Check out Close Up Photography section of our forum.
Posts for: Cany143
May 18, 2024 13:02:45 #
May 18, 2024 12:58:07 #
From a few miles northwest of town, along what I like to call the Tenmile/Dubinky/313 'loop'.
Somehow, whenever I have some particular drone shots in mind, it gets extremely windy.... and tourorists on quads show up, too.
Somehow, whenever I have some particular drone shots in mind, it gets extremely windy.... and tourorists on quads show up, too.
May 15, 2024 22:13:55 #
Check out The Pampered Pets Corner section of our forum.
May 15, 2024 21:07:54 #
Yesterday's sunset. The first as it actually appeared, the second as the camera --via ICM-- saw it.
May 13, 2024 21:28:00 #
jaredjacobson wrote:
Is #2 Pep Ventosa style with some added zoom, or is the spread of the branches due to curve in the trunk? Either way, I love it, and particularly the graininess of the clouds.
The last is just beautiful all the way around.
The last is just beautiful all the way around.
#2 is indeed a 'Pep Ventosa style' image, Jared. Rather, however, than using each of the 30 shots that would've completed the 360 degrees around the 'subject' tree, I used only about half of those to make this particular rendering. Shot with a 20mm prime, so no, no zoom was added, but the ground was not flat and occasional rocks and/or vegetation (cactus and other pointy/stabby things, mostly) forced me to move slightly nearer or further away from the tree while doing the circuit. So, even where (in post) I'd re-sized or re-positioned one or more individual frames, a perfect overlap was never going to be possible. Which, I reckon, is perfectly acceptable while making a Ventosa style image. Another version I'd done rendered the clouds almost creamy. Though that was interesting, a softer, creamier sky would not have been in keeping --I felt-- with the overall image.
The last (#8) is a tree I've shot several bazillion times. I'd been eight or ten miles away when the rainbow first appeared, and I used it in the backgrounds of some other shots I shot, but when I noticed that the dark rainclouds to the west were dissipating, and the darkest of the clouds remained to the south, I hightailed it to 'the tree'.
And thanks for having commented.
May 13, 2024 18:30:36 #
As mentioned above, neither the D810 nor the D500 have the capability to dial in any sort of automated 'focus bracketing' feature as is available in the D850, some of the X-series Fujis, and/or others. But in a practical sense, that is of little matter because focus stacking is as dependent on the stacking software that's used as it is on the shooting side of the process. Oftentimes, some will suggest using one or another of the dedicated stacking apps (like Helicon or Zerene or others), but stacking can just done just as easily in PhotoShop, Luminar Neo, ON-1, and likely in other editing apps as well, so having (or gaining) proficiency in whichever of those you may already have, or may already be using, is key. My Fuji X-T3 does, for example, have the capability to automate focus bracketing, and while I have used that at times, for my purposes I've found that focusing manually and very selectively, there's less 'waste' by not getting frames where nothing but air may be.
A high percentage of what I shoot is focus stacked. Granted, apart from a few random 'close up' (though not macro) images I've shot with the intent to focus stack, most of what I shoot is landscape-y stuff, and that's considerably different than shooting focus stacked macro. In my particular case, however, I may sometimes shoot as few as two or three exposures, but other times perhaps as many as ten or twelve depending on a variety of factors, and those may range from 'how close is the closest element', to 'may subject movement [wind, the movement of water, etc] require special consideration, to 'what camera/lens am I using' [i.e., what format --full frame or crop sensor-- am I using], and/or how many shots will I need [given the chosen aperture] to get each of the planes of focus covered, and will I be able to do/get what I and/or the scene may require using two, or three or twelve exposures. In effect, focus stacking for landscape or nature or pretty much anything outside can be somewhat different than would be encountered in a more controlled space.
There are dozens of tips or 'tricks' I've learned more by doing than by anything [like YT video 'cookbook' how-to videos] else, but most of those would be specific to a particular image rather than a set of techniques one has to follow in some pre-determined order. I'd be glad to try to impart any of what I've learned, but a great deal would depend on YOUR knowledge of the image editing software you may be using.
A high percentage of what I shoot is focus stacked. Granted, apart from a few random 'close up' (though not macro) images I've shot with the intent to focus stack, most of what I shoot is landscape-y stuff, and that's considerably different than shooting focus stacked macro. In my particular case, however, I may sometimes shoot as few as two or three exposures, but other times perhaps as many as ten or twelve depending on a variety of factors, and those may range from 'how close is the closest element', to 'may subject movement [wind, the movement of water, etc] require special consideration, to 'what camera/lens am I using' [i.e., what format --full frame or crop sensor-- am I using], and/or how many shots will I need [given the chosen aperture] to get each of the planes of focus covered, and will I be able to do/get what I and/or the scene may require using two, or three or twelve exposures. In effect, focus stacking for landscape or nature or pretty much anything outside can be somewhat different than would be encountered in a more controlled space.
