frode

<ul> <li>Is photography hard or easy?</li> </ul> <p>Photography is as easy as pushing a button - and as hard as earning millions for a picture you took.</p> <ul> <li>How does either of these characterizations influence the way beginners approach photography?</li> </ul> <p>Someone starts because they want to take pictures, someone because they want to be famous.</p> <ul> <li>Should practitioners take offence if photography was said to be easy?</li> </ul> <p>This is psychology, and not ethics nor law, and therefore not a question that can be answered with "should" or "should not". It would however be interesting to know _why_ some practitioners will take offense.</p> <ul> <li>Should we lean more toward "Photography is easy"?</li> </ul> <p>Good starting point!</p>

<p>Hi<br> From what you say, I suggest trying a different card reader. You may also try to connect the camera directly to the computer with a suitable cable if available.</p> <p>Cheers,</p>

<blockquote> <p>My camera has 9 auto focus points, <strong>should I select just one and try to focus on something that is roughly at the same distance (say 4 feet).</strong></p> </blockquote> <p>Yes. This is correct.</p> <blockquote> <p>Using the hyperfocal distance everything will be in <em>acceptable</em> focus from 3.91 feet to infinity.</p> </blockquote> <p>A tiny correction: The "acceptable focus" (depth of field) will go from <em>half</em> the hyperfocal distance to infinity, i.e. from <em>1.96</em> feet to infinity in this case.</p>

<p>Hmmm...I think texture is more about contrast (hard vs soft light) than whiteness. Contrast will be extremely low when the light is extremely diffuse (overcast and foggy) as in my example image. You can in fact see details all over the place if you adjust contrast to its extreme, but that would not reflect my liking (and also no what I saw when I captured the image). In OP's image the contrast is high since the light is very hard.<br> I must also clarify that I did not mean that OP's image should have been adjusted to show the sun lit snow as white as the snow in my example image. I do however believe that OP's image is not the typical snow image where a light meter will fail, both because there are large areas that is quite dark and because one (or at least OP) would not want the sun lit snow to be very white in the final image. I would like to see a light meter that would expose my example image correct by itself. My didn't (Pentax K-3). By correct I mean that a JPG straight out of the camera would be correctly exposed (usually - also in this image - I will expose such scenes darker on purpose to avoid burnt out areas and I use RAW)</p> <p>Hope this added some useful meaning to my previous post.</p> <p>Cheers,</p>

<blockquote> <p>couldn't this also be done with a single exposure via the tone curve?</p> </blockquote> <p>I found an article that might put a bit more flesh on the HDR bones:<br> http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/high-dynamic-range.htm</p> <p>BTW: I know what HDR is about, but have little experience with HDR myself.</p> <p>;-)<br> Cheers,</p>

<p>Except from small spots in the image the sunlit snow is far from white. Most of it has values up to about 200 (of 255) and some small areas approach white (~240). The snow in the attached image may be considered white (and still not burnt out)<br /> Cheers,</p><div></div>

<p>Agree</p> <p>Cheers,</p>

<p>HDR (high dynamic range) is more a technique than a pictorial expression.<br> Even if many of the type of images you mention is created with the aid of a HDR tool or plugin, they do not catch the basic idea of HDR which is representing a high dynamic scene (a scene with very high over all contrast such as a sunlit landscape with deep shadows) in a much lower dynamic media (for example a JPG image) in a way where it looks as if the scene actually was captured as is (i.e. it looks as a true representation of the scene). <br> "Artistic landscapes", "Non-naturalistic landscapes" or something like that would in my opinion be a much more descriptive category name for the images you address. This is not to say that there in any way is something wrong in making those images, but if clarification by category name was the goal, one should not use a name that (at least historically) describes the exact opposite which is making a high dynamic lit scene look as natural as possible in an image. If not, confusion will still remain.<br /><br> <br> Best wishes,<br /></p>

<p>The part you address is usually called a "clamp".</p>

<p>Hi<br> You should also consider luster photo paper.<br> What is best will depend heavily on the image itself and your preferences. Most of my prints are on luster papers (currently I mostly use a 310 gsm baryta paper). If you are printing yourself you might consider one of those discovery packages that contains several types of papers.</p> <p>Cheers,</p>

<blockquote> <p>If I want a shallow DoF, and can't set the ISO lower than 100, what else can be done other than a ND filter? Is shutter speed the only way to control the picture in this situation? I ended up with a lighter picture than I wanted.</p> </blockquote> <p>Yes. You have only three controls: aperture, shutter speed and ISO. Since you want a shallow DoF you will want a low f-number, i.e. 4.5 on your lens. Then you set the ISO to 100 and select the shutter speed that gives the correct exposure. This is how it works. You have to select two of the three, and adjust the third one to make the exposure correct (i.e. correct "brightness" of the image). If you ended up with a lighter picture than you wanted, then you could have used a shorter exposure time to make it darker. If your camera do not have a short enough exposure time for this, then it's time for using a ND filter to reduce the amount of light that enters the lens.</p> <p>By the way: Being disappointed by the result is the first step to learn how to do it better. Study your images and find out what it is that you don't like with them. Learn from that and keep on shooting! ;-)</p> <p>Cheers,</p>

<p>Hi<br> If the only thing you do is to change the brightness of the light I doubt you will see any difference at all between the two examples you mention as long as you use a tripod for your camera. Handheld you will probably do better with 1/50 sec since it is harder to hold the camera still for as long as 1/4 sec.</p> <p>Cheers,</p>

<blockquote> <p>the rest is foggy but I'm learning.</p> </blockquote> <p>This is when it starts getting interesting. Just like when you start with a lump of clay and begin to shape it into something...<br> <br> ;-)<br /><br> Cheers,<br /></p>

<p>This image can be of anything. The only thing I am willing claim about this photo is that it will be hard, maybe impossible to find out what it is. That is the whole point. This is a good example of someone supporting a claim of what has been photographed by referring to that one cannot disprove that the photo supports the claim. Circulus in probando.<br> <br> <br> ;-)<br /><br> Cheers,<br /></p>

<p>OK. I must apologize. I overlooked that you "have no grid for transparency". This renders the transparency "color" look white. But it must not be confused with white color. Transparency is its own kind of color.<br> When you then turn off the "white BR" layer, the checker board background in my above right image will still look white although it is transparency (this is a good reason to not turn of checker board). That part of the image is still transparent. This transparency will mix with the shadow and make it even more transparent than it already is (you might say that you mix a color with some "invisibility" stuff, so it gets more invisible). Since the transparency color is white (the "nothingness" below all layers in the layer pallet has become white), it will make more of this transparency ("nothingness") white shine through the shadow.<br> At least that is my hypotheses. Don't confuse a white transparency with white color (I would say: never turn off the checker board in transparency).<br> Cheers,</p>

<p>Hi,<br /> I have tried what you say. I turn on and of the visibility of the bottom layer (named "white BR"). I do not get the result you describe. Actually it becomes more dark when the white background is hidden, because the shadow is transparent and the darker background will mix with the shadow. There is however more contrast between the shadow and background when the white layer is visible. Maybe this is what you perceive as being darker?<br> Have a look at this page. Maybe it becomes clearer: https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2011/01/08/do-we-perceive-reality-the-checker-shadow-illusion/<br /> <br /> Cheers,</p><div></div>

<p>Thanks for reporting back!</p> <p>;-)</p>