels (IE by cropping) without degrading the final product. If you cannot see the pixels it cannot hurt to throw some away. In this case all a TE does is to spread the Fuzzy region of a picture over more sensor pixels without improving the resolution of the final picture

(Main Photography Discussion)

Tele Extenders

This topic has been covered at least 100 times on UHH
What do you mean by "work" , yes a TE makes the image on the sensor larger, the real question is "does it do any good" the answer is undoubtedly no! You get the same result by simply cropping
Unless your camera sensor has less resolution than the lens, which for a wide range zoom is very unlikely

In many cases ( do not know personally about your combination) the use of a TE will damage the lens - the glass surfaces may touch each other

(Main Photography Discussion)

Tele Extenders

This topic has been covered at least 100 times on UHH
What do you mean by "work" , yes a TE makes the image on the sensor larger, the real question is "does it do any good" the answer is undoubtedly no! You get the same result by simply cropping
Unless your camera sensor has less resolution than the lens, which for a wide range zoom is very unlikely

In many cases ( do not know personally about your combination) the use of a TE will damage the lens - the glass surfaces may touch each other

(Main Photography Discussion)

Nikon 500mm f/4

Steve Perry wrote:

Yup, Nikon all the way. I tried the 80-400 with the TCII, just wasn't real happy with it. It was OK, but just not as good as I'd like (I'm picky). Besides, if I need more than the 80-400 can deliver, there's always my 600mm :)

(That same TC II rocked on my 500 and 600 lenses though)

I have the 80-400 (new version) on a D-800 considered a TC, concluded that it would not gain me much, on a camera with fewer pixels it would be more useful. Consider a TC does not change focal length, it just magnifies the image, thus reducing the degradation due to pixilation in the camera. Not knocking the 80-400 but it is not as good as those big primes, which would benefit more from a TC

(Main Photography Discussion)

Nilon Free Maintenance Service Initiative

Seems to be real for certain D700 and D800 for more details see http://nikonrumors.com

(Photo Gallery)

Help With Butterfly ID

Google Common Wood nympth

(Main Photography Discussion)

Can't Recognize Raw in Photoshop CS6

I am using a Mac with Yosemite version 10.10.4. I have a Nikon D750 and have been unable to get PScs6 to recognize my raw images. I have downloaded DNG Converters 8_7 and 9_1 with no success. My Nikon D7100 raw images work fine. I can't reload PScs6 because I don't have the disk. I purchased the Mac with the program already on the computer. Can anyone give me some suggestions on what steps I can take to get the program to work? Thanking you in advance. Ed GH

mmm Something strange
I have the same set up as you, with PS/Bridge CS6 and CC2015 both installed
I note that only one version of bridge can be open at a time

But if I start in PS CS6 , open a NEF file Cameara Raw 9.1 opens if I then "open", PS CS6 opens the file

But if I start in Bridge CS6 open a file , it takes me to Camera raw 9.1 , but "open" now opens PS CC2015 rather than PS CS6

Very strange OH I have a D800 if that makes any difference

Sporry I did not answer your question except to note my observation of strange behavior

Why do you want to reload PS CS6 ?

You say Raw files from D7100 open in CS6 via Camera raw 9.1 but Raw files from D750 do not

If You right click on the NEF file and then "open with" does it say PS CS 6?

(Main Photography Discussion)

Memory card reader

Leitz wrote:

I insert my cards into the camera carefully, then never touch them. There are no pins in the camera's socket for the USB cord. Once properly inserted, there is no possible chance of damaging any pins.

OK the metallic contacts in the miniature USB download connector on the camera body technically should be referred to as sockets rather than pins, however they are still small and fragile and less durable than the contacts on a SD card used on most cameras. I find it unusual that you would leave the USB download cable connected to your camera all the time, even when taking pictures, that would certainly reduce the possibility of damage although having that cable dangling would seem inconvenient

(Main Photography Discussion)

Before Arguing Brand This or Model That

rbfanman wrote:

When it comes to cameras, DXO ONLY rates the SENSOR, and then only looks at / rates:

* - ISO
* - Dynamic Range
* - Color Depth

Such are worth knowing, but are not the be all / end all of camera worth.

DXO does NOT look at: Megapixels, special features such as built in Image Overlay capability, the number / type of lenses available for a camera, or anything else you may want to consider. DXO ratings have their place, but are just one little piece of the puzzle.

Actually for a particular lens on a particular camera (all possible combinations not reported) DXO does measure and report Sharpness, transmission, distortion , vignetting and Chr Aberration, and a subjective (not a measured value) overall rating. Other than the overall rating, they report things that are measurable, they are obviously only part of the big picture , but you will never see them say "tack sharp"
For the camera alone they provide an overall subjective judgement plus measured values of Color depth, dynamic range and useful lowlight ISO IE Noise. Number of pixels is what it is and is not a measured parameter
Other organizations also measure and evaluate camera/ lens combinations their conclusions may or may not agree with DXO

(Main Photography Discussion)

Memory card reader

Leitz wrote:

Your computer will read the card when you connect a cable from the camera to its USB port. Reliable, no possible way to damage the card or pins in the camera.

It IS possible to damage the pins in the camera, a 10 to 20 $ card reader is much cheaper than any camera repair, plus you get grouth in case your next camera uses a different card type , most readers will read all common card types

The card slot in the camera is much more robust than the pins in that little connector

(Main Photography Discussion)

Noisy shutter release question On Nikons

Linda Ewing wrote:

My Nikon has a quiet mode for such occasions, it is a D810 so not sure if other Nikons have it. My D300 does not appear to have this mode. Would be worth a check through the menu to have a little look.

The D800 has a "Quiet Shutter Release" mode