Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Posts for: rehess
Page: <<prev 1 ... 580 581 582 583 584 585 586 587 588 ... 1126 next>>
Apr 14, 2018 14:41:26   #
Kuzano wrote:
On your question 3, I don't care if my screen at home is a 55 inch 4K TV running in HDMI. I will do anything necessary to avoid Post Processing. And I do not shoot RAW. But Hey, that's me, and more than a few others on this site.

SOOC with both film and digital.

Actually, I prefer to not PP, and the only difference I see between this functionality in camera and PP in computer is that the computer gives me a much larger screen.

A few days ago I posted some images I shot five days ago in Chicago.
http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-523581-1.html

Only when I was looking at them on my computer did I realize that the motorman in the first train was visible, looking back at the rest of the train. That is just one example of the detail you can miss on a tiny screen.
Go to
Apr 14, 2018 13:49:53   #
In another thread here, the OP asks about 'trimming' a photo while it is still in his Nikon D500. This leads me to three questions:

(1) how much can the user of a modern Nikon camera modify an image while it is still in his/her camera?

(2) does this affect the NEF version of an image or just the JPEG version?

(3) why would someone spend valuable time in the field doing such a thing when s/he could do it later on a much larger screen??
Go to
Apr 14, 2018 13:08:29   #
dswoff01 wrote:
I got a D7500 over some others because it was a little heavier. As well as it being a pretty good camera.

berchman wrote:
You should have gotten a D5 if you're looking for something heavier.

Permanently attaching a wooden tripod to it would give real 'heft' to it!
Go to
Apr 14, 2018 12:26:12   #
par4fore wrote:
What I love about this hobby-
GAS- getting new stuff is always fun!
Playing- The mechanics of all of this is fun for me; camera gear, the computer and framed photos.

I got my first adjustable camera in 1979. Including that one, I am now using my ninth primary camera {eighth 'unique' one - when my Canon Rebel unexpectedly died, I purchased an identical one, which then unexpectedly died}; that is an average of just over four years per camera. I have been disappointed by several digital cameras, including that second Rebel .... my film cameras averaged over five years. I don't enjoy shopping for new cameras and learning to use them - I enjoy using the cameras I'm already comfortable with.
Go to
Apr 14, 2018 10:44:33   #
Waterboy23 wrote:
I thought I had this figured out but lately, my reply doesn't show up. I could have changed one of my settings to cause this or perhaps I'm doing something wrong. Any thoughts?

You need to do more than just ask an amorphous question. This thread is a good place to practice.
Press "Quote Reply" on one of the responses
Enter your response after the [/quote] that ends it
Press "Review" to see what your response will look like
Press "Send" to post your response
Go to
Apr 14, 2018 10:13:52   #
anotherview wrote:
Using a modern lens with effective image stabilization in it along with careful hand holding technique may make unnecessary the use of a tripod to gain a sharp image.

Read more here: https://kenrockwell.com/tech/digital-killed-my-tripod.htm

The insistence on use of tripod nowadays appears more like a dogma from the passe film era.

Some conditions of course require a tripod for best results.

Note that the Camera Shake Reduction filter in Photoshop CC can eliminate or compensate for a slightly blurred image.
Using a modern lens with effective image stabiliza... (show quote)

If your body is stabilized, you can get the same kind of service from older lenses. Pentax users delight in using the vast array of great M42-mount lenses, for example.
Go to
Apr 14, 2018 10:00:07   #
LarryFitz wrote:
Your memory is good, a pixel can be broken down a a number. Film is a curve smooth analog curve. Scanner capture the information and assigns a number, but it can not assign a number of 234.456 or 234.789 they will be save as 234 and 235
DaveC1 wrote:
Amplitude resolution also depends on the # of bits the system uses, for 12 bits there are 4096 discrete values that can be represented, for 14 bit its 16,384 discrete values, and for 8 bits its 256 values. The formula is 2^(number of bits).

This relates to color depth {how many colors can be displayed} - not sharpness{how many pixels are captured}
Go to
Apr 14, 2018 09:52:32   #
AllenDpics wrote:
Thanks CaptainPhoto
I think I will order the IS lens. If I have any vinyetting, I’ll send it back. But I’ll hope for the best.

