photobiscuits

<p>you might want to reread/rephrase the question....good photos by the way.</p>

<p>Separated skin&hair, sign, clothing, foreground, background into different layers. Dodging and burning, levels, cloning, colour brush. No particular order to it, just willy nilly for 15 mins or so. Sloppy and quick, more talented people than me would do a much better job.</p><div></div>

<p>Flat and lifeless! Well, I am both shocked and appalled!<br>

Oh well you can't win em all.</p>

<p>tsk tsk. lurking. 'penis envy'.<br /> I will leave you to enjoy your imaginary world where blown highlights have detail in them - "no really they do, it was shot with film and film has a superior dynamic range!"</p>

<p>Stage lighting is difficult. Like others that have posted above, I'm not seeing anything remarkable in regard to tonality in the op's pictures.<br>

The picture below was shot in colour, converted to b&w. With digital, I have that option.</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

<p>We've all got freedoms.<br /> You (and those that blocked your view) have the right not to help the injured. <br /> You have the right to take photos (in a public place).<br /> They have the right to stand in the way of your photography.<br /> They have the right to be wrong by asking you not to take pictures.</p>

<p>image>adjustments>auto colour? though this adjusts the entire photo, which I see is not what you are looking for...<match colour> or <replace colour> are selective, would they do what you are looking for?</p>

<p>I have had the same kind of terrible service from Nikon, which I moaned about awhile back here on the forums. The D40 I purchased turned out to be a lemon a couple of months after I bought it. It was sent back and forth, unrepaired, three times (equaling 2 months of travel time - and me without a camera) before they finally gave me a working camera.<br>

Haven't had a problem with any of my Nikon equipment since, it's been pretty reliable, but am dreading the next time I will have to send something to Nikon Canada for service.</p>

<p>this worked well for me.<br>

http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00Peta</p>

<p>Possibly. An expensive lens is built to be optically superior and the result would probably show in your photographs. <br>

Who will notice or care? Likely no one but you. </p>

<p>^let's hope not. <br>

I just find it silly that we are so pro-copyright, and yet so willing to throw away the parts that are useful and lawful but potentially inconvenient. Anyone can socially bookmark someone else's work, with accompanying thumbnail (in the case of Facebook anyway), yet we are afraid to post a picture for the purpose of discussing and learning from it. Surely any judge would find that to be fair use, even by your four factors test. But it's not my money potentially being spent on lawyers so by discussing that which is "not up for debate" (thanks for that Jeff) I suppose I am wasting my time.<br>

In the end it's not a big deal and nothing I want to make enemies over. The linking works fine and is nothing more than a small annoyance.</p>

<p>Agreed, linking is easy and avoids potential problems from ignorant people. However I agree with what Rob said:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>the thread becomes useless when the external site changes. Without the context of the original photo, very little good information can actually be passed on after that.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It's odd that photonet would allow social bookmarking and ecards (by default, last I checked a year ago) but will not allow fair use for the purpose of discussion and learning.</p>

<p>Thank you however, for the explanation, Matt, I can see how it simplifies things.</p>

<p>I am not american but, from the "Copyright Law of the United States of America and Related Laws Contained in Title 17 of the United States Code"<br /> http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#107<br /> <br /> By this law it is ok to post someone else's intellectual property (photos) for the purposes of "criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research".<br /> http://www.photo.net/portraits-and-fashion-photography-forum/00Tvc9?unified_p=1<br /> <br /> Why does photonet not allow this in the discussion forums? It seems a bit over the top and protectionist - like we are so afraid of having our pictures stolen, we won't even allow them to be used fairly. We should be embracing all of the advantages afforded by copyright law including it's fair use provisions.<br /> <br /> Am I wrong in my understanding of fair use? Hoping for civil debate.</p>

<p>Excellent, been there, thanks!</p>

<p>For me, the classification of fine art leads me to imagine a debate between artist and viewer. Ending with the viewer throwing his arms up in defeat and saying, "fine, it's art."</p>

<p>A tablet is just a fancy mouse. It is not specific to any software. Any tablet will work just fine with any software, just as any mouse will do the same.</p>

<p>much ado about soup.<br>

funny.</p>

<p>You are doing it right, more or less. First thing to make it easier is to use one of Wacom's tablet pens, if you are not already. <br /> There are many ways to do the same thing, I'd go about this by:</p>

<ul>

<li>make a new layer underneath the picture layer & fill it with white </li>

<li>apply a layer mask to the layer with the picture </li>

<li>paint in the mask with black to hide, and white to reveal.</li>

</ul>

<p>Layer masks are great because you can undo simply by painting the opposite colour (shortcut is X). Have fun!</p>

<p>Why does everything have to be boxed, categorized, and defined. What does it really matter? </p>

<blockquote>

<p>I know that art is subjective</p>

</blockquote>

<p>There is no formula to art. The art is in the intent, not in whether you may or may not like the result or the process used.</p>

<p>OK, I got in.</p>

<p>I can't get past the load screen due to the following error:<br>

"Javascript is turned off on your browser. Please enable or activate Javascript in order to be able to view xemival.com"<br>

(Javascript is <strong>not</strong> turned off)</p>

<p>Thanks, you've made me feel a little more confident about my choice. And thanks for the info about the preflashes and the manual mode, that might have been a surprise.</p>

<p>Thanks for your reply, I will be using an elongated (20' or so) sc-28 cable from my hotshoe to the sb600.<br>

As I said I am not very knowledgeable in the lighting department. I have read a book or two on the subject so I have a basic idea. I don't know much about watt-seconds or guide numbers but I thought these would do the trick. Thanks!</p>

<p>Am considering a pair of <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/501613-REG/Impact_VSD_300_VSD300_Digital_Monolight_.html#includes">these lights</a> (VSD300) for the main and fill lights in a three light setup. My SB600 will be used as a background light and I am expecting it's flash to trigger the other two.<br /> I am uncertain if they are a good choice for me and am hoping to get some good advice. I am on a poor-man's budget and they about max me out at 2 lights for $400. They are 300 w/s lights - are they too powerful for an in home 'studio'? Would 160 w/s or the 100 w/s lights be better for a basement sized room?<br /> Any thoughts or advice would be appreciated as I really am not sure and don't want to buy something that doesn't work for me...</p>