orias

<p>Sometimes for some people. For me, it hasn't happened yet.</p>

<p>Looking at prints for me is more enjoyable than looking at a computer monitor. I really enjoy the more casual time I can take to study prints when I am strolling through a gallery or museum.</p>

<p>Matt, I am curious what the percentage of color versus black and white/monochrome were displayed?</p>

<p>I like how Jerry put it. To get the maximum dynamic range in a single exposure, exposing the scene to get the brightest part of the scene to the far right gives the maximum number of photons hitting the sensor. Also, be aware that the LCD screen and histogram are based on a JPEG, so even having a significant spike on the end, details are still there after processing the RAW file. If you shoot JPEG, then you need to be a little more conservative with the exposure.</p>

<p>It is all personal preference. Sometimes I see other people with over the top color in their photographs. Sometimes I am told that my coloring is over the top. I accept it as it is.</p>

<p>It seems to be a trend that builds upon itself. People see these photos rated highly, so they start to emulate it. I try not to lose any sleep over internet trends and continue to pursue my own vision.</p>

<p>But as a rule of thumb, if I adjust saturation and contrast, I take what I think looks good and then cut it in half so that it will appeal to the more "middle of the road viewer" or look good on monitors which may be a little too contrasty, for example. I do want my photos to appeal to a wide audience, so I do listen when people think I have gone a little overboard. </p>

<p>IS will not be that helpful when photographing eagles in action. And when using a long telephoto lens, I would rely on a sturdy tripod or monopod more than IS.</p>

<p>What kind of subject matter do you or are planning to shoot? Tripods are also great image stabilizing equipment and for the most part are usually cheaper.</p>

<p>Whatever brings you joy and satisfaction to your photography....... more power to you. Let's all remember that it may not be the same for another photographer.</p>

<p>Whatever focal length you calculate, go a little longer, that way you will be more than likely behind the men with the guns rather than in front of them.........</p>

<p>Hopefully you will have a speedy recovery.....</p>

<p>Hopefully you will have a speedy recovery.....</p>

<p>One other issue which I don't think anyone mentioned is the vibration of the mirror slap. Usually this is more an issue at 1/10 a second but using mirror lock up, if available on your camera may help as well.</p>

<p>Yes, you can upload photos that are altered or manipulated. In fact there is even a category for such images, but manipulated images can be submitted to any other appropriate category as well. Also, there is a check box when submitting a photo that states whether there was manipulation or not and the definition of manipulation can be found on the site. I believe that sharpening and global changes such as contrast and tonal corrections do not fall into the Photo.net definition of digital manipulation.</p>

<p>The POW has no restriction with regards to manipulation. The "elves" can choose any photo they so desire.</p>

<p>Since a digital sensor has signal to noise issues, I am a proponent of exposing such that the light information resides to the right of the histogram for most subjects I shoot, without losing highlight detail. This invariably creates a "duller" RAW image that doesn't look so great "out of the camera". But with a little processing, I do end up with a good image provided the light conditions at the time I took the shot were good. This shooting process is especially helpful for low light situations where shadow noise can be a factor.</p>

<p>Everyone will develop their own process and if you feel you are successful with your process, than the world is good. </p>

<p>But I do get the impression that some people look down on post processing as some kind of "crutch". All I can say is that when I travel 3000 miles to photograph something, I want to make that photographic print the best I can, which typically means with my process, that it doesn't look so great right out of the camera, but will be technically good after I am through with it.</p>

<p>Just another observation. Look at the ratings people give and people get. It is pretty easy to see who is handing out high ratings to get high ratings. It will be interesting to see if those "ratings given" scores start to drop. I doubt they will. It is like Internet Evolution, if there is a prize to be won, some members will find a loophole or strategy to get to the top. If the rules are changed, they will probably find a new loophole or new strategy. It is actually kind of fun to watch from a sociologic perspective. From a Photography point of view, it is kind of sad that some members have to game the system for some kind of ego support.</p>

