anotherview wrote:
Your logic talks you and others like you into a corner, on a false premise.
Using the expression "subscription-based software" ignores the comparison and the value between (1) paying a large lump-sum of money periodically for upgrades to software and (2) renting the software on, say, a monthly basis.
Regarding Adobe Photoshop, the first approach involves receiving occasional updates to the software between versions of it, say between CS5 and CS6, and then shelling out a boatload of cash for the latest, upgraded version.
The second approach involves automatically receiving updates AND upgrades as they become available while renting Photoshop (including Lightroom) together for as little as $9.99 per month.
In this comparison, cost represents only part of the equation.
Another part goes to keeping up with and using the latest innovations in features and functions. This dynamic one cannot escape unless partial to enjoying the status of a dinosaur.
Again regarding Photoshop CC, Adobe offers these improvements:
1. Camera Shake Reduction: This filter adjusts a given image for the slight blurring effect that results from movement of the camera during the taking of the photograph. This movement can happen from two sources -- one the photographer or the environment affecting the camera position or two the internal vibration from the slap of the mirror in a DSLR.
Image stabilization in general reduces if not eliminates the external sources of movement that cause image blurring.
The vibration from mirror slap CSR addresses. It removes the slight blurring effect from this slap vibration. The inherent sharpness of the lens optics then reveals itself. One has to see the result of CSR to appreciate its visual improvement in the image.
Often, in my experience, the resulting image sharpness suffices for most purposes. Yet I will say the Nik Collection offers a filter called Sharpener Pro 3: (2) Output Sharpener which adds additional sharpness for a nice crispness in the image.
2. Camera Raw Filter. Photoshop now allows going from the Photoshop editor back to the Camera Raw Filter (Adobe Camera Raw) at any time during the editing process. One does not have to preserve the Smart Object status of a layer for this purpose. Nearly all the features and functions of ACR become available for applying to an image. This one improvement alone enhances the power and flexibility of Photoshop all the more.
I could go on but decline to do so. I prefer to ride the wave of progress in doing digital photography.
Please note that I am a user of Photoshop CC and not a shill for Adobe.
Good luck.
Your logic talks you and others like you into a co... (
show quote)
I would like to second the kind words regarding CSR I find it to be a most useful tool (despite the unkind words from some Hogs)
The effect seems to be localized to the region being analyzed so some improvement seems possible to a moving bird on a stationary background or to moving wings on a stationary bird
CSR can produce some ugly results if the "gain" is set too high
Can anyone suggest a source of information on how CSR really works and how to best use the settings which the manual ignores (other than to say that they exist)
Another useful feature is the motion analysis display which provides a graphical indication of magnitude and direction of detected motion- (not always vertical as some have said) I found it useful in determining my optimum shutter speed at a given focal length and when I really need to use the monopod
This is like shooting fish in a barrel
Google Nikon Teleconverters
find http://www.nikonusa.com/en_US/IMG/Images/Learn-Explore/Photography-Techniques/2012/Teleconverters-Freeman-Alberhasky/Media/en_US_Comp_chart.html
only 3 zoom lenses are shown as compatible with certain nikon TC's (both 70-200's but not your 70-300)
this list is 2 yrs old and so some things may have changed The specific spec sheet for each item should be looked at
The fact that the D4 is compatible with all Nikon lenses and all nikon TCs is not the same as all lenses being compatible with all TC
Large prime lenses seem most likely to benefit from use of a TC
amehta wrote:
The base ISO has the least noise, not "no noise".
My guess is that the manufacturer sets "base ISO" at the point of maximum dynamic range. This is a measurable value compared with other suggestions that are subjective
Searcher wrote:
A readable article which may give you what you are looking for, but the more I read the less I understood.
http://www.imatest.com/docs/noise/
Great reference! The professors question (whatever it was) is undoubtedly answered somewhere in this article
This should be required reading for those hogs who blather on endlessly on topics of noise, SNR, dynamic range etc without knowing what the heck they are talking about
Note: in the article the term "pixel" is sometimes used when the meaning is clearly "pixel value" IE 0-256 for 8 bit data
Nic42 wrote:
Sorry but this is incorrect; a polarising filter is the one filter that cannot be replicated in Post Processing.
:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:
The "new" Shake Reduction filter is little more than using the lens blur filter with the direction set to vertical which is the direction of the mirror vibration. Photoshop is loaded with redundancy itself, just as the add-ons simply alternate ways to doing what you can do in Photoshop itself if you know how.[/quote]
Are we talking about the same Sharpen/shake reduction filter in PS CC
You say the blur filter is used as a sharpening tool?
As one who has explored the use of the shake filter quite often I can assure you that many hand held shots have (as shown in the graphic included in the shake filter) measurable motion blur -horizontal vertical and/or diagonal and that by comparison of the before and after pictures, that the shake filter applies a correction in the correct direction.
The tool even allows you to manually adjust the correction angle and magnitude (if you know how)
Now this tool is easy to misuse and the default settings will frequently over correct with ugly halos but "not if you know how"
Related question re mirror slap
Does anyone know the time delay between mirror slap and the start of the exposure? Can the delay be adjusted via a menu item? How long does the effect last?
