Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Check out Astronomical Photography Forum section of our forum.
Posts for: Rich1939
Page: <<prev 1 ... 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 ... 340 next>>
Feb 12, 2016 12:54:42   #
Torquil wrote:
From Route 395 on the way to Lone Pine CA. I'd appreciate comments on the BW conversion.


I like the textures and the tones. I would have like to have seen a bit more to the right and also a bit more sky. I tried to see it that way using "content aware" in photo shop and the result felt more balanced to me. Only my opinion and I'm the furthest from a guru that you're likely to find.
Go to
Feb 12, 2016 11:59:48   #
Chuck_893 wrote:
I agree with keeping the clouds. I love the shot exactly as it is. It's a classic. :thumbup: :thumbup:


Thank you Chuck
Go to
Feb 12, 2016 10:51:22   #
Linda From Maine wrote:
The two triangular shadows make this one for me. Interesting shot! I sort of want to see the clouds gone (there will be many opposite views on that :) ) for an even cleaner, minimal look.


I had considered that and finally decided they made a nice counter point to the sharp edges and hard angles of wall..
Go to
Check out Close Up Photography section of our forum.
Feb 12, 2016 10:39:57   #
Linda, the fine image you posted jogged my memory. This was done originally in color and your image inspired me to revisit it.
The Great Wal-
Abstract? Minimalist?

The Great Wal-

(Download)
Go to
Feb 12, 2016 08:09:25   #
Linda From Maine wrote:
Shot for b&w: shadows, forms and lines.


LOVE IT!
Not much more to say. :thumbup: :thumbup:
Go to
Feb 11, 2016 17:03:14   #
Linda From Maine wrote:


There are so many things to consider, such as do you edit your raw for its best possible color result before you convert to b&w, or just some basic tweaks and then go straight to your b&w conversion program? Not sure if there is a consensus on that one yet :)


Linda, I would not know how to determine before hand but since this thread started I went back and took another look at several raw files. Some of them gave a better image working from an unprocessed raw file and some worked better converting a finished color .tif file to B&W. If I do enough of them to form an opinion I'll post it here.
Go to
Feb 11, 2016 16:24:22   #
Chuck_893 wrote:
General Question:

Without going back through 27 pages to see if it's already been asked and answered, Why are we talking only about conversion to B&W?

I don't use a DSLR but most of you do, and while I'm not certain, I believe most if not all DSLR's have an option to shoot only in monochrome. My compact P7800 has a monochrome option under "special effects." Most of it is pretty out there, auto solarization, choices of grain &c, but it is possible to set the thing to shoot in straight-up black-and-white, producing jpegs (won't do it in raw). I never do it, because I'm now strictly a color shooter and only rarely make a conversion. I spent my whole working career wishing there was a better way to convert color to B&W than that godawful Kodak Panalure garbage. You had to work in total darkness (panchromatic paper), and the results were always muddy anyway; the stuff was awful, and only used when you had to send a B&W print to the newspaper for halftoning. I never again want to wish I'd shot something in color but didn't. :shock:

But if you really want to learn to "think" and "see" in B&W terms, one way to do it would be to restrict yourself to monochrome in the camera. I used to shoot practically everything in B&W so I could process and print it myself. Whether I "thought" in B&W I'm not sure, but I guess I did because that was what was loaded. If you force yourself to shoot in B&W, nowadays you can "chimp" and see right away if something works or not. You can even switch to live view to see it before tripping the shutter. Just a thought... :-D
b General Question: /b br br Without going back... (show quote)


Chuck, Speaking only for me :) I shoot a DSLR that is set up to save the files in RAW. I also have it set up for monochrome and when using live view what I see is a B&W image which helps with composition. However the files are always in raw and still need to be converted. There is no way around that.
Go to
Check out Landscape Photography section of our forum.
Feb 11, 2016 12:23:45   #
selmslie wrote:

I have never seen a pair of images posted here that shows the difference between 12- and 14-bit so most of the proponents of 14-bit have a hard time proving its benefits.


I honestly don't know if you could see a difference on a web image. Better eyes than mine will have to testify to that.
Go to
Feb 11, 2016 12:13:18   #
quixdraw wrote:
I have both a DF and D750, I regularly use and like both of them. On a completely subjective basis, the DF takes more colorful and attractive images for me, and I trust it more. In low light, the DF is superior. The manual controls are very simple to use and reduce menu use. With practice, all of the controls can easily be manipulated with one hand. Battery usage -- they are small and cheap -- I carry three. I have never had one run out because I switch before it becomes necessary. One card slot? Who cares -- I have never had one fail and I will never fill a 32, never mind a 64 -- cards are small as well, and I carry spares. Most of the long list of the DF's "lacks" are actually benefits. I will never take a movie, I hate touch screens, the swing out screen, hardly used,etc., etc. I have a pile of old Nikon glass which I use with both cameras. In terms of handling, size and attractiveness for me the DF wins by a mile. I don't regret picking up the used D 750, but though there are a list of advantages on paper, nearly all have been irrelevant or useless to me. If / when Nikon comes out with a DF 2, provided they don't add a lot of nonsense features, the D 750 will be on the block and I'll buy one.
I have both a DF and D750, I regularly use and lik... (show quote)


A friend carries both a D4 and a D750. When I compare the images from both, to my eye the D4 wins every time. I use a D600 (the precursor to the 750) and would happily go to the smaller pixel count of a Df when I consider it is using the same senor as the D4. So, if Nikon should announce a DF2 with the new D5 sensor and it's processor, I will be one of those standing in line. Assuming of course that the image quality remains with the added resolution.
Go to
Feb 11, 2016 12:01:00   #
MtnMan wrote:
I'm interested in choosing file settings for my RAW images on a D800 so as to optimize storage when on travel. I have two questions:
1. 14 bit vs. 12 bit


If most of your work is viewed on the web or only on your monitor, and you seldom have prints made, 12 bit will more than meet your needs. That being said, as others have pointed out storage is relatively inexpensive and going with a smaller file might just not be worth sacrificing "as good as it can be"
Go to
Feb 11, 2016 10:51:30   #
pfrancke wrote:
thank you very much for sharing this - I read not as cold as you say, between 10 and 15. It will be a cold weekend coming up, I don't know how courageous I will be, but again, Thank You for seeing and sharing.

Hmm, I'll have to look for more articles. The first one I read said -9 or below but it wasn't laid out well and I looked for other write ups before picking a URL (without reading it :oops: )
Go to
Feb 11, 2016 10:28:51   #
wolfiebear wrote:
Tres, tres cool.


:lol: :lol: :lol:
Go to
Feb 11, 2016 10:24:37   #
I Don't want the opportunity to try this as it needs a temperature of -9 or colder.
http://www.thephoblographer.com/2015/02/04/hope-carter-photographs-crystallized-patterns-frozen-bubbles/#.VrynEFlITYw
Go to
Feb 11, 2016 10:18:21   #
Rongnongno wrote:
I have done that a long time ago.

As stated, it is used somewhere else yet it is an important setting. My mistake is to have it included here which led to confusion.


Rongnongno wrote:
it is important as you can see your pint on screen at the REAL Size...
How?
First you need to know
- Your printer DPI


Sure, OK
Go to
Feb 11, 2016 09:44:13   #
Try this, go back to your preferences screen and change the printer resolution to 1200. don't change anything else. now bring up a print size picture and check the numbers.
Go to
Page: <<prev 1 ... 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 ... 340 next>>
Check out Commercial and Industrial Photography section of our forum.
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.