I encountered this this issue on a few of my orders, too. One thing I discovered was that somewhere along the way on some previous order, I had selected a specific day as my Amazon Day---the day of the week that all orders are to be delivered. It was set to Friday and I discovered this issue when I ordered an item on Saturday, expecting it to arrive on Tuesday only to see that it was going to arrive on Friday. I have since removed my Amazon Day preference.

You could make it a bit easier by using the spot removal tool, select "heal", set the size just a bit larger than the wire, click on one end, move to the other end and "shift-click". Lightroom will select the entire line between the two points. This works great if the line or wire being removed is straight. When there is curvature, I break it up into segments to make my way around the curves. If there is a lot of curvature, then dragging along the curve would probably work best.

Charles

Welcome to the forum and please accept my apologies for such a late welcome. Many have responded here and offered some good thoughts. I don't believe I can add much more to that which has already been said. I just wanted to return to this thread to properly welcome you to the forum as I neglected to do so earlier.

Charles

Great response and thank you for the memories! It has been a while since I have listened to them. One of my favorites as well....

Very true and more to the point of why I tend to lean towards the photographer's intent but this is from the perspective of the word, "subject", in terms of how most would use the term. From the photographer's perspective, in my opinion, the subject fundamentally is always light, the lack thereof, its utilization, and the manipulation of it by the photographer.

Actually, I think it all depends on the photographers intent. There are photographers, some well known, who intentionally create images that are out of focus, "poorly" lit, "poorly" composed. As I write this response, I cannot help but consider the question that if these are intentional then can it really be said that they are as we initially interpret them. For example, is an intentionally "poorly" composed photograph truly a poorly composed photograph? From the photographer's perspective, there was construct of composition albeit an appearance to quite the opposite. Some of this ventures into creative or abstract art but there are some that do not.

Wonderful photographs! I really love these and can see them up on a wall in a pristine hall or room, a doctor's office, an engineering and manufacturing office, and more. I love the colors, the texture, and the composition. For me, they represent a step back in time.

Regarding your question, I think the first consideration is your intent in creating the photograph. However, whatever the intent, not all viewers will see it the same way. I believe that is some cases we could help guide the viewers thoughts by adding titles or captions if we so choose, but left unto itself, a photograph will invariably be interpreted by the viewer from within the viewer's experiences, emotions, and life circumstances at the moment. This, I believe, holds true for just about any form of art. In reflections of my life, I have found photographs, paintings, books, music, etc., that I bought because in some way they touched me in a certain way or spoke me during that moment of my life. Years later, returning to the same, I find the same items perhaps not as appealing or connected with me and I must ponder why they were important to me enough to commit resources---time, money, etc.---to obtaining them. It is only when I look into what was transpiring in my life, my emotional maturity level, and interests that the significance is restored.

Overall, while we may have a specific subject or story we are trying to tell, the viewer may not see the same without captions and titles. Sometimes I will apply titles and captions for this reason, whereas at other times, I leave it to the viewer to interpret, connect, and enjoy through their own world.

Sincerely,

Charles

Wonderful shots....just want to go up to Blue and hug him. Love the sunset shot. Wonderful silhouette!

Charles

Thank you and thank you for the correction. I had wondered about that although I was given information by the preserve. I find myself shooting around f/7.1 upwards but usually centering on f/8. On the same day that I shot the hawk photo, I found myself wanting a wide angle shot of the area as the sun set, but unfortunately, I didn't have my wide-angle lens. Just for experimentation, I made multiple shots using the 150-600mm set at 150mm, f/6.3 and stitched them together.

(Download)

I purchased the Sigma 150-600mm C after email conversations with Roman Kurywczak. Check out his brief discussion of the two lenses, https://youtu.be/bV0MXDsECAU.

