Official Photography Thread

[Art Vandelay]

this is a cool simulator to understand how, aperture, speed, iso, and distance effect a photo.

http://camerasim.com/apps/camera-simulator/

[swampfrog]

this is a cool simulator to understand how, aperture, speed, iso, and distance effect a photo.

http://camerasim.com/apps/camera-simulator/

Thanks for that. Very useful as a tool for explaining what I'm messing with behind the camera. For all of the point and shoot users out there, very easy to show why you may not always want to let the camera choose. Only wish it had longer focal lengths. If it could go from 18 to 200, that would be cool. Still it's easy to see that focal length has a greater effect on depth of field than aperture, which is many times forgotten.

[Dwight Schr-ute]

this is a cool simulator to understand how, aperture, speed, iso, and distance effect a photo.

http://camerasim.com/apps/camera-simulator/

I'm going to see that girl when I try and sleep tonight. Just standing there. Smiling. Never blinking.

[swampfrog]

Couple of shots from a hike on Saturday. No birds.

[swampfrog]

Fairy falls in the Columbia Gorge (Oregon side).

[swampfrog]

No one may be interested, but I thought I share the evolution of one of the photos above.

1. The closest to what the sensor saw that I can get, no adjustments, just resized:

IMG_0166-RAW.jpg

2. What the in camera processing does "straight out of the camera":

IMG_0166-Camera.jpg

3. Standard Lightroom processing. Clarity, Saturation, Vibrance all +7, lowered black point, raised white point, increased exposure by .5 stops. Medium contrast Tone Curve. RAW sharpening. Lens profile corrections.

IMG_0166-LR.jpg

4. Local adjustments to raise dark areas a bit and darken a couple of lighter areas. Exported to Google's Nik Tools Color Efex Pro and used a recipe that includes detail extractor, tonal contrast, and soft glow. Output sharpening for publishing.

IMG_0166-LRlocal+Nik.jpg

[Dwight Schr-ute]

Official Photography Thread

Took these on my phone the last few mornings doing our Yuma ridgway rail (endangered) surveys. Played with some editing in Instagram for two minutes. So far both with about 28 likes! One of which from OG Vegas.

Of course I had my 5D all ready only to realize that I had left the battery plugged into the wall at the office. :notpimp:

[swampfrog]

Of course I had my 5D all ready only to realize that I had left the battery plugged into the wall at the office. :notpimp:

Nice shots. That's why just being there is a significant part of the process. Quality is fine for looking on a phone size screen, but the noise is apparent on any larger screen. I have 2 batteries for the camera. As soon as one drains to about 1/4 power it goes into the charger. I try not to ever have both batteries out of the camera, one comes out, the other goes in. But I'd be lying if I claimed the same has not happened to me...

[Pelado]

No one may be interested, but I thought I share the evolution of one of the photos above.

1. The closest to what the sensor saw that I can get, no adjustments, just resized:



2. What the in camera processing does "straight out of the camera":



3. Standard Lightroom processing. Clarity, Saturation, Vibrance all +7, lowered black point, raised white point, increased exposure by .5 stops. Medium contrast Tone Curve. RAW sharpening. Lens profile corrections.



4. Local adjustments to raise dark areas a bit and darken a couple of lighter areas. Exported to Google's Nik Tools Color Efex Pro and used a recipe that includes detail extractor, tonal contrast, and soft glow. Output sharpening for publishing.

If you had to guess, which of those is closest to what you saw with your eyes?

[swampfrog]

If you had to guess, which of those is closest to what you saw with your eyes?

Between the 3rd and 4th, with the 4th just a little closer. The first 2 are underexposed, which I tend to do purposefully to make sure the white areas don't get blown when shooting moving water. I've found that if I let the camera process shots where vegetation is present, especially the moss in the Pacific Northwest, I don't get the effect of the light filtering and reflecting off the greens and yellows as I originally perceived them. They look dull and lifeless compared the original scene. I purposefully added a little more of Nik's "Glamour Glow" filter to emphasize that part of the image. If you ask the question slightly differently, "Which of those makes you feel the closest to how you felt walking along the path?", the answer is unquestionably #4.

If you were to print one and hang it on your wall, which one would it be? Which one catches your eye the most, causing you to stop and look at it longer?

[Pelado]

Between the 3rd and 4th, with the 4th just a little closer. The first 2 are underexposed, which I tend to do purposefully to make sure the white areas don't get blown when shooting moving water. I've found that if I let the camera process shots where vegetation is present, especially the moss in the Pacific Northwest, I don't get the effect of the light filtering and reflecting off the greens and yellows as I originally perceived them. They look dull and lifeless compared the original scene. I purposefully added a little more of Nik's "Glamour Glow" filter to emphasize that part of the image. If you ask the question slightly differently, "Which of those makes you feel the closest to how you felt walking along the path?", the answer is unquestionably #4.

If you were to print one and hang it on your wall, which one would it be? Which one catches your eye the most, causing you to stop and look at it longer?

I like 3 and 4 better. The vegetation, with the lighter greens, feels more like new spring growth. The moss on the rocks also looks cooler in the latter images. How's that for in-depth art analysis?

[falafel]

I need help optimizing this photo. This is my 8 year old and this is the photo I'd like to use for her invitation. Any advice on how to bring the white down and just generally ... swampfrog the picture ... would be great.

DSC_0239.jpg

[swampfrog]

I need help optimizing this photo. This is my 8 year old and this is the photo I'd like to use for her invitation. Any advice on how to bring the white down and just generally ... swampfrog the picture ... would be great.

[ATTACH]5829[/ATTACH]

I can do more with the original most likely. I don't know what photo manager this site runs, but most do some resizing to manage space. If you have a dropbox or other method, send me a private message.

8yearold.jpg

[falafel]

I can do more with the original most likely. I don't know what photo manager this site runs, but most do some resizing to manage space. If you have a dropbox or other method, send me a private message.

[ATTACH]5830[/ATTACH]

You've got mail!

[Dwight Schr-ute]

I need help optimizing this photo. This is my 8 year old and this is the photo I'd like to use for her invitation. Any advice on how to bring the white down and just generally ... swampfrog the picture ... would be great.

Reddit is usually a good place for these kind of requests.