samrat

<p>I have got it now. Downloaded PSE 9 guide (.pdf) through Google search.<br>

<a href="http://help.adobe.com/en_US/photoshopelements/using/photoshopelements_9_help.pdf">http://help.adobe.com/en_US/photoshopelements/using/photoshopelements_ 9_help.pdf</a><br>

<a href="http://help.adobe.com/en_US/elementsorganizer/using/elementsorganizer_9_help.pdf">http://help.adobe.com/en_US/elementsorganizer/using/elementsorganizer_ 9_help.pdf</a></p>

 

<p>I'm trying out Photoshop Elements (PSE) 9 as a free trial. I'm finding it difficult to resize the image to one suitable for uploading to photo.net.<br>

However I try, it seems to retain the original size. I'm sure I'm missing something very obvious here. Please help.</p>

<p>Thanks, Steve. Your input is much appreciated. I'll wait a while longer to see if anyone with Hama filter experience responds; else I will base my decision on positive feedback on Amazon.</p>

<p>I am looking to buy a 62mm polariser filter for my Tamron 18-200 lens. There are different brands in the market and the price varies a lot online with a significant difference between Hoya and Hama. Has anyone got any experience with Hama filters? <br>

Also, what is the difference between a "Circular polarising filter" and a "Pro 1 digital circular polarising filter" (both Hoya)?<br>

Many thanks.</p>

<p>Thank you all for your responses.<br>

From what I see, it is good to have one of these "superzooms" but at the expense of picture quality. One part of me goes with the idea of buying it while the other part fears that if I do so, I'll probably not use the 50mm and the 70-300mm lenses as much as I do now.<br>

Bueh, I see that you have used the <a href="http://www.adorama.com/searchsite/default.aspx?searchinfo=Canon+EF+200mm+f%2f2%2e8+L+USM+I&kbid=3925">CANON EF 200MM F/2.8 L USM I</a> for your street portraits, which are very good. However, the cost is way above my budget.<br>

Jim, could you please send me the link to your photos taken with the Sigma 18-200?<br>

Dan, your input was very valuable and has made me wonder if I should just continue to use my 50mm for street photos.<br>

You are all welcome to see the photos I have taken so far. My favourite medium is b/w. Not all the photos I have uploaded are taken with the Canon. The older ones have been taken using a Panasonic DMC FZ5 in manual mode. <a href="../photodb/user?user_id=2401486">http://www.photo.net/photodb/user?user_id=2401486</a><br>

Regards.</p>

 

<p>I have an EOS 40D and the following lenses: "Kit" 18-55mm, Canon 75-300mm (1:4-5.6) and Canon 50mm f1.8 Mk1. I am not a professional but a serious amateur at best. I like to take "street/candid" photos and I think what I have should be okay for the purpose.<br>

I wonder if I should add a 18-200 or 18-270 lens to my kit. At present, I am a bit hesitant in this regard, as besides the obvious advantage of not having to change lenses mid-street (and miss shots), I do not really see any other advantage. Am I missing a few things here? And if I decide to buy one, is there a difference in quality between Tamron and Sigma (18-200)?<br>

Many thanks for your help.</p>

<p>David Orea. Photographer, philosopher and guide. Despite the immense sadness that we all feel, let us celebrate his life and his work that will forever remain in our midst.<br>

As for David, he will continue to live through his work.</p>

<p>There are times when I do not take photos, sometimes because I just do not have the urge from within. I do not have to depend on photography for my livelihood and so I can afford this "luxury" from time to time. However, and especially after a break from hospital shifts, I take the camera with that new zeal that <strong><em>just comes</em></strong> from somewhere within. At such times, there is no reason and no tiredness as I go clicking once again.</p>

<p>Thank you so much, everyone, for the suggestions you have rendered. There are a few tips that I'd like to try out and see where I get to.</p>

<p>Thanks, Jeff, Matt and JDM. I needed to get out of this mindset that as one does more photography, one has to turn to manual mode at all times. Also, I thought if I were to shoot in auto-modes, I could have just got a compact for myself.</p>

<p>I see that there have been a lot of helpful comments posted already. I'll only narrate what I did just yesterday.<br />I saw this gentleman who was playing to the passers-by and the music he made was pretty good. He had this open case in front where people dropped coins. I approached him, made eye contact, and dropped in something as well (not for the photo, but I appreciated what he was doing). When he stopped, I asked him what he was playing to break the ice and got on from there. He gladly permitted me to take photos (<a href="../photodb/photo?topic_id=1481&msg_id=00TW8R&photo_id=9270114&photo_sel_index=0">http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?topic_id=1481&msg_id=00TW8R&photo_id=9270114&photo_sel_index=0</a>). He even played an Indian tune for me. I did tell him that I wanted to post his photo in a website and on a piece of paper, wrote down this site's address and my name. He actually thanked me for having asked his permission and said he did not have a problem (I assured him that I'd not use the photos commercially).<br />I think if people are doing something (playing music, etc) then they may go back to doing that without losing much naturality, even if we ask their permission. However, this will not be the case if we try to capture someone's facial expression, where a quick "click-and-disappear" probably works best. Regards.</p>

