mikemorrellNL

I think it's pretty good 'as is' too. If you're able to do any post-processing, then two opportunities to 'clean up' the photo (viewing close-up) are: 1. cleaning up a few 'white spots' in the sky; most might be stars, dust or lights in the distance; there might a plane in there too 🙂 2. Cloning/Patching out the back end of the car bottom left; not a big deal Mike

+1 for the responses for far. For me, the decision whether to upgrade from my 2nd hand Canon 6D depends mainly on: - the types of amateur photography I mainly do (and where and how I publish photos) - the degree to which the 6D limits my abilities - the degree to which any upgrade within my budget would give me more or better opportunities At some stage, I'll probably upgrade to a used 5D mk IV. But TBH for the types of photography I do (and web publishing), the 6D (2013) still does it's job. - the degree to which camera system X limits your abilit do that - the degree to which camera system Y would more camera system X(or better) opportunities to do that

Hi @Mile, the photo is not a scan. The photo was taken with a digital camera and digitally post-processed to achieve the photographer's trademark ''style'. I don't want to (publicly) share any of his specific EXIF data that you can't find for yourself with the tool I suggested. That's not necessary either. If you browse through the photos on his website, you will (hopefully) notice certain characteristics of his 'style' in terms of subjects, time of day (night time), exposure, (de)saturation, etc. FWIW, I think that: a) it's very difficult to emulate a photo 'style' that a very good photographer and post-processor has gradually developed over many years b) it's always better to develop you own personal 'style': content and post-processing IMHO, there are no real 'shortcuts'. You can be inspired by - and be attracted to- a certain ' photographic style' but you still need to figure out for yourself which subjects interest you and how you create your own (post- processing) style.

I don't do any filming and I know neither camera (apart from what I've picked up from a few reviews and YouTube video's). From what I've seen, the the Sony ZV-E10 does indeed perform better under 'low light' conditions. How much better than the GoPro depends of course on how much (or how little) índoor light is available. A shooting distance of 1 - 1.5 metres is very short to get your whole body into a shot. Another factor is that the ZV-E10 has a 'crop sensor' which means that the effective focal lengths of the lens are going to be about 1.5 times what they would be on a 'full-frame' sensor. So the effective focal lengths of the kit lens on the APS-C sensor are going to be 'less wide angle' at 24mm-75mm. Whether you can fit your whole body into a video depends on the 'field of view'' (FOV). The FOV depends on the shooting distance, the focal length of the lens and also on the size of the camera sensor. The least complicated FOV calculator I've found is at https://www.omnicalculator.com/other/camera-field-of-view. I'm too inexperienced to give you a definite answer and I hope others will. But if (perhaps incorrectly!) I type in the ZV-E10 + kit lens data and the shooting range you indicate, then IMHO the ZV-E10 is unlikely to work for you At a shooting distance of 1.5 m, I get a FOV of 1.5 m width and 1 m height. You could flip the camera to vertical but 1.5m is still very limited. So I would advise against snapping up the camera + kit lens now just because you've found a good deal. Rather, I suggest perhaps finding someone who has an APC (crop) camera with a similar wide-angle lens that you can try out.; it doesn't matter too much whether it's a video or stills camera, it'll just give you an idea of what's in the frame (and what's not) in the studio situation you have in mind From what I read, the GoPro has a much smaller sensor and a smaller focal length (19mm). So unless you've already done so, I'd give the GoPro a try in a studio setting that you have in mind. With enough (extra) lighting, it might be fine. If you have alternative (larger) studio space, the ZV-E10 would probably work fine there too. Hope this helps, Mike

