jasonsmith894

This is a very intriguing thread. I too remember when

ratings were not annonymous. I wasn't aware there was

an issue with revenge ratings, but I could see that

happening. I do recall that when the ratings were not

annonymous that you were much more likely to get an

explanation for a low rating. That, in my opinion, was

much more helpful than the current system in which

ratings can seem entirely random. I do recall though

that overall ratings seemed to be higher then (I

remember more ratings in the 5-6 range; though my

images may have been better back then!!) I agree with

some of the comments above about the small group of

raters doling out 3s. I also appreciate hearing how

others rate images, and admit my views are not far off

from David's view. Honestly, I find the whole rating

system to be frustrating, but feel compelled to request

ratings to increase the visibility of my work.

 

As others have said, the critiques offered are far more

valuable. Unfortunately, many images recieve little to no

feedback and sometimes comments are not that helpful.

I try to offer feedback on images that need additional

work, but this is time consuming and I don't have a ton

of free time. I also struggle with how to leave feedback

on many of the images in the critique forum as some are

simply snapshots and I don't have much to contribute; I

also worry anout being too critical as i would never want

to discourage anyone from continuing with photography.

 

Anyhow, I'm glad someone started this thread and I

enjoy reading the thoughtful comments about the rating

system. I too will continue to seek and give ratings, but

know the system is flawed.

I use Aspen Creek regularly and have been pleased with

their B&W prints. The turnaround time can be a bit slow

at times, so you may want to take that into account

when ordering.

I have both a d810 and an A7r. What others have said is

true, my A7r does not hold up when it comes to AF and

power consumption. Since I do a lot of landscapes and

mainly use MF it is not a huge issue for me. The power

consumption is a legitimate concern, but I carry a large

number of spare batteries with me when I use the A7r.

Ad far as IQ, the quality from mirrorless is just as good.

Wow. Thanks everyone for all the wonderful

suggestions. Now I'm wishing I had more time in

Seattle. I'll have to choose very carefully how to use the

limited time I have. Thanks again for all the suggestions.

Work is taking me to Seattle for a week next month. I

will be there over a weekend and should be able to carve

out a little time to shoot. Are there any good locations in

and around Seattle for landscapes/seascapes? I am

willing to drive outside the city of necessary, but

probably not more than an hour or two. Appreciate any

thoughts or location tips. Happy New Year to all!

<p>Thanks for all the tips. I started cloning it out using layers, but I was hoping there was a less tedious way to get this done. I'll give some of these ideas a try. Hopefully the end product is worth the effort!</p>

<p>Thanks for all the feedback. I found a used A7r for a very good price, and couldn't resist the temptation. It should arrive tomorrow, and I'm excited to put it to use. Thank you again for all the suggestions.</p>

Photoshop CC, Light room CC, Nik Effects and Topaz

Labs. Two of those are filters, but that is all the software

I'm using. Thanks for the reply!

<p>I have a long exposure image that sustained light leak streaking. It's not as bad as it could be, but it still looks pretty awful (even when I convert to monochrome, which is what I intended for this image). I would love to be able to save the image, if at all possible, but cannot seem to correct to remove the light leak. I've tried cloning out some of the leaks, and I can get it to look respectable, but I was hoping someone might know of another technique to correct the image. I've attached an uncorrected copy of the image. I appreciate any ideas anyone may have. Thanks in advance for your help.</p><div></div>

<p>Thanks for the input, Edward. </p>

That is certainly an option. I just found the prospect of a

36 MP FF sensor in a small body to be intriguing. Also, now that a new version has been released you can pick up a used body fairly cheaply.

Thanks, Rob. I'll try that. I also have a little stopper and

no issues with that filter either.

I have a Nikon D810 and I'm thinking about picking up a

used A7r as a second body. I would use the A7r mostly

as a walk around camera and for travel when I want to

haul around less weight. I would likely purchase one or

two of the Sony FE lenses to use with the A7r. I

understand that there are shutter shake issues with the

A7r, but it sounds like there are ways to get around them.

I'm curious if others who have used the A7r have any

experience with this issue. Also, I tend to do a lot of long

exposures and I'm curious whether anyone has

experienced noise issues with the A7r similar to those

reported in the A7rii.

