Robin Smith

I think a standard answer would be that it depends on the space and the size. A smaller image is more likely to need matting to provide "visual spacing" between the print and the surrounding wall, particularly if the wall is a different color. In a gallery, of course, walls usually are white/off white, so less of an issue. A large image however has enough area to not need such a wide matte, or any at all, if even bigger. Likewise, if the display wall is small, then a print may not need a matte either. I think I am not alone in finding the "tiny print in a huge, wide matte" an unwanted affectation. Of course, what constitutes a "big" or a "small" print is difficult to define. If you think high falutin' types will be likely buyers for your shots then I suspect big can mean really big (4 x 6 + feet) as richer people will have more space to hang this kind of print. If more modest, then a 13 x 19 matted and framed print or a 17 x 25 could be classified as big.

Details do not always need to be seen in highlights or shadows. Very often that makes for a muddy image. The highlights are the points that stand out in the image, so if anything I would make them brighter. They are chrome and are reflecting an out of focus sky - what might you be expecting to see in them? What we see in the latest is sufficient, and we could see the same detail in a brighter image, which would have more impact. I think the basic permutations have been tried in the thread. My opinion is that somehow the shot is not as interesting as one thinks it should be. This would fall into my category "I've spent too much time on the image to make it work, so time to try again with a different image." Some shots never work out how we expect.

It was obviously Elvis. He liked coke, so this proves he’s alive.

Maybe time to consider some of the excellent smaller formats (m43, Sony/Fuji APS) which are generally speaking, smaller, lighter, and less expensive?

No doubt this is sorted by now, but although I coughed up for the Canon 5DIV back in 2016, I am not convinced it was worth the cost up from the 6D. It is a better camera (more AF points, slightly higher fps, higher resolution), but I enjoyed my time with the 6D more. The main thing I disliked was the 5DIV’s increased size. It fitted poorly into my bags and was noticeably bigger and heavier, I felt it was a poor return on investment given the improvements over the excellent 6D. In fact, ever since spending that money I have resolved never to pay over $3000 ever again for a camera. A secondhand one now is going to be way cheaper, so that complaint is moot for the OP. It is a good camera, but it was the camera that made me transition to an m43 system, although I have since acquired a Sony for my old EF lenses. I guess what I’m saying is that, unless the improvements of the 5D will really make a difference, I’d probably have got the 6D2.

I like it, but don't much like the way it is falling off the bottom- not sure why you did that? it might be improved by cropping to a panoramic aspect ratio.

As a shot it's fine. If it is to be in color then I suggest it needs some of the warmth being removed from it. It's a bit uninteresting: a spark of life, a gleam in the eye, an excited, dynamic expression may be too much to ask for in a classical guitar concert, but I think that would have made it more interesting. Perhaps a shot of the gent communicating musically while playing with the other members in the jazz or big band setting would be more exciting. It reminds me of the sort of shot I took of my kids in their school concerts. A problem with classical concerts when they are on stage is always the music stands that get in the way. A higher vantage point helps then.

There is more than one photo there. The photo of the lion (if that is all you are interested in) is one, and the photo of the lion in relation to the castle is the other. The castle is very nicely rendered too (no converging verticals!). The sculpture of the lion clinging to the balustrade is very striking and unusual which to me is what makes the picture. This is presumably why you took the shot in the first place too. The lion's head is also nicely on the third part of the image, making it visually satisfying. Looking again, I would tone the lion down a tad in the first shot. I can see the brush edges you used to lighten him, so you could improve that for those who like to engage in close scrutiny.

Cropping to a standard size is that last thing to really worry about. Most people view shots online and, as Sam says, you can get any photo mounted and framed as required.

My general view is that photos are weaker when the objects are clearly trying to leave the frame. However, in this case the cloud shapes balance the right hand picture better and I think that adds harmony, I think it is a nice picture. I am sure many people will agree with what Alan said though. But don't let that that stop you.

It's lost on me. Why? Preparing for a pipe catalog shoot?

There little point to the black and white photo. This subject is all about color. I might have added a bit of saturation, but not as much as you did with your saturated version. I take these kinds of shots all the time. A bit of added contrast might liven it up a bit, without any kind of saturation boost.

The moon is lit by full sun, so it takes a bright day exposure: it's always as simple as that (c. 1/500 @f8 ISO 100). If you had done this you would have lost a lot of shadow detail. The best way to take this is probably by composite blending of two images. Then you could have focused on the surf in the other blended shot, so the whole thing would look sharp. As it is, it has come out looking like the sun. It is possible that there might have been enough highlight detail in the waves to make the shot work without blending if you pumped up the shadows and over exposed the moon slightly, however having sufficient depth of field to cover from the moon to the surf probably could not have been accomplished, even at f22, hence the composite idea.

