Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Posts for: rehess
Page: <<prev 1 ... 576 577 578 579 580 581 582 583 584 ... 1126 next>>
Apr 20, 2018 13:09:47   #
nhastings wrote:
No issues with the train. However, the Grand Canyon has MANY view points and you will be limited in your photographic opportunities without a car. Especially if the light is diverse and spectacular. There are as many moods in the Grand Canyon as ants on an ant hill. You may be lucky and get there when there is a massive thunderstorm and catch that one perfect shot; or the perfect sunset. Regardless, it is a wonderful experience and enjoy your time.

Unless he's done this before, having a car merely allows one to crawl back and forth in traffic. When were there fifteen years ago, we arrived by car, but did most of our travel via shuttle bus.
Go to
Apr 20, 2018 10:53:49   #
ToBoldlyGo wrote:
I have a 10-20 which is an ultra wide, not a fisheye. It's made for a crop sensor camera, I have never mounted it on a film or full frame camera. It shows distortion, but not the fish bowl kind of effect.

I have a Sigma 10-20mm which is rectilinear when used on my K-30. It vignettes at 10-15mm on my 35mm camera, but above that it still looks somewhat fisheye; these comments are just from looking through the viewfinder .... I need to get some film and see what actual pictures look like. How much of the lens used must have an affect
Go to
Apr 20, 2018 10:05:00   #
boberic wrote:
I think that ultimately "looking real and natural" is what this whole thing is about. One must first understand that NO photograph is either real or natural. A picture, any picture, is merely a reminder of what the "artist" saw. An important school of art is impressionist. It is a representation of what the artist "saw". It is neither real or natural but a Monet is among the most expensive things on the planet. The sky does not look the way Van Gogh painted it, but that's how he saw it. So person A's preference may be different than personB, but neither is wrong, or right.
I think that ultimately "looking real and nat... (show quote)

My pictures are always intended to convey the truth that I saw. 'On this date, this was the context and appearance of this train station' or 'comparing these pictures shows changes over time'
http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-416539-1.html

I use B&W when color might implicitly lie. For example, some years ago I photographed a repurposed station which was all white - probably the original color - except the front was chartreuse; I photographed it in B&W because a passerby told me the owner was having a dispute with the city, and this ugly color was his way of "fighting city hall".
Go to
Apr 20, 2018 08:42:39   #
joegim wrote:
At the Bronx Zoo. Top photo was shot with Lumix G7 with 45-200 zoom 1/250, f/4, ISO 1250 at 100 mm. Bottom photo shot at 1/250, f/4, ISO 800 at 100 mm. Both show eagle in focus but in the the bottom pic the bars disappear. Is it because of the closer shooting distance? Both pics are SOOC.

Yes, the 'trick' to shooting through a cage is making the distance to the bars so close that they are so completely out of focus that they seem to disappear.
Go to
Apr 19, 2018 21:20:52   #
Pentax users are very interested in 'old glass', so IBIS was a natural decision for them.
Go to
Apr 19, 2018 20:55:50   #
brucewells wrote:
Curves are just one single edit that can be done to an image, usually to adjust the contrast of the image. Many, if not most, editing programs provide the functionality. The "free" stuff will always have some method to extract your money (ads, time constraints, etc.).
Gimp is the GNU Image Processing program. The Free Software Foundation is a bunch of very talented software developers who believe that people shouldn't have to pay for software ..... most of them develop things like this just for the joy of it .... that is why their icon features the cartoon character that occasionally puts off too-serious photographers. In this case, there are no intentional "gotcha's" - no slowdown, no advertising {if you get it straight from them}, etc.
Go to
Apr 19, 2018 20:37:42   #
sv3noKin51E wrote:
With that low count of shutter activations, someone likely felt overwhelmed and returned it to the dealer after believing they couldn't grasp the features.

I'm guessing there are all kinds of reasons for returning a camera - I wouldn't over-think this kind of thing. I purchased my K-30 from KEH; shutter count was 3. No one had time to be overwhelmed .... I just accept it as a small blessing.
Go to
Apr 19, 2018 18:02:01   #
gwilliams6 wrote:
-Mirrorless cameras have IBIS, no present DSLR has this.

