Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register ☰
Posts for: LiamRowan
Page: <<prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 72 next>>
Apr 13, 2021 10:58:14   #
(Main Photography Discussion)
Windows to Apple Question
I'm thinking of moving from a Windows-based desktop to the Apple M1 Mac Mini. Are there issues when switching a Lightroom catalog created on a Windows machine to an Apple machine? Other software issues? Thx.
Go to
Mar 11, 2021 11:57:47   #
(Post-Processing Digital Images)
Curious border on composite layer
Wallen wrote:
Your moon element was not isolated properly. Even without the glow effect, it will still be over the tree.
Have it as a masked layer to control/adjust the edges & overlay.

Proper compositing rest on how the elements were isolated/selected and layered. Simple blending with clouds may come out with passable quality but many objects require controlled or advance selection & editing of edges and visible layering.

An overview for controlled compositing are:
1. General adjustments
2. Active layer*
3. Isolation/selection copy*
4. Paste on a new layer
5. Arrange/Order the layer*
6. Edit/add effects/blending*
7. General adjustments
8. Fine Adjustments

Those marked with * are crucial to outcome quality of the image.

Here are a few examples of compositing/editing using selective copy/paste & blending/edit;
https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-657996-1.html -step by step process
https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-664956-1.html -shooting with intent to make a composite
https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-619677-1.html -manipulating(compositing) a single photo
Your moon element was not isolated properly. Even ... (show quote)


Thanks for citing these resources--much appreciated!
Go to
Mar 10, 2021 20:53:44   #
(Post-Processing Digital Images)
Curious border on composite layer
Rongnongno wrote:
I have seen this before. I believe there is an issue with PS CC, not your process.

One fast way to correct it is to do a layer and correct this with a patching tool. Avoid smudge or the like that will disturb the pixel pattern and create unwanted artifacts.

Three more comments:
- PP: The foreground trees are covered by the moon
- PP: The moon has a black strip around it.
- Camera sensor has dust on it.

If you need help on creating this, please post your originals and ask folks to work on it.
I have seen this before. I believe there is an is... (show quote)


Thanks for all the observations. I hadn't fussed with the blending because of the border. Adjusting the "Underlying Layer" put the moon 100% behind the trees. Another tweak eliminated the black strip.

Adding the layer to restore the image below the border was a great idea! Had unchecking Inner Glow not worked, this strategy certainly would have. Really appreciate your thorough response.

All is well thanks to Hogs. Probably for the 500th time!
Go to
Mar 10, 2021 20:49:15   #
(Post-Processing Digital Images)
Curious border on composite layer
CHG_CANON wrote:
Does the moon layer have a background layer? Or said another way, when the the moon layer was created as a solo image, did moon fail to fill / over-fill the pixel size of the canvas used to create that image? That is: does the slight frame of the moon exist in that file but doesn't show when viewed on a white background? If you crop the moon to say 99% or 98%, does that eliminate the frame when placed behind the tree a second time?


Thanks--it turned out to have been caused by checking "Inner Glow." I had checked the layer against a dark background to make sure I wasn't just missing it.
Go to
Mar 10, 2021 20:48:15   #
(Post-Processing Digital Images)
Curious border on composite layer
Craigdca wrote:
Just a guess: Try unchecking Inner Glow.


Excellent guess! The border disappeared instantly. Thanks!
Go to
Mar 10, 2021 14:34:59   #
(Post-Processing Digital Images)
Curious border on composite layer
I was playing around with compositing in an image of the moon into a landscape. The blend worked pretty well but there is a tiny outline of the moon image layer showing. You'll have to download the image to see it. It's definitely not on the original moon layer. See image below, as well as Blending Mode info.

Thanks for any assist in getting rid of that line!


(Download)


Go to
Dec 27, 2020 19:37:40   #
(Main Photography Discussion)
Canon 40mm lens hood
Just want to thank everyone for the excellent and thought provoking discussion. Really appreciated. The OP
Go to
Dec 26, 2020 22:22:39   #
(Main Photography Discussion)
Canon 40mm lens hood
imagemeister wrote:
He goes on to say be very careful with a hood as it could damage the focus mechanism - if so, makes you wonder why Canon offers ANY hood ?? ......I DO prefer a hood for protection - but this may be one lens where the safest protection is a GOOD clear filter ? !
.


Good point.
Go to
Dec 26, 2020 21:54:54   #
(Main Photography Discussion)
Canon 40mm lens hood
imagemeister wrote:
FWIW, Ken Rockwell recommends the Nikon HS-6 - https://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/lenses/40mm-stm.htm
.


His comments are interesting. I suspected, and why I initiated the thread, that "the little ES-52 hood. It's an idiotic thing that won't actually shield any light." Rockwell also mentions he has no problem with flare without a hood, so he'd "forget it entirely." I still think I'd like one for safety, though. Hoods have saved me many a time.
Go to
Dec 26, 2020 21:34:41   #
(Main Photography Discussion)
Canon 40mm lens hood
User ID wrote:
Actually, THE correct hood, by use not by guessing, is the Nikon HR-4 rubber hood. The depth is just about right for FF, but most importantly it’s rubber, and very light weight.

The STM mechanism should not be asked to drive any extra weight. But very MOST importantly it should NOT have any rigid physical front end extension ... unless you’re hoping to damage the focus drive by a minor impact to its external moving focus mechanism.

———————————————————

So if you’re using a hood for protection then go the max, no hood at all.

No hood can enhance its excellent flare resistance. There’s no difference naked or hooded. I’ve tested that every way possible. You might get a slight contrast improvement at f/2.8. Thaz all.

Do use a hood if it’s raining.
.
Actually, THE correct hood, by use not by guessing... (show quote)


Thanks so much for this information. I am confused, though, by the statement, "So if you’re using a hood for protection then go the max, no hood at all." I would like to use the hood largely for protection, but why, if "using a hood for protection," would the max be "no hood at all." Seems like not using a hood is the least protection. Thanks for the clarification.
Go to
Dec 26, 2020 18:20:10   #
(Main Photography Discussion)
Canon 40mm lens hood
flathead27ford wrote:
I don't have an answer to your question, but the photo is beautiful.


Thank you!
Go to
Dec 26, 2020 18:19:18   #
(Main Photography Discussion)
Canon 40mm lens hood
Thx.
Go to
Dec 26, 2020 18:18:48   #
(Main Photography Discussion)
Canon 40mm lens hood
imagemeister wrote:
IMO, and as a practical matter, YES I would find an alternative ....are you on a FF camera ??


Yes, FF. 5D m iv.
Go to
Dec 26, 2020 16:08:13   #
(Main Photography Discussion)
Canon 40mm lens hood
I recently bought the Canon 40mm f2.8 pancake lens. It did not come with a lens hood. I was surprised to see what Canon recommends for a hood (see image). Is there any reason to really use a hood with sides so shallow? Is it worth finding an alternative?

The lens makes a lovely sunstar! (image 2)




Go to
Dec 25, 2020 20:12:01   #
(Post-Processing Digital Images)
Any idea how this is done.
fuminous wrote:
I've seen sun dogs strong enough to cast shadows - for a total of three- left-right and center... very cold morning, no wind...


Thanks, very interesting observation.
Go to
Page: <<prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 72 next>>
Home | Latest Digest | Back to Top | All Sections
Contact us | Privacy policy | Terms of use | DMCA
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.