Posts for: amwalker3
Nov 24, 2021 09:26:19 #
Wise words.Some while back I photographed my friend's son from pre-birth to 3 or 4 years. Made a Blurb book of it, which I was quite pleased with. The last picture was of him looking straight down the lens with a serious grimace - like "Enough! stop pointing that thing at me!"
He's 13 now and I've never photographed him since.
I expect Piaget could explain it.
Best,
Alan.
He's 13 now and I've never photographed him since.
I expect Piaget could explain it.
Best,
Alan.
Nov 22, 2021 10:42:20 #
And this is when the trouble all started.........
May 10, 2021 15:04:38 #
twosummers wrote:
7 hours of photography
1,050 images taken
50 hours to photograph and process
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9555633/High-resolution-photos-ancient-Black-Stone-heart-Meccas-holy-Kabba.html
1,050 images taken
50 hours to photograph and process
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9555633/High-resolution-photos-ancient-Black-Stone-heart-Meccas-holy-Kabba.html
No, somebody in the UK took around 800,000 shots of a very exotic beetle and had them stacked and printed up into something huge - 6' x 4' - something like that. I think it was exhibited at The Natural History Museum in London. Each shot was 10 nanometres from its neighbours.
Very impressive result.
Oct 22, 2019 11:07:47 #
Thanks everyone for your replies. Yes, definetly a waste of money.
It looks like they've got a load of old Canon lenses, stripped them out and stuck a magnifying glass on the front. Not so much an example of "you get what you pay for" as "you get less than you pay for and a lesson in taking care to read between the hype".
65g indeed! What's supposed to be in there?
Alan.
It looks like they've got a load of old Canon lenses, stripped them out and stuck a magnifying glass on the front. Not so much an example of "you get what you pay for" as "you get less than you pay for and a lesson in taking care to read between the hype".
65g indeed! What's supposed to be in there?
Alan.
Oct 22, 2019 07:30:20 #
Anyone ever tried this.....
https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/262490677030?ViewItem=&item=262490677030
?
Remarkable specs. There must be a catch.
Alan.
https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/262490677030?ViewItem=&item=262490677030
?
Remarkable specs. There must be a catch.
Alan.
May 26, 2018 06:55:49 #
Excellent! Brilliant! Thanks everyone for the information and advice. Much appreciated,
Alan.
Alan.
May 24, 2018 12:59:02 #
Interesting. Thank you.
May 24, 2018 12:20:40 #
Thank you for that. Can you point me to that Adobe upgrade?
Alan.
Alan.
May 24, 2018 11:21:19 #
She, actually. Can't be too careful these days.
But I take your point.
What if I processed it in Adobe Raw and saved it as a .psd?
But I take your point.
What if I processed it in Adobe Raw and saved it as a .psd?
May 24, 2018 10:35:34 #
dsmeltz wrote:
In Photoshop click on the image then select Image Size. In the pop-up enter the final dimensions you want (do it in one jump not incrementally). Make sure to check the Resample box. Choose "Preserve Details" from the drop down and push the reduce noise slider to 100%.
Interesting. Yours is the second reply arguing against incremental resizing. Not long ago, I seem to remember, it was fashionable.
"Print it and see" is the usual fall-back option. Saving paper and ink never trumps pleasing the customer.
Heyho,
Alan.
May 24, 2018 08:44:22 #
dsmeltz wrote:
What kind of file are you starting with? RAW, Jpeg, other?
It's a .jpeg.
May 24, 2018 07:33:16 #
I've been asked/instructed to make an A3+ [or as near as possible] print from a colour image 1000 by 650 pixels.
I'm thinking of resampling it by 100 pixel increments, using Automatic in Photoshop CC, up to 1800 on the long side, then printing at 100 pixels/inch.
Anyone got a better recipe?
Alan.
I'm thinking of resampling it by 100 pixel increments, using Automatic in Photoshop CC, up to 1800 on the long side, then printing at 100 pixels/inch.
Anyone got a better recipe?
Alan.
Nov 14, 2017 11:08:03 #
rplain1 wrote:
I believe it changes shutter speed, not f-stops. If it were changing f-stop settings then each frame would have a different depth of field and would look strange when combined.
Nov 13, 2017 07:26:44 #
I know how to do it and what it's for. I recently took a load of shots of a sunset [with my Canon 200D]. They came out ok but, looking at the EXIF data, I notice that the shutter speed, aperture and ISO all remain the same - just that one frame is marked +1, one -1 and the third is unmarked.
So what is the camera actually doing to the shot? And is it the same for exposure compensation?
Enlightenment would be received with gratitude,
Alan.
So what is the camera actually doing to the shot? And is it the same for exposure compensation?
Enlightenment would be received with gratitude,
Alan.
Oct 30, 2017 12:18:38 #
Thanks for that.
Sometimes I think this world is just too complicated for me.
As is taking photos with modern cameras full of buttons and options.
But I keep doing it, because it's fun and one day I hope to take a truly fine and perfect picture. If I ever do - I don't know what I'll do next.
Alan.
Alan.
Sometimes I think this world is just too complicated for me.
As is taking photos with modern cameras full of buttons and options.
But I keep doing it, because it's fun and one day I hope to take a truly fine and perfect picture. If I ever do - I don't know what I'll do next.
Alan.
Alan.