SuperflyTNT wrote:
That really doesn’t apply to the OP’s issue. The problem is the order after export.
First, Paul has an excellent response below this comment.
My response was on target, but let me draw an additional line. When you Export from Collections set up for date sort, the images will be true to that setting.
Now having said that, setting up folders based on dates is old school and went out with LRC.
I have the 1.4 and 2.0 (Nikon). Trust me, go with the 1.4. It is an excellent trade off. Had I bought the 1.4 first, I would not have bought the 2.0. How do you make up the difference - crop.
A different approach...I preach why using dates to organize images makes no sense, but I still do it...kind of.
Next week will be 4 days of shooting the Texas Hill Country, maybe 200-500 shots per day using two cameras. Using my portable, I will upload via Photo Mechanic (PM) each date so noted to the Folder - Upload. Upload will be backed up on a 1tb thumb drive I carry in my pocket. When I return to base, using the original media, I will upload again via PM to the main computer (date separated or not, makes no difference).
Using LRC, I then import from Upload. Using Collections, I then can create all kinds of special sorts including date (I will not) or anything else. Using Keywords and Collections gives me all control...including dates.
The above works great especially major shoots, protection 3 deep in case of error and total control into the unknown future.
Hope it helps someone...
OK, here we go as Dak says, first, follow Perry and set up DUAL back button focusing. You will love it.
Cap Auto ISO at 25600...it is ok, trust me.
Create an emergency chip to reload settings if you ever screw up or breakdown in the field (you know those memory chips that are nothing in size)
Lens(buy in this order)
1. 24-70 2.8 (if you can only afford one...this is it)
2. 70-200 2.8
3 or 4 - 200-500 5.6
3 or 4 - 13-24 2.8
5. 24 - 120 4 (great for street photography)
Have a manual on your phone and other books on your portable computer.
Welcome to the D850 world!
Love my D7100 and while it is now a backup camera, it has been worth the investment. Put in proper to great light and it rivals my D850. Transferring between these two cameras while trying to capture the moment is easy, especially due to back button focusing. Example, shooting bison from an open platform. One second you are shooting the females at a distance and then the bull forwards his head within inches of the camera...7100 with 14-24 was a great solution. By the way, after buying the 7100 I invested in nothing but FX lenses.
Downside - one downside is the D7100 is not a good low light camera. I cap my auto ISO to 3200 (comparison, I cap the D850 to 25600).
Lionsgate wrote:
A LITTLE BACKGROUND: I've been taking pictures since 1958 when my grandmother bought me my first camera, a Kodak Brownie Hawkeye. I like to think that those simple beginnings brought me to where I am today. I currently sell my work domestically and internationally through two websites. I'm self-trained but have taken a class here and there on lighting techniques and darkroom operations. With the dawn of digital imaging, I have left the darkroom in favor of digital editing.
THE EMOTION OF PHOTOGRAPHY: I now have the time (I'm retired) to travel and explore with my cameras. While I have been known to take more than 5,000 photos in a single day, I try to be selective with my scenes. The only time I take a large number of shots is when photographing wildlife. That said, I have spent hours in a single location; shooting from different angles and changing light. The overriding factor in this is how I felt about the scene. What was I thinking, feeling, and remembering while I viewed the subject? There is a line in the Star Trek IV "The Voyage Home" where the testing computer asks Spock "How do you feel?" That is how I approach my photography. I take notes about the scene and what I was feeling and why I stopped to take those photos. I do the same thing in post-production processing. What I felt plays a part in how I crop the scene and adjust the lighting.
Last year I began writing stories and poetry to mate with my photographs. All of those works have been copyrighted and are now being published into a series of photo/poetry books. Here is an example: "Abandoned Buckboard"
THOUGHTS? COMMENTS?
A LITTLE BACKGROUND: I've been taking pictures sin... (
show quote)
I am so impressed! Please provide your webpage of images & writings
User ID wrote:
Oh ?!? Nothing is left blank ?
I am not sure what point or direction User ID is making, but let’s look at the first two images only from “fill the frame” and cropping (nothing else).
In the case of the runner uphill a tighter image might provide a greater sharpness but not too tight as the road needs to be part of the image. By not “filling the frame” crop some from the left and crop everything including sign to the right. This establishes the rule of 3 and allows the runner room to run. If you fill the frame, you lose too much. Using cropping you remove distracting elements to the right.
In the case of the woman crossing the street, way too many distractions. Example, the first thing I did was try to read the license plate on the BMW on the far-right side (OR?). Trying to fill the frame here has some benefit or tighter grip on subject, the woman. By not trying to fill the frame or better yet a tighter focus, the camera mis-read the shot. The sign on the far left is not only in better focus (sharpness) but the camera mis-read the light needed (the sign is in the shade). This result in a blown-out image, loss of detail in the woman. If the goal (fill the frame) is the woman, severe crop is needed in post (above, right behind her (wait for car to pass) and in front allowing room for he to walk). If the sign is needed, then the crop in front is not needed.
Conclusion, never 100% in photography, is do not confuse “fill the frame” with more to the point focus (tighter image). When is fill the frame almost always a must? Macro and near-macro shots (i.e. a tulip detailing the flower it self).