 

I would appreciate any other thoughts folks have about using the A7r for these purposes and any real world comparison to the d810.

I'm using a Nikon D810.

Thanks for all the responses. I'll block the viewfinder on my camera the next time I use the filter.

<p>I bought a big stopper recently, and I'm having an issue with it. Seems like every time I use it I'm getting strange lines down a portion of my photo. I uploaded an example to demonstrate what I'm having an issue with. I also have little stopper, and I don't have this issue with that filter. Only when I use the big stopper, and generally only on longer exposures (1 minute plus). Anyone have this issue, and figure out how to resolve it. I thought maybe the adapter ring was too lose, but I tightened it all the way today and still had the same problem. I've also tried it on multiple lenses. Also, if anyone knows a good way to resolve the problem in Photoshop, I would love to save the images I have if possible. Thanks for the help. </p><div></div>

Thank you all for the responses. After much deliberation, I decided to go with the tamron. Then, in a fit of compulsion, decided to buy the sigma 105 macro as well. Thanks again!

This is a follow-up to my last post, which has now left me thouroughly

confused. I mostly shoot landscape photos, and I'm looking for something to

take with me on a trip to India to compliment my sigma 10-20 (which is the lens

I primarily use). The Tamaron seems to be sharper, but I don't often shoot at

f2.8, but maybe I will if I do street photography. Anyway, any thought on which

of these I should get would be greatly appreciated.

Is anyone using either of these lenses? I'm having trouble deciding between the

two. The 18-50 is the EX, so the build quality seems like it might be better,

but is the extra range in the 17-70 worth it. Also, anyone know if these can

actually be used for macro? Thanks

Thank you for all the responses. I'll download a demo and check it out. Looks like CS3 may be the way to go.

I don't want to beat a dead horse, but I'm having trouble finding a definitive

answer (if one exists). I'm thinking about upgrading from CS2 to CS3, but I am

curious if there is any advantage to purchasing Lightroom as well. It seems to

me, from what I've read, that Lightroom is great as a database and for making

uniform changes to a large number of photos. I rarely make changes to more than

one image at a time, and I don't have a huge collection of photos at the moment

(though that will hopefully change once I finish school). Also, it appears,

again from what I've read, that Adobe significanlty upgraded Bridge with CS3

and that many of the features of Lightroom may also be in Bridge.

 

So, are there features in Lightroom that justify purchasing it in addition to

upgrading to CS3, or should I save my money? Also, any thought on whether

purchasing lightroom would alleviate the need for uprgrading to CS2?

 

Thanks!

This may seem like a stupid question, but do I need to calibrate the screen on

my laptop? I get images that look good on my laptop screen, and when I've

posted them here have never heard a comment about the image looking

uncalibrated, but when I print them to the inkjet they do not look like the

image on the screen. I'm using an Epson 3800, with PS doing the color

management. My color space is Adobe RGB (1998)and I use the appropriate ICC

profiles for paper. Any help would be greatly appreciated.

I was using a Lee filter, which may have caused the problem. I'm new to digital, so my PS skills are a bit lacking, which is why I still like to use filters.

I took these photos using a 2 stop ND filter (maybe causing the problem?) and

when I opened them up in Camera Raw noticed the strange color cast in the top

left and bottom right corner. Does anyone know if there is anyway to correct

this problem? Ever seen it before?

 

As always, help is much appreciated.

 

Jason<div></div>

I have looked through most of the previous posts re: film scanners, but still

have a question I was hoping you all could help answer. I am a beginner, and

still shooting only film, mostly slides and B&W (35mm). I want to buy a film

scanner to digitize my slides (250) and B&W negatives (300), as well as use it

to continuously scan stuff I make in the future.

 

After reading through previous posts, and considering my finances, I think I

have narrowed the choice to the Nikon Coolscan V ED or the 5000 ED. My

question is: is there a significant difference between the two that I should

spend the extra money? I'm also curious, since I'm shooting slides and B&W,

whether the multi-scan function in the 5000 is worth the additional money. I

also would ideally like to make prints as big as 16x20. I plan to use

photoshop elements to adjust contrast/saturation post-scanning. Thanks for the

help!