Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Posts for: Greg
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 32 next>>
Dec 4, 2013 16:48:52   #
My daughter has been shooting film with my old FM, she could use the 135. Can't use the 120 though :\
Go to
Oct 16, 2013 09:16:56   #
Different market. Will it give you the image quality of a sale? In almost all cases no. But it would fair quite well against a point and shoot.

cthahn wrote:
All advertising and sales BS. Start by checking the size of the sensor. If you believe what they are telling you, then why buy an SLR.
Go to
Oct 14, 2013 21:20:09   #
Neither, I meant shoot. That's what happens when you try to type on your phone ;)

GordonB. wrote:
Greg, I'm not at all trying to be a smart arse. By any chance did you mean 'scoot' a white card or did you really mean 'soot'? If you really meant 'soot', then I'm confused.
When I think of soot, I think of the black smoke that comes from some fires like a coal burining train engine, or, a fire place.

I'm only asking you this so that I can better understand what you're saying.

Many thanks for your patience!
GordonB.
Go to
Oct 14, 2013 21:19:24   #
bleach..

lighthouse wrote:
I always have trouble with this in mixed lighting.
I never know how much soot to apply to the white card. Its such a fine line. Its sort of like "..... nope not enough... not enough .... not enough .... oh drat ... too much"
And then it is just so hard to get it off evenly again.
Go to
Oct 12, 2013 19:01:17   #
Yes but what do you do when you have a mixed lighting scenario? With raw you can soot a white card then batch apply a custom white balance too all images shot under those conditions.

hb3 wrote:
True....but very simple to change to what ever indoor lighting
one has...just have to remember to do it...I use custom settings to quickly change from indoors to outdoors and vice-versa...
Go to
Oct 12, 2013 18:57:22   #
No, you ate confusing compression with lossy compression. There are limits to how much compression you can do without loss. It varies on how random the data are. In fact there were some binary files that compression causes the file to grow. Compression itself does not imply loss. Lossy compression alters and throws away what the algorithm deems unnecessary. Lossless compression like LZW does not. Same as if you zip a file on your computer if you zip an executable file you will never be able to run it again.

Iconoscope wrote:
The processing cannot possibly be lossless, otherwise the file would be 36 megabytes. The artifacts I see in some raw images are the result of bicubic sampling used in the compression algorithm. The appearance of these artifacts is unmistakable, having a geometric regularity and not at all like typical jpeg artifacts. Nikon cameras have historically used LOW pass filters in their DSLRs and that filter was user removable in the DCS315 and DCS330 cameras. These low pass filters tended to diffuse the image slightly. The newer generation of camera sensors have such high resolution that the low pass filter is considered superfluous, albeit my D3200 still has one. There is a definite improvement in image detail and sharpness without the low pass filters, though at the expense of aliasing on some edges!
PS- The proprietary TIF format images from the DCS330 cameras are 3 megapixels and have an 18 megabyte file size, truly a lossless output file.
The processing cannot possibly be lossless, otherw... (show quote)
Go to
Oct 12, 2013 10:29:17   #
You are not seeing compression artifacts in your RAW file, they use lossless compression which will not have artifacts, ever this is why the reduction is size is not that significant. If I had to make a guess you are probably seeing the result of the optical High Pass filter, which is why the D800 and the D7100 do not have one (which seems to be the trend Nikon is going with now).

Iconoscope wrote:
"RAW" is most certainly useful to some photographers some of the time. Raw images are processed in camera only a small amount compared to jpeg images, but even Raw images must have some in camera processing to be useful at all. Some cameras are better than others at this processing for Raw output and some are downright poor! The Raw images from my Nikon D3200 average about 19 megabytes for a 24.1 megapixel image that has 12 bit color depth. If truly unprocessed, that file would be about 36 megabytes. The Raw files from this camera are compressed, almost 2:1 and if I look carefully at a pixel level I can even see compression artifacts! I did own one digital camera that had a true Raw output in a lossless TIFF format. That camera was an early Kodak/Nikon DCS200. The output file actually consisted of red, green and blue pixels! There were no brown or yellow or purple pixels, just the raw RGB! These images required post processing to be useful. I still have that camera, right where it belongs among the old and obsolete film cameras.
"RAW" is most certainly useful to some p... (show quote)
Go to
Oct 12, 2013 10:17:23   #
Define quality. There are times from RAW and times for jpeg. Jpeg will never give you the dynamic range of raw, no matter what quality setting you use, period. Even basic adjustments like color temp, cannot be done in jpeg. Sure, you can use a hue/tint shift, but it's really not the same thing. Shooting high frame rates in RAW will never let you capture as many images consecutively as jpeg, period. Shooting snapshot, while technically could be better shot in RAW, may not benefit because you have no intention to PP. As far as processing, if you are handing 3000 images to someone right after you are done your shoot, you likely aren't doing ANY PP, so you could batch convert all of the images in mere minutes depending on your computer, so I don't see that as a reason for me.

