Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Posts for: BermBuster
Page: <<prev 1 ... 19 20 21 22 23 next>>
Mar 29, 2013 19:37:19   #
Thanks, that was worth the read
St3v3M wrote:
http://digital-photography-school.com/making-a-photo-infuse-yourself-into-your-photos

and http://www.lightstalking.com/5-ways-to-improve-your-photography-without-touching-your-camera


:)
Go to
Mar 26, 2013 11:02:06   #
Nice..But a little too cold for me.
jpintn wrote:
Almost Easter in East Tennessee. Taken this morning.
Go to
Mar 9, 2013 11:56:08   #
I am continually amazed at the breadth of knowledge and diversity within this discipline, and many of the members understanding and willingness to share and help educate. This site has really been a great find for me. Thank you to all. Ken[/quote]

I Agree!

:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:
Go to
Mar 9, 2013 11:08:14   #
CaptainC wrote:
imagemeister wrote:
DOF on a FF sensor is shallower - and here is the kicker - " for equivilent fields of view ". - because the full frame needs a longer lens for equivilent fied of view.


Right. To get the subject the same size ON THE SENSOR, the full-frame camera has to be closer. Since it is closer (assuming same f/stop) the DOF is less. That is why the DOF calculator needs to know what camera you are using.


Had to chew on it a bit - but that makes sense
Go to
Mar 9, 2013 10:39:11   #
PhotoStar wrote:
I recently read that DoF is shallower on a full frame camera. I always thought DoF was connected more to the aperture setting of the lens being used. Trying to get my head around that one, or prove it false. Any explanations that will help?


Don't understand it -but see what you mean/1.6x crop with a 50mm (80mm equivalent)_f/5.6 at 10'=2.74'(32.88")......FF with a 80mm=1.67'(20.04") –– The crop camera gains a good foot of DOF over the Full Frame ! http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/dof-calculator.htm
Go to
Mar 7, 2013 22:57:33   #
I switched to rechargebles, because the flash recovers faster - something to do with lower resistance than non-rechargeables.
Go to
Mar 1, 2013 12:38:11   #
Jared wrote:
I am curious about back button focusing and what it offers.


Another thing I like about using BBF, is how quickly I can go from 'Auto' to 'Manual' Focus..
....Taking pictures of kids thru a chain link fence, or animals at the zoo, when the 'Auto' focus tries to lock on the fence, just don't push the focus button and 'manually' focus. Normally I would have to pull the camera down from the shot, turn off auto focus on the lens, then try to capture another one.
Go to
Feb 16, 2013 13:15:15   #
Take 5 Cinema wrote:
What puzzles me, if this were done in place is why are the arm shadows dark and not warm with the red sunset shining directly on them - doesn't make sense. It is possible that the flash as SO overpowering that it was say - 5-6 stops brighter than the sunset and even that flash overpowered the suns backlit effect on the hair and arms? Possible. . . This is becoming a discovery challenge and I almost want to try to duplicate it to see if I can do the same - ooops that won't work. I don't own a flash ! :)
What puzzles me, if this were done in place is wh... (show quote)

picpiper wrote:
why the flash did not bring out any details in the very dark shirt. Are there details in the CR2 that simply didn't make it into the .jpg?


I know his flash is pretty powerful-but at 24mm I would expect her to be lit up like a christmas tree.
I talked to my cousin, and found this was taken outside off a hotel balcony, he purposely pointed the flash above her head to keep from blasting her.
This may explain why no other details but her face are lit…but doesn't explain what happened to the backlight of the sun ???
Go to
Feb 15, 2013 17:40:39   #
floral43 wrote:
If there two seperate pictures? and contain different pixel counts (Sizes) then this would account for the proportional distortion. How ever a wide angle lens can cause similar distortion.
If it's a cut out made by selecting the subject it's a good job however the top of her hair doesn't appear smooth, it's choppy if you look close?
when making selections in photoshop the hair is very difficult.


