Morning Star wrote:
It seems to be different for everyone. I had my second eye done last Tuesday. Wednesday about noon the "plastic shower-curtain look" was gone and I was able to drive myself to the check-up appointment with the ophthalmologist. Distance vision is perfectly clear and sharp, but I'll have to wear glasses for reading and computer the rest of my life. Optometrist appointment coming up in May.
My friend on the other hand, kept that "plastic shower-curtain look" for just about a week.
For me, there was not much change in the colours around me; my friend however said, it looked like she had stepped into a new world with very vivid and intense colours.
Hope they clear up soon for you too!
It seems to be different for everyone. I had my se... (
show quote)
The 'shower curtain' is still with my second eye (done 1-1/2 weeks ago). The first eye cleared up in less than a week. This one is going to take much longer I guess. I don't mind the wait, just as long as it does clear.
ron
great shot. Lucky you to have them take up residence nearby.
ron
TheDman wrote:
You should understand it whether or not you shoot raw. It just means that that area of the photo is a blown-out, clipped highlight. You can post process until you're blue in the face, but you can't recover image data from a clipped area. For more info on this, read here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clipping_%28photography%29Gotcha. And thanks for the Wiki link. I believe I understand - at least a lot better than I did.
ron
I obviously need to get up earlier and stay later. These bluehour shots are absolutely fantastic! Especially like the first example from SS.
ron
mcveed wrote:
Here are three more, all of which have the sunset itself as the main subject. The two in the desert have the silhouettes of desert plants as anchors. The one taken in Iceland is actually a sunrise but I was so jet lagged after the flight from Canada that I wasn't sure what it was.
Please download.
OK, these are very nice. Maybe I'm beginning to understand where you're coming from.
ron
Your photos are making me want to get back up there! Good work. I'm really liking what you did (whatever it was) that made the pine cone lap over what looks to be the border of the picture.
ron
I couldn't see it but I'm betting that sucker had an osprey-grin going in that second shot.
You did absolutely great with the series!
ron
Fantastic shot. Looks like an oil painting from one of the old masters.
ron
Davethehiker wrote:
I'm not sure how to respond to your request but I'll try. I'm going to upload two images. One is the JPG provided by the camera. The second one is a JPG that was made from the RAW file and corrected and optimized to the limits of my skills. I hope this helps.
These two hummingbird photos alone is enough to convert me to shooting RAW. Once I get a camera that will of course. The second photo simply blows my mind with how much better it is. Thanks.
ron
TheDman wrote:
Both were post processed. Feel free to have at it and give it your best shot. There's no data in the blown out sunset area, so you're not going to be successful in recreating that.
Am I going to understand the underlined sentence once I get a camera that does RAW and try to do some PP on a photo? It sounds like a RAW image is not really an image, but rather a collection of data. Is that anywhere near right? What exactly are you seeing when you say there's no data in this area?
If this question requires me to be able to look at a RAW file to understand then simply let me know that. I may have to come back to this question again after getting a better camera.
thanks,
ron
cucharared wrote:
Well dang! Guess this just .........
Ah, I found them! Didn't have to go much further. Figured you'd follow through.
cucharared wrote:
OK, I really like that last one. ......... not shared by many.
ron
Uh, please ignore previous comments. Meds now working. Tried to get back in time to delete both but waited too long. Like mom said, "if you can't say something positive, don't say anything." I violated her rule. Sorry mom.
mcveed wrote:
In support of this post I humbly submit three examples. The first two are where the sssr is used as a background, and the last where the sssr is the main subject.
OK, I really like that last one. The first two are just shots of some fantastic scenery. These still uneducated eyes just aren't seeing their fantabulousness. Looks like you needed to either get there earlier or stay later.
Sorry, just my humble opinion. I'm quite sure it's not shared by many.
ron
mcveed wrote:
In my opinion (sometimes humble, sometimes not) ............. Sharpshooter's two examples are of the former type, where the sssr acts as background; the first fails in that the main subject is an overwhelming silhouette; the second is more successful and could almost be of the second type except for the distraction on the right lower corner. In all cases the real failures are those where the main attraction is an oversaturated orange/red mass, which is all too common.
Well dang! Guess this just goes to show me just how dumb and ignorant I am. Here I was really liking SS's big rock photo. Alas, I'm just too much a rookie to know it was a total failure. There are several more shots here that I really like. Guess they are all failures, too. Sorry about that folks.
I also really like a good sunrise/sunset just for its color and beauty. Throw some clouds in and I'm in hog heaven. Ignorant me. At the risk of sounding too something, sometimes a good sunset merits a "Good job, God - thanks for sharing". If I can capture that then I'm a happy camper.
I'm sure you included some of your sssr shots and I just haven't seen them yet. These old uneducated eyes are looking forward to the experience.
ron
Ah, I found them! Didn't have to go much further. Figured you'd follow through.
Congrats. Looking forward to seeing what this guy can do!