Vignetting occurs when a lens is used with a sensor larger than it was designed for. No F-mount lens should noticeably vignette on an APS-C body.
Go to
Apr 13, 2018 22:07:32   #
itsnoelb wrote:
Geez. I didn't get it when 1000 bits were a kilo bit, 1000 kb was a byte, the mb...then MB....basically, 1000 of x times 1000 of y equals 1000 of z......infinitely. Now, you guys fried my brain. No, I don't program. I just build the buildings for folks to work in who figure all that out.

In computer usage, the multiplier is 1024 .... 1024 bytes = 1 KB, etc., but knowing the general concepts is sufficient in general
Go to
Apr 13, 2018 22:00:19   #
DJ Mills wrote:
I recently read that when life gets discouraging or challenging, it helps to think of a happy time & place and retreat there for a while. I have taken that a step farther and created a photo folder called "Escape." It is a constantly changing collection of beautiful landscapes, happy children, pets, wildlife, etc., who will continue to be beautiful and/or happy regardless of how my petty problems are resolved. I go there often and review what I have saved. Some of the photos are from UHH members. I hope you're OK with that. They go on my tablet and stay for a short time before I delete them and find some others to enjoy. If this is overstepping what you would like done with your pics, send me a PM and I'll be sure to not use your work. Otherwise, thanks for making my problems go away -- even for a little while.
I recently read that when life gets discouraging o... (show quote)
I post my images with this very use in mind.

During the early months of this year, I often had my tablet with me when I visited my elderly mother, and I would show her a few of these images. On March 6th, she was very weak, but quietly said a distinct "cute" when I showed her one.
http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-517484-1.html
I never heard another clear, meaningful word from her before she died on the 10th. Even images that aren't great art can have value like this.
Go to
Apr 13, 2018 21:27:00   #
cjc2 wrote:
I would not recommend lowering the shutter speed if you are looking for sharp images. I would recommend using a faster and shorter lens. Your choice of lenses is way to slow for indoor sports. Best of luck.

I don't know how the D7500 behaves in practice. I am quite sure that the future of sports photography is in this sort of kit - using "insanely high" ISO settings instead of pricey f/2.8 or better lenses, so I'm interested in seeing how this experiment progresses.
Go to
Apr 13, 2018 21:02:22   #
jcryan wrote:
Minor correction: a single base-2 or binary digit (0 or 1) is a bit. 8 bits (decimal 0 to 255, Hex 00 to FF) is a byte. A word is dependent on the computer architecture. Common word sizes are 8, 16, 24, 32, and 64 bits (1,2,3,4,8 bytes). Word size is mostly unimportant to the user, however I once worked on a project migrating complex engineering programs from Honeywell (36 bit word - 12 octal digits) to IBM (32 bit word). The heavy matrix calculations involved never yielded exact results on the two platforms, but as in all things engineering they were close enough.
Minor correction: a single base-2 or binary digit ... (show quote)

Introducing the concept of 'word' is just asking for trouble. Adding to your list, the first two computers I programmed had word lengths of 36 and 60 bits, respectively, but that adds nothing to this discussion.
Go to
Apr 13, 2018 20:08:50   #

I've never heard of them.

Maybe someone else will comment on this post's next passage down the page.
Go to
Apr 13, 2018 20:01:17   #
Rickyb wrote:
How many pixels are there in Kodachrome and other slide films? What about color negs and BW negs? There is a differential.

Before I was willing to go digital, I had a pro scan some Kodachrome 25 slides for me. After he returned the {3000x2000} scans to me, I set up my projector and compared projected slides to scans. For every detail I identified on a slide, I could find that detail on the corresponding scan, so I decided I would go digital once a 6mp camera was in my price range. Later, I got a new digital camera that could mount the K-mount lens used to take the slides in my test, and I discovered that 16mp images were much sharper than the slides were - so I am personally convinced that Kodachrome was giving me roughly 6mp sharpness.

I believe we are spoiled today, demanding much more sharpness from digital than we ever got from film, even from the very best film like Kodachrome.
Go to
Apr 13, 2018 19:20:33   #
jwm1944 wrote:
someone said their statehouse was the oldest in the US.

Unless your words exactly address the Original Post, you need to use 'Quote Reply' to provide context.
Go to
Page: <<prev 1 ... 580 581 582 583 584 585 586 587 588 ... 1126 next>>
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.