<p>"Shortly" can't come soon enough.........</p>

<p>The drop in polarizer is kind of a niche piece of equipment. Losing the stops of light can be an issue. I have used it for surfing photography when it is bright and I am trying to cut down on reflections off the water. It does add a nice tone to the sky and water though. <br>

The other times I use it is for actually slowing down my shutter speed for my niche photography of waves and surfing where I am purposely using slow shutter speeds to help create some motion blur. This is useful after the sun rises and there is too much light to keep my shutter speed at less than 1/30 of a second. </p>

<p>A RAW file is like a digital negative. When a digital camera reads the sensor and the camera is set to JPEG output, the camera processes the data depending upon the settings of the camera which include white balance, saturation, sharpening, contrast and probably some other parameters as well depending upon the camera. The output JPEG file is compressed to a 8 bit color output, thus the tonality is somewhat compressed as well as the dynamic range.<br>

Shooting RAW, none of that processing is performed. You need a RAW converter to take the RAW file and work with it on your computer. The file is either 12 or 14 bit of color data, versus 8 bit for the JPEG, which provides a wider range of colors. Also, the dynamic range of the photo is larger and details can usually be brought out in shadow and highlight areas that might be lost in the JPEG compression in the camera. Once in your converter, you have control over all the parameters that the camera did automatically and more. Ulltimately, you will need to convert the RAW file to either a TIFF or a JPEG. The TIFF file can remain 16 bit, but the JPEG file will be 8 bit, but any changes you did on the RAW file will be better "tolerated" than if you did them to an 8 bit file. Working with a RAW file gives the photographer the maximum flexibility to process the file to the best quality possible, but it comes at a price of time to make those processing choices.</p>

<p>I don't judge photographers, but rather their final product and preferably by looking at a print.</p>

<p>Provided you aren't being forced to buy the book to get your photograph in it, then I think you should be happy. If you have to buy th ebook to get your photograph in it, then maybe you shouldn't be quite so happy.</p>

<p>Unless you are very lucky, great landscape images don't present themselves everyday. The few landscape images I have shot and am happy with come from locating at a spot for several days hoping and waiting for the right conditions and even then I am sometimes denied that magical light. I sometimes get up waqy before dawn to make it to a spot. It akes a lot of planning and a lot of luck. If it was easy, we could all be Marc Adamus, but alas we are not.<br>

But, from the look at your portfolio here, I agree with everyone else, as it shows you are beyond the average photo taker and have a vision and even a style. I think the next step is setting a good chunk of time aside, and either consider a workshop or take a trip devoted to your photography and devote the time and energy needed to help you make the next step. </p>

<p>Congratulations Chris</p>

As a new member, I find the anonymous rating system interesting. I have given many more anonymous ratings than

I have identified ratings. I readily admit that I am probably a little more "generous" with the rating when my name is

visible. I have gotten a few 3/3s anonymously on my photos. I credit it to the fact that members are going through

that "rate a photo" feature quickly and are giving you their quick impression. I hope nothing more sinister is going

on, but I won't be naive and say there isn't the possibilty for abuse. <p>But, I think it is a mistake to automatically

dismiss every 3/3 as a rating from an inexperieced photographer, just like we shouldn't believe that every 7/7 is

accurate as well. And I certainly wouldn't take away the lower ratings either. I think I have come to learn that with

any rating, there are sometimes influences other than just the photo itself that affect the ratings given. Some people

like to give out lots of 6's. They may be doing it for encouragement, they may be easily impressed, they may really

feel the photo is worthy or they may be trolling for return ratings...... I think most members who have their eyes

open, can figure out what is really going on.<p>I have heard it said several times, that software changes are unlikely

to change human behaviour when that behaviour is for individual gain. People will just find another way around

changes that they feel affect the rewards they get from a photo site.

Nice shot, especially for Galveston.