Jump to content

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, MDM said:

 

 a badfinger moment with his white balance button. But that is an extreme example.

Fortunately they were raws. They just looked OK for sunny Andalucia. I fixed one and synched the rest- you probably even taught me how to do that!

BTW your memory is pretty good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, spacecadet said:

Fortunately they were raws. They just looked OK for sunny Andalucia. I fixed one and synched the rest- you probably even taught me how to do that!

BTW your memory is pretty good.

 

Nothing like as good as it used to be I'm afraid but not quite senile yet. Once upon a time I had a reasonably good encyclopedic memory but that was long ago. 

 

The jaundiced bride wasn't very long ago and it stuck in the mind, probably permanently in fact, so you wll never be allowed to forget it. :)

Edited by MDM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 17/04/2018 at 12:05, MDM said:

 

That is what I assumed but it's not in the dictionary (Oxford English at any rate). It's a great word. My mother spent some of her childhood in Belfast and she used to say something like "stop foostering" meaning pretty much the same - stop messing about. 

 

I'm familiar with Norn Irn. I had a short trip there last year in fact - a day in the Mournes and another day driving up the Antrim coast. Still haven't processed all the pics from the trip. As well as the scenery my favourite thing about Norn Irn is Van Morrison. I'm a Dubliner myself although I live in England these days. 

To fouter...is also Scots

”To bungle, botch; to work in a fiddling, careless or unskilled manner, to potter, to trifle. fouterin, bungling, fiddling, clumsy, trifling.”

 

Sorry, way off topic now.

Edited by Sally

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey, don't fouter around, Sally!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, MDM said:

 

 

Judging accurate white balance on a computer is actually very difficult. Firstly it depends on having a properly calibrated monitor. Then it is amazing what the eye will accept as normal or acceptable - remember spacecadet's jaundiced bride and a whole series of images he had taken over a number of weeks after he had a badfinger moment with his white balance button. But that is an extreme example. It is, however, very important to get things right if shooting colour portraits as skin tone are always the most difficult to get right - on screen or in print.

 

The only way to really be sure of accurate white balance is to shoot a grey card or similar (color checker passport) in the same light as the scene and then use the eyedropper tool in Lightroom/ACR (or the equivalent in other software) to get correct white balance. I try to remember to do this and then sync across all images taken in the same light. Or of course you can set a custom white balance in camera after shooting a grey card but this is unnecessary if shooting raw.

Yes, I remember the orange-skinned bride! We all make mistakes from time-to-time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Betty LaRue said:

We all make mistakes from time-to-time.

 

I know.It's how I have learned almost everything I know about photography. I have made every mistake known to man (and woman). The trick is not to learn from them and not to keep making them

 

I hope you didn't think I was being nasty to the spaceman. I was just teasing him and I have no doubt he can take it. He has actually picked up and used quite a few of the suggestions I've made over the years which is great - it makes it worthwhile passing on my hard-earned knowledge if somebody acts on it and benefits :).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Sally said:

 

6 hours ago, Sally said:

To fouter...is also Scots

”To bungle, botch; to work in a fiddling, careless or unskilled manner, to potter, to trifle. fouterin, bungling, fiddling, clumsy, trifling.”

 

Sorry, way off topic now.

 

Still way off topic. Sally's definition is spot on. Thanks! Sadly I have just discovered that the spelling I have used carries a very distasteful meaning in Continental Europe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, MDM said:

 

I know.It's how I have learned almost everything I know about photography. I have made every mistake known to man (and woman). The trick is not to learn from them and not to keep making them

 

I hope you didn't think I was being nasty to the spaceman. I was just teasing him and I have no doubt he can take it. He has actually picked up and used quite a few of the suggestions I've made over the years which is great - it makes it worthwhile passing on my hard-earned knowledge if somebody acts on it and benefits :).

No, i didn’t think that.  Just reflecting on my own mistakes. Like the time I drove for an hour, got ready to shoot and my camera told me I had no memory card. I’d left it on my desk after downloading the last batch, changed bags to a small one and my spares were in the large bag. Luckily I found an old, slow 2mb card in the small bag. I had to be judicious with my few shots.

Which turned out ok because I had gone to shoot the chrysanthemum display on the grounds of Oklahoma University and they weren’t planted yet! Darn it!

