Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Posts for: abc1234
Page: <<prev 1 ... 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ... 330 next>>
Jun 24, 2023 20:14:57   #
A few of these are good but all deserve post-processing.
Go to
Jun 24, 2023 20:11:42   #
I owned a sign company for twenty five years. If you want something for long term, go with Dibond. Foam products warp. Regardless, reorder your print on self-adhesive vinyl and lay it down that way. To learn how to do it, go to a sign company and buy small scraps of vinyl and aluminum or any other scrap substrate. Buy a small squeegee. Practice before using the final print and substrate. The results will look great. Spray adhesives suck. Good luck.

Try YouTube for how to apply the vinyl to the substrate..
Go to
Jun 14, 2023 07:47:05   #
Pretty good shots. Not much on composition but a big wow on the overall impact of the skies, clouds, and foreground. What post-processing did you do? Did you use a polarizer? Thanks for posting.
Go to
Jun 14, 2023 07:42:57   #
Do not put too much into this or you might be asking for rachmanaz later....
Go to
Jun 13, 2023 17:18:25   #
maxlieberman wrote:
Everything you say is the truth. But they are convenient and versatile, and weigh a whole lot less than caring three or four other pieces of glass. And while they may not be the very best lenses in the world, I have won contests with this lens, and I have had photographs published in National magazines that were taken with this lens. So while other lenses may have made the images even sharper, they're good enough for my purposes.


Max, this is entirely a different issue. We are not talking about what it takes to win contests or to get published. Here are two quotes from you. "I use mine often and get great results." "I chose to take that lens because of the versatility." "Great results" is an opinion. I grant you that your pictures are good in composition, exposure, and contrast but they are not as sharp as I would like. Furthermore, you chose this lens for its versatility. You did not say sharpness and I am talking about sharpness. For this setting, I would have opted for a high quality zoom even though it is heavier and has less zoom.

I have compared my kit lenses with my quality lenses and the latter are clearly sharper. Before you make any more claims about sharpness, I suggest that you run a properly controlled experiment.
Go to
Jun 13, 2023 12:20:47   #
PHRubin wrote:
I also disagree. First, I have one and it surprises me how sharp it is at 300mm. It may not be as sharp as a prime lens, but it sure is pretty good and, to me, worth the trade-off for convenience of all-in-one performance. The attached image was taken at 300mm, the blow up has no additional processing, and nothing was done to enhance sharpness.


It may be sharp for a kit lens but here is my problem. I had to buy a Sigma 70-200, f/2.8. Once I saw how much sharper it was, I eventually switched over to their better lenses. Today, I own four of them plus the 18-300. I had not used that lens for several years until last night because I needed to on a second body.

I agree with you about the convenience. Your lens is so much more convenient to carry around and use. However, the quality is the deciding factor for me. I looked at your pictures. The uncropped one is not that sharp. I do not really judge a picture by zooming in a lot but I can really tell the difference. If you dismiss what I say, I suggest that you try one of the better lenses and see if you can tell the difference.

Prime lenses. I know that they are even sharper but I prefer the convenience and flexibility of the zooms. And this is despite their heft and size.

This is a good discussion. Thanks to all for joining it.
Go to
Jun 13, 2023 11:18:52   #
maxlieberman wrote:
Here is a link to one of them. I think you can search for the other 5 posts using the title to the post as a search term.

https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-776740-1.html


Max, thanks for the link. They illustrate just my point. The sharpest ones without any motion blur still are not that sharp. If you want to pursue this discussion, I suggest that you start a new one since we have hijacked the original one or take this offline.
Go to
Jun 13, 2023 10:03:16   #
maxlieberman wrote:
Last week I posted 60 photos that I took at the Reading World War II Reenactment, all taken with my Sigma 18-300mm. I chose to take that lens because of the versatility. View them and judge for yourself.


If you want us to see them, then please post the link.
Go to
Jun 13, 2023 09:36:45   #
maxlieberman wrote:
I disagree. I use mine often and get great results.


I do not doubt you are satisfied. I tested mine with the Reikan FoCal and the lens was much softer than my better Sigma lenses. Past 200 mm or so, FoCal could not even test the lens. That being said, it is still a very convenient and light lens and great for walking around. Just do not expect the same optical quality as a professional lens.
Go to
Jun 13, 2023 08:46:12   #
Paul, I hate to burst your bubble but despite its wonderful convenience and light weight, the optical quality past 200 mm gets pretty poor. If you do not mind that, then do recommend it. Have you tried looking for a used one or in the Sigma online store?
Go to
Jun 1, 2023 09:46:52   #
You might want to be more careful about where you are focusing.
Go to
May 24, 2023 12:21:14   #
Vince68 wrote:
This looks pretty amazing to me. There was another post today on the Hog, which seemed to be centered more on the negatives about this new Ai technology, about people using it to composite and generate fake photos.

People have been doing that for years with PS pretty much since it came out. What has changed in that regard? Not much if you ask me, except that this new tech sure is make it quicker and easier to do the same things PS has been used for in the past. Using the lasso tool and content aware to remove and replace distracting objects in a photo is something that has been done for quite some time. This new Ai just makes it faster and easier to do, thusly shortening our post processing time.

There is always going to be resistance to new tech, new ways of doing things because many do not like change. Change is inevitable. Don't worry about how others misuse this new tech. If it makes your post processing workflow better and faster, go for it I say.
This looks pretty amazing to me. There was another... (show quote)


I agree with you completely. If someone wants to lie about a picture, he will. All things considered, it is a great tool and I hope people do not abuse it.

I took a picture of myself and added the Eiffel Tower as a background. I took another picture and added Jerusalem behind me. It even fixed the top button on my shirt. I added blank space to the picture and the tool added the rest of the background. The results were great. I was at both places, just not when my picture was taken.
Go to
May 23, 2023 12:05:03   #
I have now played around with it. First of all, you must install the latest version of PS before installing the beta version with the generative fill tool. The results are unbelievable. Seeing is believing. The only bad thing is that I asked it to make a younger version of myself. It failed miserably but the rest of the suggested results were awesome.

Go and enjoy. Worth every cent of the subscription.
Go to
May 23, 2023 09:34:17   #
This is why I subscribe to Adobe. Look at these enhancements to Photoshop. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tG7dsM0hllA I am sure this will be just one of the many announcements from all over the Internet. Enjoy.
Go to
May 17, 2023 16:08:57   #
pithydoug wrote:
Technically there is no "major" release. The current subscription model(numerically at 12.3) is just one continuous stream where new function and fixes come in the service stream.


Technically, you are right. However, the releases are not uniform in scope of new or updated features. They do not always explain the impact of some of the changes. That is why people understandably underestimate the value of the changes or subscription.
Go to
Page: <<prev 1 ... 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ... 330 next>>
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.