wade_youngblood

<p>Congratulations, Bob, on shooting your first wedding! Hope it went well for you.</p>

<p>Neven, your photo is beautiful. What a shot.</p>

<p>Todd, I love your shot of the abandoned house. Abandoned places fascinate me...hope you didn't get shot at!</p>

<p>Sen C, your wildebeest photo is amazing! I love it.</p>

<p>Marc, I love your "Jurassic Terrier". That one made me laugh.</p>

<p>And here is mine for the week. This is some sort of derelict structure in the middle of a research pond at an arboretum in my area. I shot it this morning just before the sun came up and did some detail enhancement in photomatix.</p>

<p><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/11680130-md.jpg" alt="" width="566" height="838" /></p>

<p>Hi everyone!</p>

<p>Louis, I really like the rim lighting in your "Thistle" image. The sharpness in this image is wonderful; every tiny little hair on the surface of the thistle stands out beautifully. Very nice work!</p>

<p>Doug, your "Old Methodist Church" is beautiful - the light is great, I love the super wide angle of view and the lines of the floor, ceiling and walls work incredibly well with the composition. The textures in that shot are so cool, and definitely speak of age and neglect. Great stuff!</p>

<p>So here is my contribution: I shot this at Boiler Bay, south of Lincoln City, OR, at sunset. It's a long exposure shot of a colony of mussels perched around some tide pools, and of course the mist effect is a result of the ebb and flow of the incoming tide. I liked the way this turned out because it was so monochromatic and otherworldly-looking. The only post processing I performed was some sharpening and levels adjustments.<br>

D5000, Nikkor AF-S DX 18-55mm 3.5-5.6G VR @ 40mm, 6s, f/22, ISO 100<br>

<img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/11568430-md.jpg" alt="" width="680" height="328" /></p>

<p>Absolutely! Pandora is great, in my opinion, because it introduces me to new groups and artists that I would never have come across otherwise. When I am processing, I am not too focused on the music I am listening to - it becomes ambient noise, for the most part. Then, once in a while, I will hear a song that I immediately fall in love with, and I can take note of it.</p>

<p>Adam,<br>

Brett and Matt are right. Without seeing the images, it is impossible to make any suggestions regarding correction or creative insight. Posting an image which is "similar" isn't helpful, either, since two photos which share one or two elements in common can also simultaneously differ drastically in many other respects. Histogram information, in my opinion, is useful for one thing only, and that is making sure that highlights aren't blown to white and shadows aren't completely black.</p>

<p>If you can, upload these photos to your photo.net portfolio, then link the images here. That way, if you want to delete them down the road, you can do so without leaving a permanent copy anywhere.</p>

<p>Really, though, post processing is largely a matter of personal taste. Sure, there are some de facto procedures that are fairly commonplace, such as sharpening, noise reduction, dust spot removal, color correction and levels adjustments, but above and beyond that you should just explore whatever avenues seem interesting to you.</p>

<p>I would also be interested in hearing some answers to this question.</p>

<p>Victoria,<br>

The newest iteration of the Tamron 17-50 2.8 does incorporate vibration compensation. Here is a link to the product on Tamron's website:<br>

<a href="http://www.tamron-usa.com/lenses/prod/1750_vc_b005.asp">http://www.tamron-usa.com/lenses/prod/1750_vc_b005.asp</a><br /><br /></p>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<blockquote>

<p>- It slows down startup of the cam. which sometimes is not favourable..</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That's the major drawback I see with it. On my Nikon, the cleaning function is actually enabled by default. I'm not sure why that is, seeing as how yours is turned off by default. Maybe it's because my camera is newer, or maybe it's because my camera is lower-end.<br>

Seems to me, though, that having it turned off is the better way to go. It takes a good second or two for the routine to complete. If that delay causes you to miss a shot, well...dust spots are pretty easy to deal with, in comparison. When I think about it, it's similar to the reason I will never use a camera strap again. The first time it got in the way of my viewfinder, I missed a shot of my baby niece sliding down a slide for her first time. Off with the strap!</p>

<p><a href=""http:/photo.net/photodb/user?user_id=5102155">Jens Frederiksen</a>, that is one of the most beautiful IR shots I have ever seen!<br>

I went down to the park with my sister and niece and took a spin on the merry-go-round, thought it might make a cool picture and this is what I got.<br>

<img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/11496631-md.jpg" alt="" width="680" height="1010" /></p>

<p>Seems the pictures didn't post, I'll try that again.<br>

At f/11:<br>

<img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/11538895-md.jpg" alt="" /><br>

At f/29:<br>

<img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/11538896-md.jpg" alt="" width="680" height="452" /></p>

 

<p>I was wondering about this myself. I am fairly new to photography, and I am still learning many of the technical aspects. I assumed that the tighter the aperture, the more sharpness would be achieved throughout the photograph. I decided to perform my own test to see if I could discern this for myself, and I am convinced.<br>

at f/29:<br>

<img src="../photo/11538896" alt="" /><br>

at f/11:<br>

<img src="../photo/11538895" alt="" /><br>

This doesn't address depth of field, but it definitely does exhibit effects due to diffraction. The photo shot at f/11 is clearly much sharper. Both of these are straight-out-of-camera, except for the zoomed-in selections, but of course no sharpening has been applied.</p>

<p>George, if VLF makes solid objects appear translucent as you say, then why do only the human bodies and their clothing take on this translucency?</p>