Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Posts for: georgevedwards
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 108 next>>
Jun 30, 2018 00:01:47   #
This is why I stopped using this site...you get 10 comments and no answers!
Go to
Feb 20, 2017 01:10:57   #
Sounds like you might have inadvertantly nudged it into another mode, I have done that - the one beyond manual is "effects", for a while I thought my camera broke. The one before it may have effects on shutter speed, or as others have pointed out, it may be the metering mode...these are fantastically complex cameras, I have been using DSLR's for 15 years now and still they can perplex me and catch me off guard with their myriad settings. Clumsiness can cause hitting a wrong button somewhere and screwing a shot up.
Solution is to recheck settings and repeat and see if the same effect happens. To be really scientific and have a "control" you would need like a friend to have a similar camera and see if it does the same thing on the exact same settings.
Again, the metering suggestion, if a "spot" metering setting is pointed a shadow or dark area, it will slow the shutter to bring out THAT area, like a face, which may be desirable, (but not with your car) and overexpose the rest of the picture. That would be one thing that would cause the overexposure you posted. (this is why HDR was invented, to bring out shadows and highlights without doing exactly what you did).
Go to
Feb 5, 2017 15:21:51   #
I used to use both all the time, just to play it safe. For many years jpg is all there were, RAW was the interloper. Photoshop in those days would not recognize NEF (Nikon's RAW) for instance. Then I had to use a DNG converter. But Photoshop Cloud is the only way to go for serious photographers; that too I did with great reluctance but for $10 a month it soon became obvious it was the way to go, you get automatic updates for all the new stuff, including the RAW/NEF recognition. Why pay hundreds periodically to update? When I got a 24mp camera, I needed to have more room to save the bigger files. Again, I feel a serious photographer needs a lot of megapixels. You can't crop effectively without them. Very reluctantly I decided to try to shoot with just RAW. I found I really had no use for all those jpg negatives clogging up my camera memory card or my computer itself. I used to waste hours of time when I needed space, deleting jpgs or putting them on discs, etc. to free up hard drive space. It is just a useless luxury for those who don't do much photography or maybe have some need to jpgs ready all the time unprocessed. Personally I find processing necessary, so I wouldn't use a straight jpg from the camera anyhow. My conclusion: use camera jpg if thats ALL you need, no RAW. Otherwise ou can always make a jpg yourself during processing, which is what I do at the end and put my own "extension" of .web on the file name. Jpgs are useless pretty much except for transmitting wirelessly like on the web, where they are necessary. Of course if you are not a serious photographer you might want to just just jpg on your camera to save space; but in that case I would question why you are even using a DSLR. If you are serious at all about photography it makes no sense to use jpg on the camera, just use RAW.
Go to
Aug 29, 2016 23:19:07   #
I agree with Jim Bob, a Nikon D3300 refurbished by Nikon would be an excellent choice and bargain. Or get the state of the art D3400. I bought a D32OO when it had just come out and I was astounded, the kit lens 28-55 was the best lens and it was the best camera I ever had including the old Pentax K-1000 film camera I started with 40 yrs ago and a series of Canons, from the D 60 in 2000 to the Rebel in 2008. Nothing else came close. It is stylish to say megapixels don't matter to0 much but don't you believe it, 24 megapixels on the Nikon rules! Only a full frame could be better.
Go to
Aug 1, 2016 14:01:16   #
I am astonished an argument has broken out by some members maintaining that the uv filter is of no use as a shield. I would say that scientifically it would be hard to prove one way or another, but science would also say if something is able to crack or damage a UV filter ($2) it MAY also crack a $2000 lens, and it MAY save you $1998 by having the UV filter take damage instead of the lens. Now those are odds only a fool would refuse. I know I dropped my $500 Telephoto once and it suffered some minor damage just on the outer ring, but the lens shortly had to be replaced. Now I always have a UV lens for a shied. I may not be 100% foolproof, but it MAY save me some big bucks. I am not rich like many photographers. It is the sport of kings among the arts! You can buy a canvas for a couple of bucks and paint a masterpiece, but an average camera setup is a grand.
Go to
May 11, 2016 09:46:44   #
I have, for 15 years, been doing digital photography professionally on computers with Photoshop and various other programs (Photomatix, Portrait Pro, View NX2, Topaz, etc). There is no good way to learn Lightroom. I have spent two years studying it and it is a waste of time as far as I am concerned. It has nothing I need or can easily use and is totally confusing. I know a lot of people like it and I go and give it another shot but get nothing, whatever it is I want to try to do I already know an easier or better way.
Go to
May 1, 2016 06:03:55   #
I saw a demonstration of Lens Baby lenses, they seemed to do a type of Vignetting except not with a dark or light tone but with blur, and you can manipulate it with shapes sort of. I did not see anything I was interested in but I was not into bokeh at the time. you already have a problem in macro with just the area centered on with the viewing cursor being sharp, and a quick drop off around it, very little depth of field. The Lens Baby would seem to accentuate that further, I would think. I am trying to figure out how to focus stack, which is the opposite direction. The Lens Baby lenses I saw weren't cheap either. They do make some interesting effects, it depends on your personal preferences if you like that sort of thing.

kcj wrote:
does anyone use a lens baby, for macro? Using on a full frame Nikon. If so which one, and do you like it, or is it a waste of money?
Go to
Mar 5, 2016 06:28:01   #
Took a street photo and made a mandala of it. Only certain elements of the photo came through...not really any recognizable objects except perhaps the cobblestone pavement.

