julie_luther

<p>Something to balance out the cat photos. Don't know if it's my favorite photo of 2010, but it's my favorite dog photo (i.e. favorite photo of a dog, not necessarily my favorite dog). Of course it's not in the same league as other portraits posted in this section. I'll have to check the canoe/dog photos for Justin.<br>

<img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/12383332-lg.jpg" alt="" width="648" height="648" /></p>

 

<p>Maybe it's an anti-theft strategy....</p>

<p>Driving home, very soon after I purchased my K10D. Admiring the winter sky and a)wishing I could talk my spouse into pulling over every 5 minutes so I could take photos, b)wishing I had a clue how to use this new camera. This is what happened when I just went for it, going down the road at 60 mph. Not what I had in mind, don't know that I'd call it good, but "interesting" works.<br>

<img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/10721951-md.jpg" border="0" alt="" width="680" height="453" /></p>

<p>Thanks, Brendon. Didn't know about Picasa--another handy thing for me to check out. I'll try and save the Glow setting for self-portraits.... -Julie</p>

<p>Johan, Thanks for your excellent suggestion of CS3 for Photographers, sounds perfect for me. Yes, I realize that CSS is web design only, I only meant that signing on with lynda.com might be advantageous for me in more than one way. I co-own a small business that needs to be brought into the 20th century. ;-) </p>

<p>Thank you, Javier. You really shouldn't have. ;-)</p>

<p>Peter, thank you for your suggestion to stick with learning PS, and Lynda.com. I have one of her older HTML books and it's excellent. And I've been meaning to learn CSS, so maybe before I get caught up in spring....</p>

<p>Hey John M.--Thanks for wading in. Did my using a spice-in-the-cupboard analogy lead you to use all those cooking references? When you cook, do you use Photoshop references? ;-)</p>

<p>My very first thought when I saw your version was "orange!!" But now, when I got back to my original, I see just how much blue cast there was. Amazing. I keep flipping between the 3 versions of the photos to take in the significance of each. Lots to learn....</p>

<p>I will indeed follow your suggestion to bump up my camera's image tone setting. I already own PS (and know how to use about 3% of what it does). Might break down and get Lightroom or Aperture (or maybe learn PS and put my money towards a longer lens, a better tripod, etc.). But I *am* looking forward to tweaking my photos, feeling like I now have a better clue of options to play with.</p>

<p>Biggest photographic worry now: How am I gonna top this? ;-) Thanks again, guys, for your support, info and encouragement. -Julie</p>

<p> </p>

<p>

 

<p>Garry--I totally agree about exposure (Javier--no jokes here!!). I almost always seem to have EV bumped up a bit and am just starting to learn how much more to do here and there.</p>

<p>Javier--absolutely got the joke, and appreciated it too! Debated a dozen zippy comebacks but decided it might totally railroad legitimate discussion. Even got John O's "everyone's going to treat you differently." Honestly, it takes a lot for me to control my wisecrack impulse; I'm showing rare restraint but it won't last.... The world is temptingly full of double entendres.</p>

<p>John H.--Yes, it appears oversharpened on my screen, lacking a degree of subtlety and softness. But Michael also made it clear that there's a lot of personal latitude in making these adjustments. I won't personally look a gift-horse in the mouth, and appreciate seeing the array of adjustments that could be made. I fully understand that I shouldn't use every spice in the cupboard to make stew. I've generally erred in being too conservative with Photoshop. That being said, I completely understand that your comments are an honest caution against accepting someone else's view as my own standard, or using these tools to excess.</p>

<p>BTW, Michael also mentioned that his monitor is calibrated--makes me wonder to what degree these photos end up looking a bit more this-or-that on my screen vs. someone else's. That's what this might come down to. I dunno. </p>

<p>Appreciating the discussion, as always.</p>

<p>-Julie</p>

 