For the P/S question, in addition to all the other reasons mentioned, you also have the sensor size and optical quality dimension where while you may have technically some merit to RAW, it is minimized.

JR1 wrote:
Never used Raw
When I shoot most of my shoots are done throughout the day and I give a DVD to people at the end of the day of all the images, if I shoot 3000 during the day it would be impossible to process 3000 RAWs, and the difference in quality between RAW and a quality JPEG is not worth the time or effort most of the time
Go to
Apr 8, 2013 08:42:10   #
AND Guinness

jerryc41 wrote:
...or Guinness. :D
Go to
Apr 6, 2013 11:11:55   #
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nn-dD-QKYN4&feature=youtube_gdata_player

mdorn wrote:
Below is a snippet from a 1983 interview between James Watt & Ansel Adams. Thoughts or comments? Does Adams' comments still hold true today?

Watt: Don't you believe there are standards that can apply to all photography?

Adams: I think there are, but it's very tricky. One photographer I know is almost diabolically concerned with making poor images. The prints are terrible and the compositions are dreadful--the horizons aren't straight and all is very casual and haphazard. However, his subjects have a very definite human interest--street scenes, families, bars. If they were presented simply as slices of human experience, that would be fine. But when they are mounted and put on a wall behind glass, they immediately take on the appearance of being more than they are. The photographer becomes the "in" thing, critics applaud, prices shoot up and books are bound. To me, the emperor still has no clothes. And I particularly resent the intentional lack of craft. The painter Arp is often misquoted as having said, "If I say it's art, it's art." In fact, I am told, he said, "If I say it's art, it's art to me." The first is a very arrogant, belligerent statement. The second simply states that art is personal and subjective. Well, you may say a photograph that is very carelessly composed and executed is art, but to me it is bad craft and little more than that. On the other hand, art, to me, is what strikes me in some very special way.
Below is a snippet from a 1983 interview between J... (show quote)
Go to
Apr 6, 2013 11:02:09   #
I little pricey, but this looks like what you want.

http://www.gadgetinfinity.com/varavon-low-angle-lcd-viewfinder-pro-finder-pf-d7000-for-nikon-d7000.html

edgorm wrote:
I love low angle photos and I'd love to take some but with my lousy hips and knees, getting down there is a one way trip and usually requires a major rescue operation to regain my feet. Anyone have any suggestions as to how I can get my D7000 closer to the ground and still be able to compose a shot? Keep it civil please.
Go to
Apr 6, 2013 01:36:11   #
That's both correct and wrong at the same time. Yes, Nik Software and Nikon are different companies, but Nik wrote Capture NX for Nikon. Effectively, Capture NX is the Viveza plugin, complete with U-point controls.

jpintn wrote:
Nik Software and Nikon software are totally different products. Nik is owned by Google and offers 5 great plugins that work in Photoshop, Lightroom, and Elements.
Go to
Apr 1, 2013 21:14:27   #
Lightroom

To access the plug-ins in Lightroom, please follow these steps:
1. Select the image or images to be enhanced
2. Navigate to Photo > Edit In
3. Select the plug-in to be applied to the image(s)

To open HDR Efex Pro 2, follow these steps:
1. Select the image series to be enhanced
2. Navigate to File > Export with Preset
3. Select HDR Efex Pro 2

drcufone wrote:
So I took the plunge and bought that new nik software. Loaded it into Lightroom 4.3 and everyting is there except the HDR feature. Where could that be hiding?
Go to
Mar 31, 2013 20:08:40   #
The D7100 is not a full frame camera. While it looks like a great camera, if your goal is full frame, the 7100 is not your camera. The cheapest FF you will find is the D600. All your lenses will fit. The DX lenses will just make the D600 go into DX mode, but they will still work. The SB-700 will also work fine.

Sugar Pea wrote:
What Nikon should I buy. I have around $2000 Aus dollars to spend. I currently own a Nikon D90 and would like to up grade to a full frame camera. (Will use my D90 as a back up camera).

My love is of portrait photography (outdoor families and studio baby) and my small buisiness is starting to pick up.

I have been looking at the D7100 which is around $2000 in my local camera store or $1500 online. I would preder to buy local as I can pay it off.

I have a sigma 70-200mm lens that should go onto a full frame but my other lenses probably won't. (kit lens 18-105 and AF Nikkor 50mm 1:1.8D) I also have a nikon speedlight SB-700 will this also fit?

So any suggestions as to which camera and possibly one extra lens?
What Nikon should I buy. I have around $2000 Aus d... (show quote)
Go to
Mar 16, 2013 11:17:15   #
Really depends on your needs. If you are new to photography or are more of a novice and aren't looking for features such as bracketing, or have older auto and non auto focus lenses, it'll do a fine job for the money. If you are more advanced, you may find lack of some of the more advanced features lacking.

C.Ashbeck1 wrote:
I'm looking to buy a Nikon D3100 need to know what the Pros and Cons of it.
Go to
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 32 next>>
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.