All current production Pentax cameras do.

added: and Pentax is the one traditional DSLR manufacturer which has openly stated that they have no plans to produce MILC.
Go to
Apr 19, 2018 12:52:56   #
tdekany wrote:
Today’s gear is so good, that we are the weak link.

The following technological changes have occurred since I purchased my first SLR
(1) body able to control aperture - making 'shutter priority' and 'program' modes feasible
(2) auto focus
(3) stabilization
(4) digital

It is hard to take a technically bad picture today, but composition is still up to us.
Go to
Apr 19, 2018 11:43:06   #
johnbee418 wrote:
Yes. I have no luck with GIMP however, so I continue to look around. I do not seem to be able to navigate through it. My mention of "stand alone" is wishful thinking.

I guess I don't understand what you want this software to do. You may need to provide a more complete description.
Go to
Apr 19, 2018 11:40:12   #
HarryBinNC wrote:
A simple spacer/adaptor can take care of the legacy lens issue, just as it has for nearly all of the popular MILCs, assuming that Canikon have the good sense to design the new lens mounts to support it.

Canon introduced an adapter allowing use of EOS lenses on EOS-M cameras when they introduced the cameras; considering the wealth of EOS lenses, that is more than sufficient. Considering the many variations of F-mount, Nikon will have to work a little harder.
Go to
Apr 19, 2018 11:30:12   #
Latsok wrote:
This is not a question about cameras or lenses per se. But I am asking for your- witty fellow UHHers' - suggestions. I am getting a female Golden Retriever puppy who will be my photo trip companion on my future treks out with my camera. We will be out there, in the great outdoors, shooting landscapes and Western Wandering Vistas together. I am trying to think of a photography-related appropriate name for her. I want it to be a short, simple, easy to say name, but not a generic "nikon" or "cannon" or such; nor any name that could be mispronounced- such as "focus." I'm sure there is something fun and witty, but can't think of any.
My daughter used to have an adopted three-legged dog I nick named "tripod." That was fun.
Any suggestions will be welcomed. Thanks in advance.
This is not a question about cameras or lenses per... (show quote)

The best names are connected to the animal's characteristics. One example was the three-legged dog named 'tripod'. Another example is our cat who has never learned to control her claws, so she tends to "stick" to everything .... we named her 'Velcro'.
Go to
Apr 19, 2018 11:17:39   #
I view SOOC as referring to images which were processed in the camera by professionally designed automation. The user can 'tweak' parameters, but it is the closest thing we have today to the Kodachrome I used in the age of film, just as LightRoom is the closest thing we have to the Darkroom that so many others used.
Go to
Apr 19, 2018 11:00:03   #
Blurryeyed wrote:
Missed his eye a little bit, download, expand, and look at the hair close to his eye, I know of very few lenses that are tak sharp at f/1.4, I have both a Canon 50/1.4 and a Sigma EX 50/1.4 and this lens is as good as either.

I think the image looks just fine - exactly what you'd expect from a vintage lens @ f/1.4 with very shallow DoF to start with. As I commented earlier, they were interested in aspects of rendering other than corner-to-corner sharpness, and it was considered impolite to stand next to a picture with a magnifying glass.
.
Go to
Apr 18, 2018 21:25:45   #
johnbee418 wrote:
Any suggestions about who sells free standing programs of Curves editing programs? (Free would be nice). I have downloaded several but they all seem to be impossible to pull out of the sites' packages to apply to my images. Also, most of the editing programs are near impossible just to download them...loaded with so many popup sales pitches. I should add here that I am a very satisfied user of Picasa for years and just want the ultimate editing tool to make my B&W photos the best on the block. :)) Thanks for your help.
Any suggestions about who sells free standing prog... (show quote)

I'm not sure why no responses, so I'll respond and see if that shakes anything loose. Are you looking for a stand-alone program? I'm not aware of such a thing. Free-of-charge gimp, available from gimp.com, has a 'curves' function. Are you looking for something like that??
Go to
Page: <<prev 1 ... 576 577 578 579 580 581 582 583 584 ... 1126 next>>
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.