jordan2240

I often apply an 'auto smart fix' layer with PS Elements. Sometimes I like it enough to do nothing else, sometimes I keep it and make additional adjustments, and sometimes I delete it, but if I just want a 'quick and dirty' on a photo, I find it is the only adjustment I need more often than not.

Saw them both. Yes, crazy photography. There are several BBC-produced nature shows available on Netflix (and narrated by David Attenborough) that also feature some of the most amazing filmmaking I've ever seen.

Doing a bit of research, I couldn't find much, but some figures I found for 2012 indicated a cover photo for a surf mag would be worth about $900 then. But I think that was freelance, not someone working for a magazine. The most lucrative photos seem to be those of celebrities at events that are difficult to get into or celebrity candids that put them in a bad light.

I wonder how much the guy made on the photo. With all the planning and expense involved, is it actually profitable, or is the reward more the satisfaction of getting the shot?

I'm always amazed at the camera work that must be required to get the shots I see in nature programs such as 'Planet Earth.' Like the surf-shot video, they contain some of the most incredible photography I've ever seen, and I'd love to see more on how those shots are obtained. Thanks for sharing.

Good to hear it Tom. I haven't been involved much since I don't shoot a whole lot anymore (no particular reason), but the way the birds were positioned here made me want to give it a go. Image manipulation is a whole other art form.

Not sure if this will post properly, but tried to make a heart-shape around the doves. Had no idea how, so did a web search on 'heart shape in ps elements' and found some tutorials. Applied auto enhancement and levels adjustments afterward. Saved as gif to keep background transparent, but don't know if that worked.

When I got tired of lugging around a DSLR and heavy lenses, I purchased a Panasonic Lumix FZ1000. It's not a pocket camera, but the weight and versatility make it ideal for carrying around for a day of shooting. I don't shoot often anymore, but when I do, there isn't a shot I can't get with it (though I don't try to do anything fancy), and it's a great vacation camera.

P.S., That women looks a lot like Maura Tierney from the side.

Well, I haven't done one of these in about forever, but I do lurk, and when I saw this, I wondered what I might do if I was actually processing it myself (and I'm also bored today). So, I took what i thought were the important elements, and cropped the shot to include only those. Steps went something like this in PSE 13 (and I probably did some stuff the long way): 1. Crop 2. Clone out some of the flower leaves that were left 3. Adjust color by removing some of the red 4. Add a high pass filter and invert it to soften the faces of the couple. Overlayed as 'soft light' then adjusted opacity to suit my eye 5. Add a high pass filter with normal overlay, and adjusted to suit my eye. And please feel no obligation to 'like' the image. One can fall into a chain of reciprocal 'liking,' which is why I don't do 'likes' out here unless it is in regards to a comment.

Well, in an attempt to put my "money where my mouth is..." (per my comment on previous 'nature unlimited' thread) Hope this doesn't violate the rules (which seemed fairly liberal for the most part), but I always liked the way the duck lined up against the dormer in this shot. Would like to say it was on purpose, but totally serendipitous.

Boy, as a lurker, I'm really disappointed in the 'nature unlimited' threads. Most of the images would easily qualify for the regular nature thread (and that includes all of the previous threads, not just this one). C'mon people, post some stuff that fits the intent of 'unlimited.'

When possible, I compose my photos as if there would be no cropping post-processing, though I did find that, initially, I was cropping things a bit too close in frame, and found that giving a bit more space was 'safer,' so to speak, even if it meant having to do some cropping afterward. Of course, there are always those times when speed supersedes composition (like trying to get that butterfly before it flutters away), or having a wider frame improves the success of getting the shot (like birds-in-flight), and in those cases, in-frame cropping isn't really something I consider as much.

Nice Michael. One of my favorite dog pics (even though the face isn't in focus), with my youngest son some 15 or so years ago:

Ok, I'll bite: 1st pic - an interesting sky, but otherwise it's just a snap of a mural. I have no idea what the deal is with the feet. Perhaps there is some irony in the wording on the mural and the possibility that the feet belong to a dead guy. I guess in that case, this one does actually have some interest. 2nd pic - two people working in a field by a large rock. Photographically, the composition is fine, but looks like a vacation snap. 3rd pic - Again, nice composition and it is kind of comical looking with the faces not visible, but I don't know if that was the intent. If it was meant to portray humor, then it does that, but if it is somehow supposed to generate some sort of emotion for these people in the field, I don't see it. Had I taken the shot, I would have thought it was kind of cool. 4th pic - Looks like a wide-angle closeup of a woman carrying a plant, and that's about all I get out of it. 5th pic - Snap of an attractive girl in a window, with a partial head at the lower right of the window frame that just serves as a bit of distraction. Overall, the feeling of the shot is one of happiness, but that's pretty much any shot where people are smiling. Colors are nice as is lighting, as 'shadow' noted (for his 1st pic). 6th pic - honestly not sure if getting the boy riding the bike into the frame was accidental or intentional. Regardless, given the focus is on the village, all I see is a snap of what might be considered a trailer park here in the states. 7th pic - Snap of what look like storage lockers at the foot of a large hill. Probably my least favorite of them all because it seems cluttered and I don't find the landscape particularly attractive. 8th pic - A nice moment between father and child, doctor and child, or whomever they are, but nothing a zillion other shots haven't depicted. Nice light. 9th pic - Another nice parent/child portrait, but I don't feel any particular emotion from looking at it other than 'nice colors.' 10th pic - Nice light in what looks to be a portrait of a shopkeeper, but I don't get any feel for what's in his shop or how he might interact with his customers. Again, I get no emotion from this other than 'nice portrait.' Now, I'm not a professional photographer or even a particularly good one, so this is coming from nothing other than gut feeling, though I've certainly seen photos that had me saying 'wow' and making me feel empathy, sympathy, joy, or something else for the subjects