I haven't read 90% of the responses since May. I truly recognize Eggelston's contribution to photography but - with all respect - for me he's now a historical figure. I'm more interested in how new and upcoming photographers view and deal with 'banality'. I assume that they (though their art and photography specializations) have some understanding of the 'history'. As art/photographic history tells us, innovators strive to 'create something new' from what has been. For the past 6 years, I've been a volunteer at a local (international) biennial photo festival. The aim of the festival is to exhibit 'state of the art' photography. The curators select exhibitions based on criteria such as 'a relevant social theme' that matches the biennial social theme of festivals and innovation in the way exhibitions are presented. TBH the original 'photo festival' has increasingly become a mixed-media 'visual arts' festival. For the good IMHO as younger visual artists become more comfortable and more competent in expressing themselves in exhibitions through different media. A couple of recent 'curated' exhibitions by young artists/photographers stand out in my recollection. One was entitled: 'What happens if I forget about goals/subjects?'. Another was (via portraits) 'these are people who have helped/supported me'. So (for visitors) apparently random photos that are unrelated to any obvious 'story' or 'theme' but (should they read the blurb) can read that each of these artists/photographers made an 'artistic choice' to pitch their exhibitions. And the festival curators welcomed these.

Hi @Mile, Many thanks for for posting (links to) these 2 photos! What I really immediately liked about them (though they are different), is that they somehow had a similar 'photographic style' (colors, shadow toning). I first looked up C A Soukup on Flickr and I saw a similar 'style' in most of his 'night' photos. I also Googled him and he's quite well known. A lot has been written about his 'stills from movies never made' and he's participated in many exhibitions and won some awards. It's well worth visiting his website. I feel a bit stupid about trying to 'decode' his edits! He obviously has long had a photographic 'vision', 'style' and 'process' to achieve these. What I love about PN is that posts like yours lead me to discover a photographer that I'd never heard of but whose 'cinematic' photography work I really love! PS. @Dustin McAmera's right that the PN 'convention' is to post links to photos taken by others - as you did for the first photo. I put the 2nd post down to 'enthusiasm' 🙂 No harm done.

You can download the photo and look at the Exif data in an 'Exif Data tool' (like Opanda Exif) or something like 'Photoshop'. The Exif data tells you things like the camera model, the lens type and the exposure settings. Photoshop tells you a bit more if you're able to interpret the 'Raw' (=XML) data in the File Info. This is basically a record of any post-processing done. I don't know much about interpreting XML data. But I do see that the photo has been imported into both Adobe Lightroom and Photoshop. In the Photoshop XML data, some "panorama" tags suggest that multiple images have been combined into one. Photoshop allows multiple images to be blended together either as a 'panorama' (stitched together) or 'stacked'. If multiple versions of the photo are identical, it's possible that both options deliver the same result. Some other adjustments in Photoshop, include - customizing the white balance - increasing both the orange and yellow hues - using 'split toning' to adjust both the hue and saturation of the shadows (my guess is giving them a bluer/greener tone) - 'local adjustments' to hue, saturation and contrast

Yes, at some stage it's worth learning about how (in most post-processing programs) you can apply edits like dodging and burning. Most programs have digitally equivalent 'dodge and burn' tools which you can easily apply. As you learn more about digital post-processing, you'll probably discover more flexible ways of achieving the same results. I'm not sure what you want to cover in your presentation. If you want to include something about the basics of digital post-processing (as opposed to a traditional darkroom), then I think that this 18 min. video might be helpful. It covers the basics of working with 'layers and masks' in post-processing. If you choose to watch it, don't worry about about all the different menus, tools and buttons. It's based on Photoshop but many other (free or much cheaper!) programs have very similar 'layer and mask' features.

Not sure about this. One the one hand there are some good used DSLR's around. On Adorama, used Canon EOS 5D mk ii (full-frame) DSLR's are retailing at $200. I still use the older 5D btw. 2nd hand lenses (Canon, Tamron, Sigma) in the typical 'portrait' range (70mm - 200mm) look to be about $150-$250. So both within your budget. You can probably add a 50mm or short zoom lens quite cheaply too. On the other hand, the cameras you already have might be good enough (with the right location and some creative thinking) to get 'good enough' outdoor portraits. This video might help in deciding.

