Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register ☰
Posts for: TheDman
Page: <<prev 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 ... 285 next>>
May 7, 2018 19:04:08   #
(Photo Analysis)
Raw vs jpg: Can you spot the difference?
DanielB wrote:
There is one glaring problem with this test - isn't everything uploaded to the website converted to JPEG anyway.


Well of course, you can't even view an actual raw file. When we compare raw vs jpg we're talking about post processing starting from a raw file vs post processing starting from the camera's jpg.
Go to
May 4, 2018 13:47:15   #
(Main Photography Discussion)
Made a decision on how I'm going to shoot real estate
billnikon wrote:
Too hard, too time consuming. Their are many quicker and better ways to shoot interiors.
Basic set up for any rooms or rooms that show outdoor light, you have to balance the outdoor light with FLASH, yes, you need flash. First, take a reading of the outside light.(use that reading as your base exposure) Make sure your exposure is within the range of your flash. (1/250 sec. or slower) then, tilt your flash head up and behind you so that your flash is diffused. You can go manual on the camera and TTL on the flash (easier) Using this method your outdoor light is the same as the indoor light and you won't have to use a HDR program. You get the shot right the first time.
Too hard, too time consuming. Their are many quick... (show quote)


I work for a large home builder. We hire real estate photographers in cities around the country, and we're always looking for better ones.

Here's what we like:
- tripod / low ISO
- no sunlight streaks on floors or furniture, so shoot at the right time of day
- HDR is fine if done well

Here's what we hate:
- Flash!
- harsh sun streaks
- handheld at ISO 3200
- terrible Photoshopping

There are different ends of this market; if you're shooting Zillow listing shots for a realtor they want cheap and quick. No tripod or much processing. If you're shooting model homes for a new home builder they want the works, and are willing to pay for it. Up to you which end of things you want to specialize in.
Go to
May 3, 2018 22:43:57   #
(Main Photography Discussion)
Space; the final frontier - (FF v APS-C)......
dsmeltz wrote:
You missed the point but then again that is what you do consistently. Dman, why do you persist when you have such a loose grip on...... well pretty much everything?

Sorry you have to be... well you. Hope you seek help and get better. Bye now.


It's embarrassing for you when you can only answer simple questions with personal attacks.
Go to
May 3, 2018 14:39:05   #
(Main Photography Discussion)
Space; the final frontier - (FF v APS-C)......
ToBoldlyGo wrote:
There are no criteria to say one is better than the other. For me, a 24mp cropped sensor is simply better...


LOL!
Go to
May 3, 2018 14:37:57   #
(Main Photography Discussion)
Space; the final frontier - (FF v APS-C)......
dsmeltz wrote:
Which one is bigger? FF.


There you go, you just made a comparison between the two without inserting them into any system, something you previously thought impossible. Now, are there any other comparisons we can make without inserting them into a system?
Go to
May 3, 2018 13:05:14   #
(Main Photography Discussion)
Space; the final frontier - (FF v APS-C)......
dsmeltz wrote:
OK. Then neither sensor can a capture a picture. They are equally useless without a camera to put them in. If you do that, then suddenly you are talking about a system, a topic you claim (and have proved) you are not up to.


Which one has greater surface area?
Go to
May 3, 2018 12:55:25   #
(Main Photography Discussion)
Space; the final frontier - (FF v APS-C)......
dsmeltz wrote:
Clearly you simply do not understand systems. Systems cannot be compared based on single like components. They are compared on how they function as systems in achieving their design purpose.


We're not comparing systems, were comparing components. Specifically, full frame sensors and crop sensors.
Go to
May 3, 2018 10:38:25   #
(Main Photography Discussion)
Space; the final frontier - (FF v APS-C)......
dsmeltz wrote:
But as Jerry pointed out, it is ultimately how the parts work as a system. It is not about how one element works. So I forgot another phrase that applies to why people mistakenly believe that a general comment like FF is better than APS-C:

"All things being equal" you see, all things are NEVER equal. Never.