DavidPine wrote:
Shake reduction won't salvage a badly focused shot, if that is you are thinking or hope. I have only seen shake reduction only make a really bad photograph a sorta bad photograph. There is a good course (tutorial) by Deke McCellend (sp) on Lynda.com.
The reason Shake Reduction won't save a badly FOCUSED shot is that, that is not not what it does-- SR reduces Motion blur it does not correct focus errors, if you ask it to it will try but usually with bad results
Bill Houghton wrote:
In the PS group. There is also a sharping tool, located in the Smear Tool Bundle. This is a useful tool when you only want to do a smaller or select area. You set the size of the brush and the flow just like any other tool.
It can be used fore instance to bring the verbiage on a distant sign in better focus or a knot on a tree.
If anyone cares it is the "smudge" tool not the "Smear" tool
MMC wrote:
Thanks again. What is your opinion about shake reduction?
Regarding Adobe PSCC Filter/sharpen/shake reduction
I use this frequently and find that when used gently it can provide useful results
It is most effective with a low noise original as it will attempt to correct noise with ugly results. Do not presharpen and if necessary apply some noise reduction before shake reduction
I find that the default settings are usually too strong, but these can be easily adjusted
The graphic that comes with the routine is useful as it displays how much and what kind of motion blur is in the picture -providing feedback on your technique
BigBear wrote:
Welcome !!
I use Aperture which is free from Apple if you own a Mac.
I like it much better than PS.
Apature has been discontinued to be replaced by a new program later this year, which will replace apature and iPhoto
for details follow this link
http://appleinsider.com/articles/14/07/01/apples-photos-for-os-x-to-come-with-pro-level-image-search-editing-plugins-more
MT Shooter wrote:
A Nikon 2X TC will not mount on that lens. An aftermarket 2X TC will mount, and function. But you will have no autofocus, the image quality will be seriously compromised, and due to the focus screens in todays DSLR cameras manual focusing will be difficult if not impossible to accurately set.
Save your money for a good longer lens and forget the doublers.
:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:
TC's might have some value if the lens resolution is better than the pixel resolution of the camera (I know that this is subjective) This applies usually to very expensive large prime lenses or low resolution cameras
Otherwise PP clipping gives the same or better results (PP clipping involves no additional optical elements and does does not reduce the amount of light arriving at the sensor, Yes darker affects IQ only indirectly but affect it it does in most real life situations, if you use a tripod for landscape pics in bright sunlight go for it)
The advantages of a TC mentioned by previous posters in other related threads ,include not having to PP your pics before bring to walmart for prints, the ability to brag about "tack sharp" pictures , larger /darker view of subject in the viewfinder which might be useful for the visually impaired in bright sunlight
The question posed by the OP was not "can I be happy with a pic I took with a TC" but rather he inquires or should have, "will the use of a TC give me a better pic, than I would get without a TC after a bit of PP"
Kmontgomery wrote:
I'm fairly new too this so don't eat me alive here. So it seems that in all reviews (which are bogus and biased anyways) people complain that some very high end cameras have "too much noise" at "low" iso's. And it's seems that dynamic range is directly correlates with iso etc. Example. The 7100, the K3 and k52. Even some of the full frame fellas 6d and d600. So what's the deal with the complaints? I plan on eventually post processing which I know nothing about at this moment. I've handled the bodies I'm interested in and they all feel good. So what should be important too me since I'm about too invest in a system. And I don't invest much in who has more glass options. Pentax, canon, nikon all have great stuff.
I'm fairly new too this so don't eat me alive here... (
show quote)
Was there a question somewhere in that incoherent rant?
PhotoGenesis131 wrote:
If back button focus is used does the VR continue to be active?
No.
Interesting question and response
So I did a test with my D800 & nikon 80-400 G
Hand held at 1/4 second
VR most definitely is active with either
BBF (IE Autofocus/AF activation/AF-ON only)
or normal (Shutter/AF-ON)
Perhaps the answer is different for different cameras /lenses
OddJobber wrote:
I will diplomatically agree with both sides on this, because both have valid arguments, but the proof is in how steady you are or I am. I go for the fastest shutter speed I can get while keeping ISO and aperture reasonable.
:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:
MT Shooter wrote:
Use the true focal length of the lens. Focal length is always focal length and the sensor size has absolutely NO EFFECT on it. A 200mm lens is and always will be a 200mm lens regardless of the capture device it is mounted on.
That said, the 1/focal length is no more than a guideline. If at 1/250sec and a 200mm lens you are not getting sharp results, then by all means bump your shutter speed one stop to 1/500sec and see if it helps. Always use the next fastest shutter speed available when using this rule of thumb (200mm would be 1/200sec, but few cameras offer this speed and 1/250sec is usually the next shutter speed selectable).
Use the true focal length of the lens. Focal lengt... (
show quote)
Hey!
Listen to this guy
A lens is a lens is a lens
Crop factor has nothing to do with angular resolution- it affects ONLY Field of View
However camera resolution is important- if your camera (D800 for example) has more pixels you will detect shake effects sooner and hence the rule needs to be adjusted to perhaps 1/(2X FL)