I'm an exclusively digital photographer and I have no experience in manually shooting or developing film. I fully agree with @httpwww.photo.netbarry that there are many skills (the basics) that you can transfer directly from B/W film photography to digital (color) photography. @Bill Calso makes some good points about white balance and using the histogram. I would however disagree with Bill on two points: (always) letting the camera do the jpeg conversion and (always) setting the white balance before taking photos (although this is fine too!). My guess is that - starting out in digital color photography - it makes sense to transfer as many of your current skills as possible. Including, for example, exposure bracketing. IMHO one of the major differences between film photography and digital photography is the wider scope of 'digital post-processing' that's possible with digital camera files. How much post-processing digital photographers choose to do is a personal preference. And digital post-processing is a different skillset and takes time to learn (should you wish to). So as @Jochen1664876637 suggests, I would always choose to save RAW (data) files in addition to jpeg files on your camera. Personally, I only save RAW files. What are RAW files and why save them? RAW files are basically just a copy of the (unprocessed) data that the sensor of any digital camera records. A digital sensor replaces the film in a film camera. Even if you don't do anything with the RAW files now, you may at some time wish to revisit them to do some additional post-processing. If not, they're easily deleted! Digital post-processing can never (completely) salvage a badly exposed photo. For example one where the highlights are completely blown out or where shadows contain little or no information besides being 'black'. But assuming you start off with a reasonably good exposure, both the exposure histogram and the white balance can be corrected/adjusted in post-processing. Together with things like color saturation, contrast, etc. Not just for 'whole photos' but for individual parts too. Digital post-processing is generally more accurate and more flexible using RAW data than using (compressed) JPEG files. So while it's fine to start out by transferring your 'B/W film methods' to 'digital color', just be aware that further down the road you have other (digital) options in post-processing. For example, I haven't used exposure bracketing for years. I just dial down or dial up the exposure settings in post-processing. Even creating and combining multiple copies, each with a different exposure setting. Similarly, the white balance setting on my camera is always set to 'auto'. It's never applied to RAW data, only to JPEG files. So I apply any WB corrections on my Laptop in post-processing. The same applies to digital B/W photos. The general advice is take all digital photos (even the ones you intend to be B/W) in color. Then you have many more options to create the B/W 'look' you want rather than letting the camera decide how a B/W jpeg photo should look.

Tidied up some twigs and bit of bird around edges and added a few people. All people copied and pasted from CCO images (no copyrights).

I like the concept of the windmill creating the circular 'movement' in the nest (?). So the combination of the windmill and nest is great. For me, the only thing that looks slightly incongruous is that there's no (or little) sense of movement in the windmill. Should you wish to, a sense of movement of the windmill could be introduced in post-processing (a slight radial blur).

Repost: To Edit or Not to Edit your Photography?

When i read @JDMvW's response, I immediately thought "yes!" A few seconds later, I realized that even the most objective scientists needs to present their results in a way that will best communicate their results to different audiences. The presentation of raw, objective data might not always be the best way for all audiences. So summarized and or enhanced presentations might -for some audiences- be the best way to get their points across.

Probably steam rather than smoke.

I once took a couple of basic courses in photography and since then I've read a few 'how to' books. IMHO, what makes a 'good' photograph is finally decided by its viewers. Professional 'reviewers/curators' might also play an important role in assessing the value of a photo Most of what I've learned about photography (and almost never applied myself 🙂 ) was from the British photographer Michael Freeman. It's been a few years, but his initial books (with his own photographic examples) on 'the photographer's eye', 'the photographer's mind' and 'the photographer's vision' really opened my 'photographic eyes'. In his third book , the 'photographer's vision' - which I swapped for a bass guitar amp and need to buy again- -he gives a summary of the criteria that - for him - contribute to a 'good photo'. So, although I completely agree that agreement on what constitutes a 'good photograph' primarily rests on viewers and secondarily on the photographer, it's worth considering other photographer's opinions such as Michael Freeman.

As @Sandy Vongries suggests, rather than waiting for a complete list of PN photos that were corrupted or lost, it's probably easier (for the moment) to check the list of your own photos. By my count, there are 1759 photos in your list. I notice that the titles of some photos in this list are shown in red. So these might be ones to check first. I can't speak for the PN migration team but it's just possible that some photos that weren't correctly transferred during the enormous 'bulk migration' could perhaps be recovered at a later stage. Assuming, of course that they weren't corrupted or missing on the old PN site. And if you find photos that are missing or corrupted, you could of course restore them yourself from a backup. Alternatively, wait for more news about how and when personal member galleries might be implemented and then check per gallery.