<p>This is something that has bothered me often. At times, when I see something in the street and want to capture the moment, the scenario changes by the time I manage to compose the scene and focus. One way out of this would be to use the Programme AE mode; but that is, as I understand, the same as auto mode without the flash on. Therefore, for someone who shoots manual always, this option is only grudgingly acceptable.<br />Any suggestions how to capture such moments fast? What should be the optimum settings for the camera? It may help to know that I'm trying to use the prime (50mm f1.8) lens more and more as the "default" lens, but this may possibly be an area where the "kit" 18-55mm lens is a better option.</p>

I have had this problem for quite a while now. Many of the photos I post are "tall" and cannot be accomodated in the

screen space. The viewer has to scroll up and down to see the entire photo which, I believe, affects the effectiveness

of the shot. What is the best way of sorting this out, without compromising much on the quality of the image? I have

a 15.4" screen. Thanks for any suggestion.

Thank you for your views, everyone. I've made up my mind to make it my business to improve my photography...this should be my aim...if any comments help me do that, fine. As for ratings, I'll just let them be. These are personal opinions and honestly, I can do little to help that.

I have recently posted a photo titled "Archway". While I concede that I have a long way to go, what struck me was

the way the photo has been rated. At the time of writing this, it has garnered five 3/3 ratings, two 6/6 ratings and a

few mid-scale ones. I did write about the rating system in PN a while ago and thought I would not let it bother me.

But such ratings make me wonder why there is such a large disparity of opinion on a photo. I have always

maintained that anyone who rates a photo 4/4 or below should be compulsorily asked to explain the reason for such

rating. Else, the rating should not be allowed. After all, among other things, this is a forum to learn from and what is

the use if this purpose is not being met? Is there anyone else who shares my view?

 

For anyone interested, "Archway" can be viewed at http://www.photo.net/photo/7441891

 

Thanks.

Thank you all for your input. I'll try to experiment with the photo I've alluded to in my question and see if such change in pixel size makes a difference.

I have had this problem for some time now. Many of my photos cannot be viewed

in entireity when the page opens in photo.net. I realise it is easier to see

(and critique) a photo without having to scroll up and down. You'll know what I

mean when you see this: http://www.photo.net/photo/6112190

 

What size of photo (length X breadth) is optimum for display in these pages?

Thanks.

Many thanks to you all. Michael's reply provided an insight into the system followed at photo.net. However, if only members are allowed to rate photos, why should the note in the rating page say that some are from anonymous raters? There is also this separate boxed area which shows what ratings the members provide. Maybe I'm being a bit thick here.

 

Victor's suggestion was quite interesting. But I suppose I'll simply go with the suggestion to try and get over the ratings system for now.

I see that quite a few ratings in photo.net are provided by annonymous raters.

While it may attract more attention to the site, it also provides a gateway for

truants. There was some discussion in one of the other forums not so long ago

about someone who gave 3/3 rating to many members who displayed their photos.

To get 3/3 may be a bit demoralising, but it can also be a learning experience

if the rater provided reasons for such a rating.

 

The problem is that there are too many ratings and too few constructive

criticisms. I feel that either raters should be compulsorily made to critique

or only members should be allowed to rate photos, in which case the person can

be tracable and not remain annonymous.

 

Any suggestions?

Thanks, Peter, will have a look.

Many of the photos in this site look fab with the frame around them. How can

one do this? Can this be done using adobe photoshop, or is there any other

software available?

This is to thank all of you...Art, Will, Stefan, Wigwam, Frank, Edward and Fred. Your different ways of looking at my question certainly cleared a lot of doubt I had. There were even some subtle points I did not consider and some rather important ones (like the situation in Germany with regard to such shots). I have greatly benefitted from your input and will be, as Fred said, able to "sleep at night" as ar as this is concerned. Thanks once again.

Hi,

 

I have posted a shot (profile) of a man sitting on my side during a boat ride.

I was interested in the pattern of his hair and two beads he clipped on his

hairlocks. To make the picture (more importantly, the decorated hair) as

natural as possible, I did not take the man's permission but clicked on an

impulse. Is it right to post such a shot? What problems may I encounter?

 

Thanks,

 

Samrat.

Hello everyone!

I am a new entrant to this community. I have a Panasonic DMC FZ5 camera and

would like to know if there are good teleconversion and macro lenses compatible

with my camera. I have bought some close-up lenses (Foxfoto) through ebay, but

would like something better.

Thanks.