kim_johnson1

I have it like you because it came with me pc, but i prefer Google Drive ... more free space. More than likely you clicked some syncing option unknowingly rather it being a hyjack situation. Really a small isssue. Turnoff the

There is nothing that says you have to use a wide or ultra wide lens (which is giving you that far away feel). You can use a 50mm (to mimick what you saw), or any focal length, you'll just have to take more images.

<p>As my former coach would say, get out of your head, you're over thinking.<br /> 1. A Panorama is just "an unobstructed and wide view of an extensive area in all directions." That is to say its the field of view that matters, not necessarily the aspect ratio. <br /> 2. Don't confused the aspects your talking about (1:3, 2.29:1, etc.) with the field of view you want to capture. You can have a wide field of view or a smaller field of view and still crop to a 1:3 aspect.<br /> 3. I recommend using Microsoft ICE to stitch. Its FREE. <br /><br />( http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/um/redmond/projects/ice/ ) <br /><br />The major difference I recommend ICE is because in Photoshop, photomerge gives you these options "LAYOUT: Auto, Perspective, Cylindrical, Spherical, Collage, and Reposition" You have to choose ONE before you do the merge. If you don't like an option in PS, you have to do the merge all over again. In MS ICE, it does the merge first, then you can just select which option works for you WITHOUT having to do the merge again. You can also crop WITHIN ICE if you care to.<br /> 3. Follow what has been said about focus and settings. It'll just make your life easier.<br /> 4. You can use a tripod or handhold. It doesn't make a difference as long as if you're handholding, stay in place space and pivot from your hip so there is only one perpective for the software to deal with. <br /> 5. As stated, overlap the images. Remember you're going to stitch these images together using a computer, not manually. So you it really doesn't matter which orientation, landscape, portrait, at angle, etc., as long as all the images have portions that overlap. Depending on your subject, if you shoot in portrait mode, you're going to have to take more photos than you would if you had shot landscape. I generally shoot the scene horizontally across the field of view I want, then shoot a row of images slightly above what I just shot. Remember if you don't want long and narrow merges, shoot images vertically and well as horizontally in the scene (i.e., adding more sky or foreground if you're doing a landscape)<br /> 5. Shoot enough images so that in the merge you have more than enough room to crop to whatever aspect you want. The aspect crop is something you do at the end, not worry about doing in-camera.</p> <p> </p>

<p>I think the only rule need to be concerned with is making sure you overlap the images. Other than that, you can can use any lens, either portrait or landscape. It all depends on what you envision the shot to be and the field of view you want to cover. If you don't want long narrow merged images, be sure to include more vertical shots. Photoshop is good for merging, but I really like Microsoft ICE, it does a really good job can gives you options on perspectives.<br> <br />Both of these are 13 shot images. The top one has a 180 degree field of view.<br> <img src="http://i1053.photobucket.com/albums/s464/kjonbz/01010101_zpsxycrt7ha.jpg" alt="" /></p> <p><img src="http://i1053.photobucket.com/albums/s464/kjonbz/0102010101_zpsie7qxptn.jpg" alt="" width="800" height="531" /></p>

Where is the image displayed? If the image is displayed legally, more than likely they got permission from somewhere. Start with them.

<p><img src="http://i1053.photobucket.com/albums/s464/kjonbz/window_zpscktmwr0n.jpg" alt="" width="683" height="1024" /></p>

<p><img src="http://i1053.photobucket.com/albums/s464/kjonbz/Jaws_zpsxcfooukq.jpg" alt="" width="800" height="800" /></p>

<p><img src="http://i1053.photobucket.com/albums/s464/kjonbz/00dw7I-563000484_zpsup8xlrlk.jpg" alt="" width="1024" height="576" /></p>

<p>In 2016 with storage so cheap, why is file size an issue. Get one, two or three 4TB (appx. $122) external drives and not worry about file size. <br /><br />http://www.amazon.com/Book-Desktop-External-Drive-WDBFJK0040HBK-NESN/dp/B00E3RH61W/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&qid=1459811076&sr=8-5&keywords=drive+4+tb<br /><br /><br /><br /> http://www.amazon.com/Seagate-Portable-External-Storage-STDR4000100/dp/B00ZTRXFBA/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1459811289&sr=8-2&keywords=drive+4+tb</p>

There are tons of support and free Youtube videos online for every version. Why not stick with something that is widely supported. Quckbooks its pretty simple. Not sure any software that is easier and does accrual bookkeeping would be worth it.