 So I ended up with a few fill-in shot from a shopping mall. :( 

Some days are just like that. I usually check my supplies before heading out. Sometimes when I’ve been through an emotional crisis with a dementia spouse, my mind gets blown. The drive and getting away did me good anyway.

Betty

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, MDM said:

 

 

 

The jaundiced bride wasn't very long ago and it stuck in the mind, :)

Well meant and well taken.

Those images are still staring at me from deletion pending and all submissions. Perhaps I got a touch of the sun, or thought everybody had actually been that colour. Where I come from quite a few of them are. Quite near Essex.

And you should see how buff my rugby players looked in Toulouse. I know it's la ville rose but my last lot were more brune.

It wasn't the tinted sunglasses, though, I just wear a hat.

Edited by spacecadet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/17/2018 at 08:36, Futterwithtrees said:

I would value some input on the shooting format my fellow contributors use. I currently shoot everything in RAW format with almost all camera with little or no in camera processing etc. This means I must must edit every image before submission etc and this makes for a very laborious and time consuming process.

I have very recently been looking at samples of a friends portfolio shot with a quality Lumix compact camera in JPEG format and his results are very impressive indeed even without much post shoot processing. This holds good even for images printed  on large canvasses and on display in his home.

I would love to hear some responses and comments on the merits and demerits of JPEG shooting for stock photography purposes. Any constructive criticism or advice will be gratefully received.

Thanks

 

I always shoot RAW. i don't see the point of buying a good camera and lens system and not generating the best possible image to work with.

Yes you need to spend a little time editing, but i prefer that element of control.

 

Craig

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Craig Yates said:

 

I always shoot RAW. i don't see the point of buying a good camera and lens system and not generating the best possible image to work with.

Yes you need to spend a little time editing, but i prefer that element of control.

 

Craig

 

Absolutely right, and you have the opportunity to improve (older) images as one's own post-processing technique and the software improve. With jpeg you have much less post processing headroom before artifacts appear.

 

For news I shoot raw+jpg and usually submit the jpg to Live News for speed, but I have used the raw (with in camera conversion) to rescue an important image where I was a bit off with the exposure. Any additional images that I may submit for stock, and therefore have time for post-processing,  are from the raw file

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I tried raw + jpeg and never used the jpeg. Just made more deleting work. Jpegs throw out tons of information available in the raw files.  You can’t set WB, or really recover highlights, and I could go on and on. And what you do to make a jpeg work most likely will degrade the image.

Betty

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Betty LaRue said:

I tried raw + jpeg and never used the jpeg. Just made more deleting work. Jpegs throw out tons of information available in the raw files.  You can’t set WB, or really recover highlights, and I could go on and on. And what you do to make a jpeg work most likely will degrade the image.

Betty

 

I totally agree Betty, that is why I only use raw+jpeg for live news. I usually don't even load the jpgs onto my desktop system, they get uploaded to Alamy (or other news service) from my laptop and then the laptop folder is cleared down when the raws and metadata have been transferred to my main archive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have my camera to do Raw to one memory card and JPG to the other.  If I'm working from home I just import selected pictures into Lightroom and convert to DNG,  automated and very fast on my PC.  I save ALL the JPGs onto an archive hard drive, just in case I need to go back in the future and pull off something I missed.

 

If I'm doing live news in the field, then I go straight from JPG.  TBH the difference between the two is not that discernible to me, and I can still get a decent dynamic range from the JPGs.  One thing that I don't get with JPGs Lightroom, because I assume it's been stripped out, is the ability to assign a lens profile, which for my 18-300 zoom makes a big difference to the edges.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I should break down time working on pictures, removing spots is the most time consuming and captioning/keywording.

 

I have just two presets for stock photos...  and import with one of them and usually tweak exposure and crop/rotate if needed...

 

So, in my case it would’t matter much, timewise...

 

jpeg’s do have the advantage of taking less space on the HD... was in Paris a few weeks ago 1500 pictures x 20mb/file... independence day last week another 1500 shots!!!

 

Was also thinking about switching to jpeg for at least more casual things in decent light...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Spacecadet,

Bear in mind that for a 20MP camera, 100% is nearly 80" long side. Not many prints get that big.

 

Most professional sites look at images at 100% to check for flaws that may not be visible at lower resolutions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.