Ysarex wrote:
I don't see it that way. If by "crop sensor trick" you mean DX mode on the FX camera versus cropping the FX frame then yes. I understand "crop sensor trick" to mean bringing in a second camera body with a crop sensor and in that case the "crop sensor trick" may be very effective.
We are in agreement then on FF set to crop sensor only lessens the pixel count. That is the crop sensor trick.
Using a crop sensor camera with a crop lens...accomplishes nothing additional. Using a full frame lens on a crop sensor camera ...accomplishes nothing additional. In short, if the lens is 100mm it is 100mm regardless.
Some try to argue if you put a 100mm crop on a full frame camera it becomes 150mm. It may in appearance looking through the camera but all you have done is shut down the viewing area and cost half (quick math) your pixel count.
Ysarex wrote:
No, it's entirely equipment dependent. Depending on the cameras being used, switching to a crop sensor camera can be a real improvement.
Bottom line is how many pixels are you putting on the subject. If the switch to a crop sensor body puts substantially more pixels on the subject it's an advantage (as long as the lens resolution keeps up). Assume for example the cameras are an FX 45mp Nikon Z8 and a APS Fuji XH2. Switch the Nikon to DX mode and you get a 19.5mp image whereas the APS sensor in the XH2 is 40mp. That's twice the number of pixels on the subject if you switch to the Fuji body. And purchasing that Fuji body new could be a lot less expensive than trying to get a longer lens for the Z8.
I have a 24mp FF camera that when switched to DX mode generates a 10mp image. I also have a 26mp APS camera. Putting the same lens on the 26mp APS camera blows away the cropped image from the FF camera.
No, it's entirely equipment dependent. Depending o... (
show quote)
We are saying the same thing - "I want to address a misconception that you are on the edge. Using a crop sensor may give you the feeling you have "filled the frame", but it is very misleading. First, your 45mp just became 25mp (quick math, but I promise close). Second, when given the choice of heavy cropping in post or the crop sensor trick, always elect the first.'
Mainridge wrote:
As a wildlife shooter, one is always instructed to fill the frame. When the distance is such that the frame cannot be filled using a full-frame camera, is there a hard and fast rule as to the best alternative method to fill the frame? In other words, should I switch over to Aps-c, add a teleconverter or crop in post. I am usually shooting with a 45 mp camera if that helps.
Genuinely great advice from everyone prior.
I want to address a misconception that you are on the edge. Using a crop sensor may give you the feeling you have "filled the frame", but it is very misleading. First, your 45mp just became 25mp (quick math, but I promise close). Second, when given the choice of heavy cropping in post or the crop sensor trick, always elect the first.
Example of when not to "fill the frame". The 2023 theme image for the State Fair of Texas was mine. If you saw the original and how much I cropped, you would be shocked.
When to use "fill the frame". I did a shoot yesterday with 30 other photographers at the Dallas Arboretum starting at sunset to opening. Taking images of tulips with dew in a group of a million other flowers and bokeh-ing everything else around them using a tripod with fixed native ISO, capturing a reflecting morning sun...this is when you "fill the frame" but still allow room for leveling and therefore cropping.
DWU2 wrote:
Your latter statement is correct, but it also means that the edits performed in Lightroom won't be present in the copy.
DWU2 actually the first step would be to shoot in Raw instead of jpeg. Jpeg is a compressed format. The size of that file is in your camera menu - typically basic, norm or fine. You are starting from a reduced state in all cases. After you process the image in LR you then export and again you elect your format. Quality equals size. Specifically answering your questions:
1. Is the size increase vs. the original in fact due to adding the edits before exporting? [[]] Yes, you started with a negative (jpeg, tiff or Raw) and process it.
2. What does "quality" even mean in this context. The 0% quality photos looked pretty fair on screen. [[]] Most posted images are only 72ppi
3. I've been using 80% quality for the exports I've done so far, considering it a good trade-off between file size and the ability to print in a fairly large size. What do you recommend? [[]] Print is a different world. 300ppi. You have to be careful to make sure to use "original" with nothing else selected. I have seen a lot of people crop the image perfectly and then have different settings in Export. Not good.
Hope this helps
DWU2 wrote:
I would say yes, "original" means straight from the camera, or in the case of the B&W samples, straight from the scanner.
It also means if it is a jpeg and original is chosen, it will remain unchanged. Another view...you can copy the unchanged jpegs using Explorer and it will have no impact on jpeg...notice, I said copy.
The solution is simple, just select File Settings to Image Format: Original. When you select anything else including jpeg for jpeg file, you are giving LR instruction to change the image.
CHG_CANON wrote:
Mine are embossed with C A N O N. They're the originals and they're the B E S T.
Like Paul, I have mine embossed with C A N O N, because I shoot Nikon and do not want anyone to steal it.
Actually, I use Black Rapids modified with Arca-Swiss clamps for quick release. Sorry, Paul, I could not resist.
The greater question is "why"? If you are not processing in software that recognizes Nikon raw files, just shoot in jpg. Is this a good idea? No. Note, Nikon offers a free program.
Based on your title and not your comment (really need to know the "why"), you are trying to lessen HD space. If this is the real question, there are several solutions.