</p>

<p>Thank you, Michael! I very much appreciate your step by step changes--along with the rationale for each. Also your commentary on overall philosophy and approach. I've tweaked a couple of my in-camera settings but I know there's more that I could do. When trying out Photoshop, I'll sometimes hit Auto Levels just to see what Photoshop would do, and then make each change to my own guesstimate of what might be appropriate. But I've grappled with not only the technical learning curve, but somehow thinking one shouldn't do much of this (yeah, I might've been raised by nuns). So--I'll check out Lightroom, Aperture, etc. as well as keep playing with the tools I already own. </p>

<p>Thanks again. You guys made me glad I crawled out from hiding. </p>

<p>-Julie</p>

<p></p>

<p >Thanks, guys. It *is* all guys. hmmm.... (Javier, the phrase was meant more as coming out of hiding. In my progressive town people don't bother hanging out in closets any more anyway.)</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Not Tom Sawyer, but an Amish boy. Didn't want to fall into the cute Amish cliche. But I guess if it walks like a duck, the picture will be of a walking duck.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >I realize that a round of Photoshop is in order. I'm still too used to taking photos and what's on the slide is what you get. Ideally, I'd like to be able to use my camera better right from the start. I also don't know how much tweaking is too much (like people who think if a little makeup is good, more must be better). I should start shooting Raw and explore what I can do. Therefore, Michael, yes please, post your tweaked version of my photo so that I can see how far you take it and learn from it. Do you use Photoshop or something else? Please let me know what steps you put my photo through.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Thanks again, guys, for your friendly encouragement. (Not the L.A. definition of encouragement. ;-) )</p>

<p > <br>

-Julie</p>

 

<p> </p>

<p>I've been lurking since shortly after I bought my K10D (yes, new). I'll admit that the DSLR learning curve felt steep after decades with one fully manual SLR and Kodachrome 64, so I've appreciated the discussions and enjoyed your photos. Therefore, by way of introduction, here's a photo from last August, part of a serendipitous opportunity that presented itself. The boy on the roof was watching us (dog training on the adjacent property) --until his mother showed up in the yard. I just happened to have my camera out. I've posted the sequence on Flicker (search under member name jluther629). Lens was the kit 50-200. Some of the photos are cropped, most have no post-processing (although yes, I should tweak them--give me another 6 months...). <br>

So--thanks again for your discussions. I'm learning from them, and appreciate the friendly vibe. Back to lurk mode. -Julie</p>

<p><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/10670853-md.jpg" alt="boy on roof" width="”680”" height="”455”" /></p>

<p>I appreciate your responses to my query about the K10D vs. K100D Super. I wasn't aware of the Imaging Resource website, so I'll do some poking around there. Basically, I bought the K10D because of the weather sealing. I take most of my photos outside including in really dismal weather. I figured that the jpeg quality would have to compare to the high-end Olympus P&S I bought in 2001, but the Pentax photos have been much softer than I like. I end up tweaking the sharpness setting as well as a few other things here and there. Like I said, still learning, but it looks like I bought myself a very powerful tool that requires I exercise a few more brain cells than the Olympus did. And working with RAW is a whole 'nother level. </p>

<p>Anyway, thanks again for the insights and tips. I'll keep studying and take more shots. Helps keeps the Alzheimer's at bay.</p>

 

<p>Quote: I really like the JPEG results from this little camera. Actually better than that from my K10D.<br>

Why? What do you see as being different?<br>

For the record, I have a K10D--and I don't always get the results I expected/hoped for. Still learning how to use it. Just wondering what you see in your K100D results that you don't get in your K10D.<br>

Thanks.<br>

-Julie</p>

<p><br /></p>

<p>It's a Greylag, an escaped domestic species (not meaning that yours escaped from the barnyard, but that they're out on their own, breeding away, hanging out with native species and confusing photographers). Originally from Europe.</p>

<p>http://www.birds.cornell.edu/crows/domgeese.htm </p>

<p>Long-time lurker who finally registered so that I could answer your question--but had to throw in a flippant crack anyway--regards. ;-)<br>

-Julie</p>