@sgavardi I don't speak Italian but this a rough (Google) EN translation of your post. Just so that not all non-Italian speakers need to do the same translation. Please correct as necessary. After three weeks with [mike: no?] news, I am very disappointed with Photonet. The division of photos into galleries is fragmented, makes members lose control of the production and does not help the overall vision. I have the impression that the relationship between the user and the site - and above all between users and users - has dried up. There is no longer the satisfaction of seeing one's own photo voted or commented on. I find it rather strange that to give importance to the galleries, photos from years ago are imported, just to demonstrate that the galleries are full of images. I can no longer find the galleries of my previous photos. I imagine that the migration has led to difficulties, but it hasn't been an improvement compared to the past and above all it doesn't satisfy this user, a faithful companion since 2004. Mike

Photo.net has -in comparison with many other 'photo sites' - such as Flickr, 500px, etc become somewhat of a photographic 'backwater'. With PN forums that are often focused on the past (for example classic film cameras) than on the future. Sure, for many current members this is a 'cosy' place to interact with each other. I humbly suggest that many members (inclusive myself) need to decide the future of PN. Should PN continue to profile itself as a largely old-style. film-based membership? Or should it adapt to attract more forward-looking members?

@tony_parsons1: Good question! As far as I remember (many years back and then as a PN novice), I questioned the NW forum because the posted images couldn't be searched on. They were - and still are - 'ephemeral' images. Again, in my recollection, the response that I got at the time was that some PN members were no longer able to go out and take new photos. So the NW forum was a way in which all PN members - based on their archived photos - could continue to participate. Just speaking for myself, I never take new photos to post in NW. In fact, I very rarely post in NW. The only exceptions are when specific topics suddenly trigger an association with one of my 'archived' photos. I don't always have the time or motivation to post the photo, but occasionally I do. For the record, I fully agree that NW is by far the most popular PN forum. But IMHO also the least relevant forum for photography and especially for the future of photography. Mike

Just one more thing ... I personally believe that both videos demonstrate how a good assistant can free-up (and also actively assist) a photographer in establishing relationships and communicating with people who they want to photograph. And help them spend more time and energy on creating a photographic 'vision' for an assignment without getting bogged down in - or distracted by- 'the conditions/equipment. Yes, you probably need to have (or gradually develop) some credentials as an assistant. My guess is that the term "assistant" covers a wide range of skill sets and experience levels. So my advice is to start where you are now in terms of skills and experience and to grow these according to your opportunities and motivation. Ideally, I think it would be great if you were to become an assistant to a photographer who increasingly left 'the details' to you, coached you in becoming an even more skilled 'assistant' and - should you have the ambition to become a professional photographer - supported you in this. I have one caveat, I do believe that any photographer that you become an assistant to, should somehow be aligned with the kind of photos that interest you. So for example if 'people photos' interest you, then assisting in Event, Wedding or Sport photography may be a great learning experience. If sport photography is your thing, then you need to focus on these opportunities. FWIW, I personally think that becoming an 'assistant' is a great way of learning (from the inside out) about the photo industry. Ideally, I hope you (eventually) find an assistant job with someone (or an organisation) that gives you increasing scope and responsibility as an assistant. To the extent to which you may wish - at some stage- to establish yourself as an independent photographer, I also hope that your employer supports this move. Mike

FWIW, one more YouTube video worth watching (as a potential assistant) is The Art of Design | Platon: Photography. Platon is -just as Mario Testino - a world-renowned and and much sought-after photographer. But specializing in portraits (including of world leaders) and of social issues worldwide. He also relies on assistants to produce the photos that he has in mind. Perhaps in a slightly different way to Testino. What they both have in common is that their 'creative vision' is central to their success. And that 'communication' plays a large role in this. The 'photoshoot' with Colin Powell - 10 minutes in - is illustrative.