Two things can be equal. Sensor sizes can be equal. You can apply an equal amount of noise reduction. Pixel pitches can be equal, or they cannot. Lots of things can be equal.
Go to
May 3, 2018 10:04:45   #
(Main Photography Discussion)
Space; the final frontier - (FF v APS-C)......
ToBoldlyGo wrote:
Please explain why I'm required to agree with this.


Because more space is more than less space. Or watch this.

Anyhow, the only person who actually answered the question was the initial responder: it's the actual size of the pixels. Here's an article about it, if you want to get into the tech stuff. I think you owe your friend a beer.
Go to
May 1, 2018 22:25:00   #
(Main Photography Discussion)
Post processing primarily of landscapes
E.L.. Shapiro wrote:
The major part of my time there was NOT devoted to remedial procedures to correct bad photography.


That's still how it is. Nothing has changed.
Go to
May 1, 2018 17:54:29   #
(Main Photography Discussion)
Post processing primarily of landscapes
E.L.. Shapiro wrote:
I am not trying to pick a fight or generalize too much about photographers shooting/processing habits- to each his or her own. I do, however, see, read and hear about so many photographers' dependence on automation and technology as opposed to using simple time-honored techniques. It's all right here on the forum.


Funny, what I see most in this forum is so many photographer's dependence on time-honored techniques instead of taking advantage of all the wonderful new technology of today. But I don't care, because it doesn't matter.



E.L.. Shapiro wrote:
My philosophy and methodology is a holdover or a throwback to my 50 years in the darkroom where an optimum quality negative always made for the highest quality prints in the least amount of time.


Why do you believe that has changed in any way? Did you spend 50 years in the darkroom because you didn't compose carefully or focus/expose correctly?
Go to
May 1, 2018 11:37:16   #
(Main Photography Discussion)
Post processing primarily of landscapes
E.L.. Shapiro wrote:
Problem is, many photographers are becoming so dependent on the computer/electronics aspect of their craft that the are neglecting good solid camera work.


These people are often mentioned, but I still don't know an example of one.


E.L.. Shapiro wrote:
with good camerawork you probably won't require multiple layer of correction.


I disagree, as do many of today's best landscape photogs. Who cares how many layers you use or how much time you spend in pp. The final result is all that matters. Doesn't matter if you get there with amazing camerawork/little pp, terrible camerawork/amazing pp, or amazing both.
Go to
Apr 26, 2018 16:05:13   #
(Main Photography Discussion)
I've seen the Light!
But but... Zone System! lp/mm! Mirrorless!! These are the things that matter, right?
Go to
Apr 26, 2018 11:59:54   #
(Main Photography Discussion)
Image Resize stopped working!
Al Beatty wrote:
I'm using the photos in e-books. Kindle wants them to be less the 128KB in file size. The process I use to accomplish that going from a 24 mp fine jpg file from a Nikon D750 is to first "resize for web" then use the Image>Image Resize menu selection to further reduce the size to 8" x 6" at 96ppi. When saved to 50% on the jpg "save menu" the file size is almost always less than 128KB. I don't know about you suggestion of "interpolation to resize" but I've done several thousand images using the above technique and every one has worked just fine untill the other day when I downloaded Adobe DNG Converter which I can't seem to uninstall through the Control Panel. Thanks for your comment. Take care & ...
I'm using the photos in e-books. Kindle wants them... (show quote)


When you resize to 8"x6" at 96 ppi all you are really doing is changing the pixel dimensions to 768x576, which seems rather low for an e-book if they're supposed to take up a full page.
Go to
Apr 25, 2018 11:47:45   #
(Main Photography Discussion)
Black and White
Photocraig wrote:

First, the purpose of the system is to put the photographer (capture and processing) in control of how to expose a scene


You mean without it the photographer is not in control?
Go to
Page: <<prev 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 ... 285 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.