Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Posts for: markfay
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 next>>
Apr 10, 2012 11:44:28   #
flyguy wrote:
markfay wrote:
Hood wrote:
Still trying to do things a little different on posing. Our little model did a fantastic job. Let me know what you like or don't like. It is a big help so let me know.

Thanks for your help.

Robin


great beautiful shots but is 3 and 4 a tiny bit underexposed? hope you don't mind but I adjusted one to demonstrate. See what you think


Yes on the skin coloration --- I also felt it was too reddish.


yes probably, unfortunately my laptop doesn't seem to show red as much as it should, despite calibration and I have to look on my PC at home. shots to be proud of though.
Go to
Apr 10, 2012 07:22:07   #
Turbo wrote:
Everybody has his/her personal ideas and as long it works out, then it's great!

I usually shoot both Raw and Jpg so i can see the pics as soon as they are downloaded onto my PC.

If I get 100 pics, I see 100 thumbnails ( jpg) and 100 Raw files (I can't see what they look like ).

Right away, I can delete the ones I know are not worth keeping ( both Jpg and Raw )

As far as the buffer on the camera, I can shoot 8 per sec for a long time until it slows down. That comes in handy when you chase birds in flight.
Everybody has his/her personal ideas and as long i... (show quote)


Hi Turbo, you should be able to see Raw thumbnails. You simply need to download the right codex and job done. for Nikon it's http://nikonimglib.com/nefcodec/
Go to
Apr 10, 2012 06:57:14   #
Hood wrote:
Still trying to do things a little different on posing. Our little model did a fantastic job. Let me know what you like or don't like. It is a big help so let me know.

Thanks for your help.

Robin


great beautiful shots but is 3 and 4 a tiny bit underexposed? hope you don't mind but I adjusted one to demonstrate. See what you think


Go to
Apr 10, 2012 06:40:50   #
Carl A wrote:
Try B & H photo I bought a Nikon d5100 from them
I don't know if thay are in Englang or not .


Thanks Carl, but this would be used, second hand equipment not refurbished?
Go to
Apr 10, 2012 06:31:42   #
I always shoot RAW + JPEG. I quickly re-size the JPEGS using faststone photo re-sizer (free by the way) as it will do multiple photos quickly. I can then e-mail or upload these.

For the 'serious' shots which I think have potential if I worked on them in lightroom or photoshop I use the RAW file as you can push/pull them so much further than a JPEG. Best of both worlds. hope this helps
Go to
Apr 10, 2012 06:23:27   #
I'm really interested in buying a flash and another lens for my D300 and would like to go the refurbished route. However I live in England and looking at the Nikon website there doesn't seem to be a refurbished list or options available.

Can anyone confirm or know of good alternative sites in Great Britain.

thanks
Go to
Mar 12, 2012 13:21:13   #
I think it depends what you want. An Epsom flat bed will give you the best images.

However if it's simply a good scan you want and are digitizing old photos as a memento eg the kids etc then a flat bed for any reasonable quantity will drive you nuts. I am currently digitizing a couple of thousand old 6in x 4in prints and use a Kodak P461. You simply feed in the photos one after the other. I do it while watching TV. The shots are saved to a memory card and the scans are perfectly good at 600dpi.

If I come across a shot where I want the very best scan I can manage then I get out my flatbed.

Hope this helps
Go to
Feb 20, 2012 11:46:11   #
jerryc41 wrote:
csharp wrote:
I've given some further thought to the Echo option. If I Echo drive A to drive B, wouldn't the contents of A replace that of B? This would work if A is the active drive and B the backup. However if you reverse the procedure and Echo B to A, you'll lose all recent files. Is this what happened?

I have used Echo, always going from the computer to the external drive. What I can't understand is how some files vanished and not others.

I'm going to play around with it some more and see what happens. I might just back to Acronis or do a direct copy of files.
quote=csharp I've given some further thought to t... (show quote)


I lost a load of photos too, setting was contribute, still don't understand why so I hope someone knows. Win 7
Go to
Feb 2, 2012 11:08:50   #
It certainly did, thank you for your ideas
Go to
Feb 2, 2012 04:13:26   #
RMM wrote:
markfay wrote:
RMM wrote:
Markfay, I sent you a PM, which you apparently haven't gotten around to reading. Would it be OK to post a version here?


Sorry RMM, missed it, no problem with that please go ahead

I boosted the contrast and converted to a duotone (then back to RBG to post here). No cropping, as I like the overall composition "as is," and markfay can do that if he's of a mind to.


that's a really interesting take RMM, thank you. He now looks as if he is surfing by moonlight. Very dramatic
Go to
Feb 1, 2012 13:37:32   #
llindstrand wrote:
markfay wrote:
I liked it and thought it just needed a further tweak here and there, seems I'm in a minority of one. do other people feel the photo doesn't work at all?


I will agree with those who say nothing much can be done. I tried some edits on it and wasn't pleased. In addition when I looked at it closer, parts of the image are out of focus, plus there is too much reflected light off the water. You might try a neutral density filter which will cut down on the glare or best shoot it at a time that you don't get as much reflection. One can barely tell the water from the land. I did some photos or reflections last week and calmed them down with ND filters.
Swede
quote=markfay I liked it and thought it just need... (show quote)


The out of focus is what I wanted Swede and I used aperture priority to get this. Only the kite surfer, strings and 'local' water should be in focus. The reflected light was also wanted, maybe just my strange taste.
Go to
Feb 1, 2012 11:08:20   #
yes it is a kite surfer - struggling. It was a VERY windy day
Go to
Feb 1, 2012 11:00:13   #
RMM wrote:
Markfay, I sent you a PM, which you apparently haven't gotten around to reading. Would it be OK to post a version here?


Sorry RMM, missed it, no problem with that please go ahead
Go to
Feb 1, 2012 09:54:37   #
Lucian wrote:
Keep the sky in, it gives depth, especially the fall off in focus as it stretches out to the horizon. Without that in the image it would look to cramped and too busy with too much sea.

Change the crop so that it is half way from the original and your cropped version. In other words, you have half as much sea below the surfer again, as you did in your crop, but not as much as in the uncropped version.

I like the overall impact but would suggest that you decrease the contrast slightly and take your tinted version and reduce the colour/tint to about 80% less, so that it is just above a B&W with just a hint of Sepia Tint in the image.

Then you'll have an interesting and thought provoking print. You may also try a hint of dark blue tint and then try one with a hint of pink tint or burnt sienna.
Keep the sky in, it gives depth, especially the fa... (show quote)


will try that Lucian, thank you
Go to
Feb 1, 2012 06:36:15   #
conclusion is it polarises opinions.

I think many people are looking at it from too technical a viewpoint, it's not a picture that will ever have a 'good' histogram or exposure.

For many photos though that can be an irrelevance, to me it's more important that the photo has impact and produces the desired emotion.

thanks everybody for their input.
Go to
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 next>>
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.