There are dozens of tips or 'tricks' I've learned more by doing than by anything [like YT video 'cookbook' how-to videos] else, but most of those would be specific to a particular image rather than a set of techniques one has to follow in some pre-determined order. I'd be glad to try to impart any of what I've learned, but a great deal would depend on YOUR knowledge of the image editing software you may be using.
May 12, 2024 20:02:36 #
Being neither a Canon user --nor either a Canon DPP user (not, mind you, that either of those substantively matter per se)-- and more particularly not being a PsE user-- I'd want to ask: do you see any 'improvements' you might potentially want to make to this particular image? Could the sky be somehow 'improved' --or be made to be seen more naturalistic/less blown out-- via a decrease in brightness and/or an increase in structure and/or an increase in tone and/or texture? Or dropping the blacks or increasing the contrast or altering one or more of the hues elsewhere in the image? Or any of a variety of other possibilities (that do not necessarily include the addition of a completely bogus sky) that could elevate your image into something more that an 'I was here and that's as good as my camera [having HDR-ed the --with what? three bracketed shots?] could sort of do' sort of result?
More often than not, the best any of us can do is the best that we can do. Conditions at the time typically dictate --and often limit-- the parameters of what may be possible. But still.... not suggesting you should rush out and buy (or subscribe to) one or another of the various software packages that are capable (and are obviously) available, but many of those DO provide the capabilities that'll allow you (or him, or her, or me) to up our collective games. And rather considerably at that.
So you live in MD and you spent a month 'out west'. Could've been your first such trip or maybe your fiftieth, I wouldn't know. Maybe recording 'memories' was your goal, or maybe producing images that go beyond an 'I was here'-ness impression was hiding somewhere beneath, only you would know. Me, I find that my mind and whatever ability I have to recall the things of my past is half-way accurate, so I don't need pix to allay that. Instead, I want pix that inform me about realities outside my piddling self.
More often than not, the best any of us can do is the best that we can do. Conditions at the time typically dictate --and often limit-- the parameters of what may be possible. But still.... not suggesting you should rush out and buy (or subscribe to) one or another of the various software packages that are capable (and are obviously) available, but many of those DO provide the capabilities that'll allow you (or him, or her, or me) to up our collective games. And rather considerably at that.
So you live in MD and you spent a month 'out west'. Could've been your first such trip or maybe your fiftieth, I wouldn't know. Maybe recording 'memories' was your goal, or maybe producing images that go beyond an 'I was here'-ness impression was hiding somewhere beneath, only you would know. Me, I find that my mind and whatever ability I have to recall the things of my past is half-way accurate, so I don't need pix to allay that. Instead, I want pix that inform me about realities outside my piddling self.
May 12, 2024 18:01:52 #
NMGal wrote:
I like them all except number 2.
Oh? And why is that? Did you find "number 2" somehow disquieting? or somehow lacking in some 'cute', or 'pretty', or --omfg!-- presumably 'beautiful' sense? If it's any of those, then GOOD! I'll count that as a 'win'.
Personally, I was pleased --though not in any 'cute' or 'pretty' or 'beautiful' sort of sense-- with the image. A constant striving for some semblance of 'the literal' is --on occasion-- precisely what holds photography back and/or apart from whatever else can be said of actually 'seeing'. Because seeing --to me, at any rate-- is not simply a function of one's eyes; it's as much a function of the organ that the eyes report to.
Myself, I was more concerned about #4. I'd never specifically gone out to try an ICM before, and from what I've now experienced, doing --shooting for and processing-- those are considerably more subjectively based than anything I'd previously imagined.
May 12, 2024 17:02:34 #
....diverse treatments from the past several weeks. In a semi-chronological order, up through (shot) yesterday or (processed) today. In and/or around the Moab, Ut/Arches Nat'l Park region.
Apr 26, 2024 12:42:36 #
Apr 21, 2024 22:21:25 #
Anything goes as far as editing. Add, manipulate, twist, crop, or create a fine piece of art. Please show us your editing that might improve the picture OR POSSIBLY create a piece of art using some of the latest software actions to create different effects. ANYTHING IS ACCEPTABLE. If you use some special software or action please let us know the software you used.
When you are finished, post your edit in this thread. Edits will be accepted until 9 pm Eastern time on Thursday. No edits will be accepted after that time, voting is done Thursday 9:00PM - Sunday 9:00PM. Voting will be for the one image voters like best.
When you are finished, post your edit in this thread. Edits will be accepted until 9 pm Eastern time on Thursday. No edits will be accepted after that time, voting is done Thursday 9:00PM - Sunday 9:00PM. Voting will be for the one image voters like best.