<p><img src="http://i1053.photobucket.com/albums/s464/kjonbz/Jail_zps2nxworpw.jpg" alt="" width="683" height="1024" /></p>

I dont it would be an issue unless you had some gun or "camera shaped gun" as a graphic.

Do you have a uv or some other filter over your lens? The whole image is blurry. Something is off.

Cloud storage is much like Adobe Subscriptions, a perpetual bill for the rest of your life. If you decide you dont want it anymore, then what? You have to think about recovery. Suppose you decide to change companies. How easy can you transfer your 5tb of photos in 4 years. Statistically how many photographers' homes burn down or fall off a cliff? #scaretactic http://www.networkworld.com/article/2176174/byod/9-things-you-need-to-know-before-you-store-data-in-the-cloud.html

Most abandoned properties do belong to somebody. In many instances they may have eventually passed to the municipality where it is located. Safety is th biggest issue for not allowing people inside. Remember many have not been maintained for decades. If someone got hurt, ironically that person most likely would turn around and attempt sue the owner for not doing a better job of protecting them from themselves. The roof in City Methodist in Gary collasped a few months back. Fortunately, no one was there and hurt. But the city has tried to maintain a fence for years but people figure how to get inside for their photos. In an abandoned property make safety is first.

Your skill in editing even the simpliest image will always improve over time. You'll be better next year than you are now, and better the year after that than next year. If you throw away your raws, You'll be stuck with a crappy jpg that degrades every time you save it. Heed the advice given and keep the raws of the photos you want. If you're going to dump your raws, you might as well, just dump your SLR and get a cheapy P&S. Storage space is way tooooooo cheap to be cncerned about.

The issue is not technical. Instagram wants to remain mobile only.

Its really not hard to do in PS. Photograph the large image as you normally would. Photograph the inset image with black around the face. In PS place the inset image on a layer on top of the main image. Change that layer blend to screen. Move around and adjust the opacity to your liking. Done. By setting the layer to SCREEN, the black becomes transparent. Another way, You could also just mask out the area surrounding the face on the inset image. In PS itd take probably 5 minutes.

Sorry on film its a pain. You have make sure the black is really black and nothing is exposed and then you have to be extra careful of e placement of the second face, no do overs. Digitally is easier, quicker, offers more control, and has the ability to fix errors. You dont get all of that on film. Been there done that. With at said, the other poster was correct, its been around forever and is probably second on the list for people to stop doing right behind black and white selective color.

Photo looks fine. Black and White doesnt really mean ONLY black and white. It means no color, but with color tones translated to some shade of gray that is between all white and all black. In fact, all white and all black in an image is rare. Most will be shades of gray. Additionally, do your black and whites in post, not in camera. You'll have much more the control on the type of B&W photo you want.

Because most non pros guys with a camera are married and use female models as their way to gawk and photocheat. There are plenty of male models and male photographers who appreciate the beauty if the male body. You're just in a different circle. If you peek in any photography site, you,d think "model" meant female, it doesnt. No gender is uglier than the other. If you think so, shows the midnset.

<p>I know you're 'married' to using the brush, but I think another method would be better and give you more control</p> <p>1. Duplicate the layer<br> 2. Set the top layer to screen<br> 3. ALT + Layer Mask (will add a mask and make it black)<br> 4. Paint with a zero hardness brush, with white, what you want to now brighten.</p> <p>This will give you more contract, because not only can you vary the opacity and flow of the brush, but also the opacity of the masked layer. Plus, its non destructive.</p>

Ignoring your question. Way too gearheadish. But you dont have a fast wide to "normal" lens.

You can also convert to BW by using a gradient map set with black and white. Leave at normal blend, by play with the gradient sliders and mid points

Just looks desaturated with teal pushed into the darks.