Do you find any of the noted images particularly compelling? Perhaps 'anyone' is too expansive, but I'd say 'most' who are in those parts of the world are open to observing it, and would easily produce such images.

I agree that the organization itself is worthy of admiration. I especially like that it doesn't seem to be tied to any particular religion - just people helping people because it's a good thing to do.

I don't see anything particular compelling in any of the photos. Surely, thousands or tens-of-thousands of similar snaps are taken every day. Really, anyone can go to any down-trodden part of the world and take pictures depicting struggle, perseverance, tragedy, and redemption. I don't think any of these do that in a particularly notable way.

Most people who take pictures couldn't care less about the detail, but are only concerned with the content of the picture, so it really doesn't matter. Quality is in the eye of the beholder. Let's face it, nowadays, many people are happy to watch a movie on their smart phones vice a nice, big theater screen, so they'd hardly care about how many hairs one might be able to make out on someone's head.

Punta, I was the originator of the challenge several years ago. I still lurk out here even though I don't participate. When I originated the challenge, I did so because I wanted serious input on how others would process some of the images I had taken, and thought others might want the same for some of their images. I eventually lost interest for a variety of reasons, one being the lack of participation, but was glad to see others still having fun with it when Gerald brought it back from the dead (even though I'd never meant for it to be quite as experimental as it had become). Anyway, the point I'm getting to is that, if you have images that you 'fix' in post, those are exactly the types of images the initial challenge were meant to include, so you shouldn't have any reticence about posting them. You might actually get some interesting ideas on how someone else would process them.

Also from PA, near the capital, Harrisburg. Wildwood Park on the outskirts of Harrisburg generally offers up a variety of birds and other water life. Varies by the time of year, of course. Was recently in Florida to visit my sons, and found some nice opportunities on Pelican Island and Sebastian Inlet State Park on the Atlantic Coast. Interesting to hear about Middle Creek Laura. I've been there during the migration, and there are photographers galore. Perhaps during certain times of the year, it simply isn't safe to be out there unless you are hunting, and the message was conveyed in less than an ideal manner.

I know some folks out here eschew the use of the superzoom, but for someone who is primarily interested in capturing images and not so interested in how 'perfect' they are technically, they are extraordinarily fun and flexible, and most weigh less than a DSLR with even the smallest lens attached. My Panasonic Lumix weighs nearly a pound less than my Pentax K-5 II DSLR with an 18-85 lens, a reasonable length for general photography but far too short for anything in the distance. Attached is a crop of a shot taken at Cocoa Beach Florida from the balcony outside our hotel room. These guys were at least 100 yards away, probably quite a bit more. Could not have gotten this shot with anything other than a 400mm lens on a DSLR, and I'm sure mom would have no interest in carrying one of those around. With limited mobility, the superzoom would be especially useful to her. Of course, there are cheaper options in the superzoom category than the Lumix 1000, and all will be equally fun to use.

As a rank amateur myself who just likes taking photos from time to time as well, I agree with mike that she probably doesn't need a photography course and that youtube will likely have everything she'd 'need.' I'll go further to suggest a camera similar to the one I have, 'Panasonic LUMIC FZ1000', because of the flexibility it offers both in picture taking (with its 25mm-400mm lens) and adjustability. Use it in full auto mode or full manual mode, or somewhere in between. She can look specifically for youtube videos on the specific camera you get her as well, which might give her enough basic info on photography to keep her happy. In any regard, good luck, and compliments on thinking of your mom. Once she really embraces photography, she'll see the world in a whole new light, literally and figuratively.

A forum called 'contest/award winning photos' where pnetters posted their own 'successes' might be interesting, particularly to those who like to engage in contests. Though in reality, any given judge or set of judges might well have selected a different photo as the 'winner' at a different moment in time. For me, I would feel most comfortable presenting 'successes' in the context of some photo-related conversation - for example, if someone wanted to know about what lens to use for wildlife photography and I posted an award-winning wildlife photo (like I actually have any) taken with a specific lens. As for failures, I doubt anyone would take any offense to them.

Panasonic Lumix FZ1000 or the like. Not only extremely versatile, but far lighter than a regular DSLR.