Check out Video for DSLR and Point and Shoot Cameras section of our forum.
Apr 21, 2024 16:01:36 #
As I see it, there's an almost limitless number of reasons why people might 'revert' back to shooting film. Some may be technical, some may be aesthetic, and others may be purely idiosyncratic and/or psychological. Nevertheless, I'd bet that regardless an individual's reasons, the end result --be that a print that gets traditionally (darkroom) printed or whose print (or negative or positive transparency) is scanned or reproduced in-camera then subsequently gets digitized-- is the primary motivating factor. The 'end result' is what would be key in such a scenario, and the ability to pre-conceive an end point before even choosing or loading the film is no simple matter. That ability is, in fact, what elevates a camera operator/picture taker up and into photographer status. While aspects of that 'ability' might be taught or learned, other aspects depend on more innate factors.
Nothing approaches the visual 'photographic' perfection of --assuming a neg had been purposefully exposed, developed, and printed, and the 'subject' had been sufficiently actualized such that it's become compelling and possesses the qualities that elevates the image into places that are both real and ideal, subjective and objective, personal and universal-- a large format (4"x 5" or preferably larger) silver gelatin b&w, or similarly, via whatever color process (E-6, Ciba, etc., etc.) print. Nothing. Medium format contact prints, and moreso small format contact sheet 'prints', though they can share to some extent a similar sort of sublimity, are simply too small to view as one would want, and can only be considered as preludes to larger viewing versions. Plus however 'good' these mini-views may be, they've lost aspects of what could've been their 'perfection' by requiring enlargement. (Which is NOT to say that enlargements can't be great; they obviously can, but....)
So --for me, if for no one else-- however 'good' any of my small format film efforts may or may not have been, none of those efforts approach the sorts of results I can achieve shooting FF (or even crop sensor) digital. But the film efforts are not without their own sorts of merits, none of which could have pre-visioned when I shot them years ago: they make great starting points for what I prefer to think of as digital 'manipulations'.
Nothing approaches the visual 'photographic' perfection of --assuming a neg had been purposefully exposed, developed, and printed, and the 'subject' had been sufficiently actualized such that it's become compelling and possesses the qualities that elevates the image into places that are both real and ideal, subjective and objective, personal and universal-- a large format (4"x 5" or preferably larger) silver gelatin b&w, or similarly, via whatever color process (E-6, Ciba, etc., etc.) print. Nothing. Medium format contact prints, and moreso small format contact sheet 'prints', though they can share to some extent a similar sort of sublimity, are simply too small to view as one would want, and can only be considered as preludes to larger viewing versions. Plus however 'good' these mini-views may be, they've lost aspects of what could've been their 'perfection' by requiring enlargement. (Which is NOT to say that enlargements can't be great; they obviously can, but....)
So --for me, if for no one else-- however 'good' any of my small format film efforts may or may not have been, none of those efforts approach the sorts of results I can achieve shooting FF (or even crop sensor) digital. But the film efforts are not without their own sorts of merits, none of which could have pre-visioned when I shot them years ago: they make great starting points for what I prefer to think of as digital 'manipulations'.
Apr 20, 2024 16:29:15 #
A digitally manipulated in-camera reproduction of an Ektachrome transparency I'd shot in the 1980's.
Eight or ten years previous (to the time I'd shot the slide), I'd done a pen & ink drawing of what effectively is this same exact scene.
Comment or critique as you may.
Eight or ten years previous (to the time I'd shot the slide), I'd done a pen & ink drawing of what effectively is this same exact scene.
Comment or critique as you may.
Apr 16, 2024 17:06:49 #
A total of seventeen images were used to produce this image. Four series of focus stacked images were first produced, then the results of those were merged together as a pano.
Early this morning.
Early this morning.
Apr 15, 2024 18:26:00 #
terryMc wrote:
This is your image this week. Anything goes as far... (show quote)
Okay, since "anything goes...."
The wrist and hand were AI generated (using the text: 'hand holding corner of a photograph') using Photoshop's 'Generative Fill' entered into a selection I'd made in the lower right-hand corner of the larger image, alongside and on top of a separate layer that contained terryMc's original image. I did not alter terryMc's image --apart from resizing and tilting it several degrees-- in any way. The larger 'backdrop' image is, however, a four-exposured set of images merged into panorama (in LrC) I'd shot (and 'edited' [i.e., I'd made a variety of local and global adjustments] in Lr, Ps, Aurora HDR and five or six minutes of my time) one evening several years ago at Utah's Dead Horse Point State Park.
A valid criticism would be: terryMc's photo and the hand/wrist are much too 'bright' --i.e., are overexposed-- to have been what one would naturalistically have seen in any post-sunset light.
Check out Professional and Advanced Portraiture section of our forum.