I have carried my camera and lens for hours at a time and I shoot without a tripod and I have actually found myself holding the camera and lens up to my eye waiting for the right moment to shoot for long periods of time. My wife has timed me at 18 minutes one time---she was wanting to move. I did run the lens through a Reikan FoCal calibration process for my Canon 5DIV, but too, I have done this with all of my lenses.

I have been very satisfied with the lens. I have seen some say that the C is sharper than the S and likewise the opposite. I have attached two photos as examples. The Peregrine Falcon on approach was taken at 600mm, hand-held, and the circumstances were that I was not ready for the falcon to take flight from one tree to another. My camera was hanging at my side while I was scanning the area and it was a quick swing up, acquire focus lock, and shoot. I do have my camera set to not take the first shot until focus lock is achieved and then it tracks from there. Distance to target was about 150+ feet. This photo has been post-processed and cropped.

The Bald Eagle shot has not been post processed---no lens corrections, no sharpening, no cropping, nothing at all. This was also a hand-held shot, 600mm, distance roughly 75 feet and the day was windy. As you can see from his feathers, he was encountering a bit of a breeze up there.

Peregrine Falcon on Approach

(Download)


(Download)

Many have given the answer that you are seeking; i.e. the AF micro-adjustment is retained in the camera. Thus, if you use a different body, you will also need to proceed through the same process. Note that you cannot simply copy the settings of one body to another as each is different even if the model is the same.

There is a section in most cameras under the AF menu for micro-adjustments. This must be enabled if you wish to make use of this feature. By default it is disabled.

Prime lenses will have one adjustment slider. Zoom lenses will have two---one for the wide end and one for the long end. Each of these will need to be adjusted.

I just recently calibrated my lenses to my 5D4 using Reikan FoCal which made whole process easy, straight-forward, and quick---no subjective guess work involved. I recommend that if you are going to get serious about AF micro-adjustments, invest in the software. It is well worth it. I was able calibrate all of my Canon lenses and my Sigma 150-600. I thought, initially, that I would need to calibrate the Sigma lens differently as there are adjustments that can be made on the lens via its lens dock. However, such was not necessary and it was calibrated the same way as the Canon lenses.

There are many opinions on whether lens calibration is necessary and I will admit that, at one point, I was on the side that it was unnecessary. However, seeing the tools on the market raised questions and thoughts that if so much is developed for this purpose and camera manufacturers offer such services then there must be something to it. This article explains it well:

https://photographylife.com/how-to-calibrate-lenses

There have been several people on here who have also talked about the Reikan FoCal software that I mentioned above. Do a search on this site with the word, "Reikan". Excellent product and worth the extra to obtain the Pro version. You can also find information on this software here:

https://www.reikanfocal.com/

Charles

It's all a matter of creativity. While I am not a big fan of sky replacement, there have been moments where I have captured a scene in which the sky was intriguing but the rest of the image was not. On a later shoot of the same area, the surroundings were intriguing but the sky not. I would consider the possibility of sky replacement from my own images to craft an image of the area as I imagined it could have been or would be on a day I am not there. To do so with stock images of skies from others would not be so appealing to me as I would tend to always feel that the image was not totally mine containing elements from other photographers. Likewise, I would be less likely to attempt sky replacement for an image that was shot on one location while the sky was shot at a different geographical location.

The two criteria I place upon myself is that if I were to do sky replacement or any other similar replacements are that 1) all objects of the image must come from my own images, and 2) content must come from images taken of the same area. I would not take a sky from Athens, Greece and place it over Seattle, Washington even though I have shot at both locations.

However, overall, I typically watch the weather patterns, the clouds, the positions of the sun and moon---astronomy and other sciences are hobbies, too---to make a determination as to whether an area will present itself with the beauty I anticipate and try to capture it.

Charles

Charles

To expand upon your comment, no artist or creative individual ever sees the world as others would. If they did, creativity would not exist nor would progress be had.

I vote for #2. Color does more justice to the flower. The black-and-white just looks lifeless to me.