djtravels wrote:
It's still a BUF. Makes my butt hurt just looking at it. Noisy too, right?
LOL :) ... noisy, yeah, and dirty black exhaust (didn't see the plane on the horizon at first but the smoke trail soon gave it away) - still and all, it's a real mean looking machine when it's coming towards you
Had a visitor today which should revive memories for some ... a USAF B-52 bomber flew all the way from Darwin to do a 5 second flyover for Townsvilles VP70 commemoration ceremony (the US 5th air force and many thousands of US troops were based here during WWII)
USAF B-52 bomber in the far distance
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-meaF9C8SqAo/Vc7JK7gJPUI/AAAAAAAAQVY/UnPx_9swJwk/s800-Ic42/K5JS2589%252520-%252520Rowes%252520Bay%2525202015.jpg
USAF B-52 bomber in the near distance
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-G_Sdyp_rqTs/Vc7JMzdcm7I/AAAAAAAAQVg/nTd6dPRd6Io/s800-Ic42/K5JS2598%252520-%252520Rowes%252520Bay%2525202015.jpg
USAF B-52 bomber overhead
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-jvMwlSBJ6S0/Vc7JO54B_CI/AAAAAAAAQVo/fvMOXBsamh0/s800-Ic42/K5JS2624%252520-%252520Rowes%252520Bay%2525202015.jpg
Joined by a RAAF Boeing C-17A Globemaster III
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-RJ2puOY8xwQ/Vc7JQ3PRh8I/AAAAAAAAQVw/3XcH-iuOTN8/s800-Ic42/K5JS2660%252520-%252520Rowes%252520Bay%2525202015.jpg
TFL
?? The date and time is always recorded automatically in your EXIF data and does not show on prints - learn how to read EXIF (e.g. I'm using XP and I merely have to hover the mouse pointer over the image to read the date and time)
watersedge wrote:
thanks for you replies. I wanted a date stamp on them to record when they where taken but on the ones I want to print I need it removed.
I now found some software on line to remove it movavi Photo Editor
With crazies like that with such a strong death-wish you wonder why they bother deploying the parachute (or even wear one)
Very nice, very good use of light. All good but particularly like the 1st, 3rd, and last ones :)
GENorkus wrote:
I've always thought that RAW is RAW, plain and simple. When I started looking into it, some questions arose.
One example is when I set my camera to include noise reduction, it effect the RAW file that my camera stores.
Another is white balance, it too effects RAW.
My manual only tells me that I can make a changes but it doesn't tell me if that operation is on Jpeg or RAW, or both.
What effects what?
This follows on to what Gene has already said ...
Seeing as you're using Pentax, open the RAW file in the PP program that came with the camera (i.e. PENTAX Digital Camera Utility 4) ... look at all the many and various settings there and you will see that what is showing on the screen is all the camera settings that you have set for shooting JPEGs - including noise reduction and white balance, and every other camera setting such as 'Bright', 'Natural', 'Vivid', etc, and, of course you are free to change any or all of those settings. In other words, if you don't make any alterations you are seeing the exact same image that would have been used to produce the JPEG image - they are the "suggestions" Gene referred to.
Of course you can change very many things here, but what's not often realized is that even if you didn't shoot in the RAW format, you can still use this PP program to make these exact same changes to a JPEG image! ... with one important proviso, which is, this only applies to the original JPEG straight from the camera (or a copy of the original) if you have altered the original in (say) photoshop or another PP program, many operations will then be "greyed out" and unavailable - so always make a copy of the original and store it away safely :)
Harvey wrote:
Your statement/personal feelings are quite true in most all situations, more prep with a quality camera and filters may work too. In my experiences - mostly in shooting mountain scenery/landscapes I am lucky to get a decent image with lots of PP with CS4. this is before and after of Crater Lake from a window seat at 30,000ft.
This was taken with a Panasonic Lumix FX18 on auto.
I have other "test shots" I did in the Higher elevation and long distances of the Sierras where I used this Lumix FZ18 - a Canon Rebel w/ 18-55 and 100-300 lens at several different settings and still had to PP the haze out.
Do you have any preferred setting for this haze problem - I could sure use some advice/tutoring.
Harvey
Your statement/personal feelings are quite true in... (
show quote)
Harvey, hazy photos generally have a low dynamic range as seen in your very low-res 'original', where the histogram is crowded all to the right of the centre of the histogram (which also shows the whites have been "blown" and are a little over-exposed - making the situation even worse). Adjusting the levels and some sharpening will often improve the situation.
Normally you would move the left levels slider to the right but I chose to do this one by using the gamma (centre) slider to the right instead as this can do a partial fix (restore some detail) to the blown areas.
You can see the difference in the histograms here (PS could go a much better job with the high-res original rather than a thumbnail)
your "original"
(
Download)
after levels adjustment (and some sharpening)
(
Download)
Ibis have VERY long beaks and so, as they can't suck, to get a drink from a very shallow pool of water such as a birdbath requires a bit of ingenuity (it's all in the way you hold your head :))
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-fEbYySiQizQ/VWCIeMci6LI/AAAAAAAAQOs/RWIs3mtCMx8/s800/K5JS2039%252520-%252520Gulliver%2525202015.jpg
TFL
Leicaflex wrote:
They are better than clay pigeons to shoot at.
Thank you for the link.
Step into the 21st century Leicaflex, these have been used by some farmers in Australia for quite a few years to check on crops, cattle, etc - saves a lot of time & money and talking about shooting at them is just infantile, or could it be that you are just jealous?
jerryc41 wrote:
Yes, nice lighting.
Irvingite wrote:
Very nice
Charles
Thanks jerry and Charles :)
Early morning, having a coffee on the front porch when the first light from the sun started shining through gaps in the trees over the road and lighting some things up almost like there was a spotlight shining on them, I liked the lighting, so raced inside for the camera and snapped off some quick shots
First Light down the back (pan)
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-dMRzzkXpHVY/VVrvddUrgoI/AAAAAAAAQLc/_Sdfd8FZVA8/s800/Down%252520the%252520Back%252520-%252520Gulliver%2525202015%2525205MB.jpg
First Light in the Treetops (pan)
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-eD7NV6A36cE/VVrvd-WlOyI/AAAAAAAAQLg/qLFwMekTryk/s800/First%252520Light%252520in%252520the%252520Treetops%252520-%252520Gulliver%2525202015%2525205MB.jpg
First Light across the road
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-7fp_OzCFmoc/VVrvBARZNkI/AAAAAAAAQLQ/vxjC_aaE58A/s800/K5JS1774%252520-%252520Gulliver%2525202015.jpg
TFL
That's amazing, good on him, I didn't even know dinosaurs had an artistic bent - what sort of art were they into? Painting? Sculpture? Photography? Music? Opera? Ballet? Origami? Flower arranging? ... :)
DrWilk wrote:
We use bears up here as incentive for our athletes. Saves money on overpriced coaches. The bears just eat the ones that don't make the cut.
Yeah, in Australia we do similarly, salt-water crocs strapped onto skateboards is what Cadel Evan's mum used to teach him to ride faster than everyone else