I always post process quite carefully. In color, I don't strive for perfection, because I don't know what that means. My guiding principle is that the image should look natural - also a hazy concept. I don't replace skies, nor do I generally clone out things unless they really annoy me, and not many things annoy me. If they did, I would probably not take the shot. If I spend more than, say 15-30 min on a shot then I usually know I won't like it in the end and I'll end up deleting it. Too much time PPing means it's no good anyway. As editing tools improve there is an incentive to use them. This is a slight problem, because it will mean everyone's photos may end up looking the same. However, the same issue existed with film. Unprocessed RAW files are generally no good at all as photographs so processing is required to make them even half decent. The most important thing is to have an idea of what you want or like, and some idea of how light falls and what is possible. This is just my view. Many people look for other things in their images: more surrealistic, extraordinary, "creative" expressions. Generally I am too hidebound to do this, but there are exceptions. It is easy to vanish down a rabbit hole of wild and wacky effects, which to me usually get old very quickly. Obviously the concept of "natural" and black and white is impossible, so my approach is different and I go for what looks good to me, but I still will not spend more than the 15-30 min, on any shot.

I ran the LR denoise program on some scanned (by camera - digicopied) ) 6 x 6 E6 images and found it did nothing. The program was unable to "understand" that it was not the pixels that were noisy, it was the original. In my experience, digicopying, even with excellent diffused lighting, does tend to emphasize grain similar to the way that critical illumination (i.e condensers rather than a diffusion light source) does when enlarging in the darkroom. Ultimately as scanning or digcopying relies on a lens and the passage of light rays to make the copy, and not a "pure" digital process, the result is never going to match the original precisely, unfortunately.

Not a huge fan of the Band (or Dylan from whence they came), I am more into the heavier stuff, but the The Last Waltz concert is very good, Clapton is good too at a time when he often was not too happy, or good.

I wonder if people are truly wanting to look at their shots on a big TV. Most people watch real TV on TV screens. I don't really have any interest in doing that. I would point people to a website and they would look on a phone or tablet, and that is what my family do. Looking at your own shots on a TV seems slightly strange to me unless you are doing it with the whole family. Then it becomes a bit like the slide shows of yore (and we know what that means). The good thing about the internet is it allows you to explore at your own pace., and skip all the shots of you looking bad or the ones you find boring. Comparing to film is pretty meaningless to most of us now and particularly for probably >90% of phone buyers. Like most people I am no longer even vaguely comparing these costs to film, so it is no consolation to know film is more expensive.

I agree with you. I'm afraid that is how insurance works. You are considered a bad risk (usually 2 strikes) and you get refused insurance, or you have to pay way more from a company who deigns to take you on.

Did you need to go through Photoshop? LR enables panoramas to be generated directly within the application. Select photos, then under Photo > Photo Merge > Panorama). Perhaps I am missing something?

You’re avoiding answering why you’re not buying things made in China. Are you scared the Chinese will blacklist you if you say? Clearly it’s a big secret.

Why? "Simple" Chinaphobia? Personally I see the Chinese will soon be the dominant lens makers with the Japanese companies having to try and maintain a "luxury" premium that will be increasingly seen as money for nothing (a bit like Zeiss and Leica), although Japan does not generally have the same cachet, at least in the West. Soon they will be making the cameras too.

Live ND does not increase the effective resolution, although I can see it might reduce noise at the sensor's native resolution.

Are not the blobs simply due to massive overexposure, not the shutter speed as such? An issue due to the imbalance of the exposure required to render the scene as a whole with the brightness of the bulbs. This can happen whatever the shutter speed.

AI is the latest bandwagon. I have not really taken a view on it yet, although it is certainly not really new. The obsession/panic surrounding it is not dissimilar to that surrounding the space race, genetic engineering/cloning, the advent of "information technology" in the 1980s, the advent of the internet, the development of the smart phone, social media, digital pornography etc. I barely know how to assess these developments for society, so AI is just another one. One thing I am fairly certain of is that it is better to remain skeptical about positive spins put out by those who work in the industry or those who regard these developments as essential for economic development. The ethical issues raised by all these developments are not simple and are certainly not unalloyed good things as many who work in these industries suggest they are, because they most definitely have an axe to grind in the matter. I feel the same about much research (and I was a research scientist once). There is so much of the economy, people's employment/livelihood tightly bound up with this matter it is almost impossible to pretend we can control it.

A calumny against the PIXMA dye inks and the PRO-100! I agree with Paddler, the PRO-100 produces prints quite as good as the PRO-10 or my previous Epson pigment printer, but the ink is dye, not pigment, so image fastness is not as good, although behind glass who really knows as PIXMA dyes are meant to last 100 years behind glass. Pigment inks may produce blacker blacks, but dye inks may produce stronger colors. There is also variability as to which you might prefer, depending on the type of paper you want to use. For the Canon PRO-100 obtaining a replacement head was almost impossible, even though in theory they were available. The price of one on ebay (couldn't get one from Canon) was a lot more than the price of a new printer, so I got a new printer (at $100). The inks are always way, way more expensive than anyone likes. I remain surprised that printing remains a rather more complex process than it needs to be, but then of course, people are not really printing like they used to, if at all.