Thames St, Baltimore Md.

Go to
Feb 21, 2016 06:55:06   #
Your friend may be a food photographer...they do everything super high key these days.
Go to
Feb 14, 2016 06:24:05   #
One big advantage I find with RAW using the photoshop RAW processor is that it seems to have advanced adjustments, that I can't get in photoshop, or anywhere else, sort of like a "Photoshop Plus" It seems to be the most advanced adjustment tool so far. (There are some interesting plugins like the Topaz series, but most of them are overrated) Of course that means it is more complicated, and even I have started avoiding the RAW hue/saturation balance controls for highlights and shadows most of the time. Still, I like having as many options as possible. Also, I got tired of filling up my memory card too quick, and after a year of having saved folders of unused jpegs on my computer, taking up space there too, I finally got rid of them. RAW only. I admittedly am in love with post processing, so using jpeg to avoid pp doesn't work in my case. I guess you could just open a RAW file in the converter and do nothing, just open the image from there and save it as a jpeg if you need it, but why keep hundreds of duplicates? If you do serious DSLR photography on your computer sooner or later you will run into "running out of space" problems. Eventually a box will pop up saying: "could not perform that function because your scratch disc is full" and then you have to start transferring photos to DVD's or an external hard drive to free up space. Why save Jpg's and RAW's of the same photo?
Linckinn wrote:
is the following correct? If I set my camera to JPEG, my understanding is that the camera captures the image data and converts it to jpeg, presumably with an algorithm that tries to make a "good" picture.

If I capture in RAW, I then open the image in a software package, (either the camera manufacturer or something like Lightroom or PSE). Now is that software (a) also using an algorithm to try to create a "good" picture that I can either export directly as a jpeg (or other format) or use the tools to improve it or is it (b) just providing me the data and a platform to make the "good" picture myself with the various sliders and tools?

If (b), then as an inexperienced software user, I may not be able to make a picture as "good" as what the camera algorithm can do for its jpeg, and I am better off using the jpeg until I Master RAW processing software.

If (a), I can use RAW, starting with a "good" picture, and can work to improve it (reverting back if I make a given picture worse). This way I should presumably come up the learning curve faster, and in the meantime have the software's version of the "good" picture as a failsafe.

I guess a corallary question would be: if (a), which RAW converters make the best images?
is the following correct? If I set my camera to JP... (show quote)
Go to
Feb 14, 2016 06:09:57   #
They look so strange in the new series...so...old...OMG. So do I....OMG
sarge69 wrote:
New shows are way too far fetched and scripts are childish.

Very disappointed.

Sarge69
Go to
Feb 14, 2016 06:06:43   #
I like #1 and #5
Go to
Feb 14, 2016 06:04:06   #
I think it would look good printed on canvas in an art gallery. For a photography forum, duck!
Snap Shot wrote:
Best viewed in Download
Comments welcomed
Go to
Feb 9, 2016 04:03:32   #
Fascinating discussion. After 15 yrs of Photoshopping masks still elude me. I have recently got a luminosity mask plugin with a whole range of presets from higlight to shadows, but I still lack a real undertanding. Oh well.
Go to
Feb 6, 2016 10:28:10   #
Thanks for the info! Those shots look incredible, they have a lot of the postive effects of the HDR's without that pesky "edge glow" which I don't like. I have been doing some luminosity masks so I have an idea of what you are talking about there, the ability to target narrow tonal ranges that are sort of lost in the original, whicy is what HDR does in a different way, or maybe even similar to a kind "tonal equalizer", in music where there are a series of sliders that target more narrow ranges of tone rather than just bass and treble. However I admit "layer masks" are something whose use and meaning has still eluded me, despite several attempts to get a handle on them. Do have a few words in a nutshell about what they do?
Steve Perry wrote:
Thanks - nope, these are not shot as HDRs. I do manual blending in photoshop using layer masks and luminosity masks as needed. That way, I can pick and choose what parts of each image end up in the photo and what doesn't (no ghosting that way). In the rainbow image, it was just a single exposure double-processed in LR (one for highlights, the other for normal / shadow areas).

The sunset one was a two shot blend, one for the sky and one for the water / land.

The waves are pretty much a result of the shutter speed used - I don't think I blended for waves in the rainbow photo, but I believe I did a slight bit of blending in waves form two different shots in the sunset. If I recall, the main image had the nice break over the foreground but I think I blended in a wave from another shot (taken the same time / place of course) for the one of the background waves. But the foreground was all one image - it was just messy :)
Thanks - nope, these are not shot as HDRs. I do ma... (show quote)
Go to
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 108 next>>
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.