Agree with you completely~Whats scary, is this is how the pic came out of the camera :)

If I were to do this in PhotoShop, I would have changed the brightness and contrast on either the background or body first, then changed the proportions of the head before merging the layers. Then I would have probly added a glow around the head making it difficult to see the edges of the hair, and probly added a beach and a palm tree to the foreground giving her some perspective….right now she looks huge compared to that ocean :)
Go to
Feb 15, 2013 13:04:20   #
bunuweld wrote:
I agree with most of the preceding comments. Just to take a different tack, I would suggest that any close photo with a wide lens causes distortion, with the portions nearest the lens appearing enlarged out of proportion. I tried to correct this by using the transform edit in Adobe. As I was not trying to show Adobemanship, this is just a quick attempt to show some difference. I would not try this with one of my pictures, just discard it.


I think this makes a positive difference-and shows there is some distortion going on for sure, let alone the amplifying it with the pose...hot flash/warm sunset etc...
I typically take 200-500 pics per outing, so I have taken 'thousands' of 'Bad' pictures. But I learn more from my bad pictures than my good ones. And I can usually figure out myself what I did wrong...exposure wrong-focus point missed-camera shake-etc...but this one...if I didn't know the source, I wouldn't have given it a second thought that they were not very good with PhotoShop. Thanks for the suggestions & taking the time to "tweak it" :)
Go to
Feb 14, 2013 14:17:30   #
Take 5[/quote]
:oops: :oops:[/quote]
Sure threw me off. The only thing I can think of is that the original girl was SOOOO dark in the shadows, that the flash virtually overtook the picture and put in daylight on a sunset picture - a blend of red warmth sunset color corrected against a hard blueish daylight flash overexposed. Why the sunlight doesn't show up in her clothes and hair is beyond me.

As I previously stated, I hate flash - never use it, is most often messy and does not deliver the goods. This is a classic example. Natural light - even if you have to reflect it, bend it, chop it, whatever. I belong to a CC - a guy there has 185,000 pictures - never uses flash - his work is brilliant - and he only does people.

Takes more work but the results are astounding.

Cheers,
Take 5[/quote]

Sad thing is, I probly told him to use flash if he wanted to expose on the sunset AND capture the portrait, or else he would end up with a silhouette.
Go to
Feb 14, 2013 13:57:43   #
Take 5, I really enjoyed your comments-because you think along the same lines as me :)
But...1) He sent the 'RAW' CR2 file to me(I converted it to 600x400.JPG to upload)
.........2) I "know" he doesn't have PhotoShop, and know he has no working knowledge of Photoshop.(i.e..he doesn't understand 'layers')

What worried me when I saw this picture, is I couldn't put my finger on it-but know something is WRONG, and I want to be sure I don't do this also. I put it in PhotoShop and tried some lens distortion...helped, but still not right..tried playing around with the color temperatures, shadows, cropping, reshaped the top of the head, even monochrome..all helped..but it never came out 'Good'.

There have been several great insights everyone on here has noticed...and I really am taking notes ... But it really isn't a (Poor) PhotoShop job.
Thanks to everyone with all the great advice!

Take 5 Cinema wrote:
#1: I highly suspect - NO, - this IS a superimposed picture - a real bad photoshop job. She has been put on a different background and the 2 don't match well.

It ain't there. Busted! :)

Is that enough?
Cheers,
Take 5

:oops: :oops:
Go to
Feb 14, 2013 00:28:59   #
Thanks CaptainC & Mogul, I'm takin' notes for future reference.
GoofyNewfie, I agree there is something odd about that arm-I'll throw it out there.. to get us "both" sent for the reshoot...But since 'Make a wish' funded this trip, I don't think "our" chances are very good. :)
Go to
Feb 13, 2013 22:48:51   #
Wendy2 wrote:
The way she is posed contributes to her head looking too big and the 24mm, being too close, probably distorted her head.


Thanks, I didn't even consider the pose :)
Go to
Feb 13, 2013 22:41:47   #
I'm just not sure what is going on here, My cousin took this picture of his daughter in Hawaii-It seems as if she has been photoshopped into the picture..or maybe her head is too big?
Maybe the sun behind her - Or too close at 24mm caused this?
What do you guys(gals) think?


Canon rebel XSi, 18-55 lens at 24mm,aperture at f/14,with a Nikor Flash.

Somethings not right

Go to
Page: <<prev 1 ... 19 20 21 22 23 next>>
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.