mikemorrellNL

I'm not quite sure what you mean. All your Albums and photos can be found via your profile. But they're not displayed under your profile. I leave it to the mods to give you a definitie answer but I hope this pic will help clarify things.

OT but a link to the very 'dark side' of AI imaging: AI-generated naked child images

The mobile phone photos did indeed capture some great scenes! And they were indeed great for sharing via mobile apps. Just too low size/resolution to print. Luckily, the 'photographer' also took an almost identical "best of the mobile bunch" photo with my DSLR too. So I printed my DLSR photo and everyone was happy with the result.

I have no idea why the IPhone photos that my my friend e-mailed were so small, Dave. I use Android rather than IPhone but I do know that IPhones have the best cameras and produces the best high quality (and resolution) photos. My suspicion is that my friend's Iphone camera/image 'preferences' were (by default?) set to 'tiny photos'. It could also be that she didn't see or understand the e-mail preferences. Again, I'm just glad that I took my DSLR alng as a 'backup'. FWIW, if I'd asked the 'photographer' (my friend's neighbor) take the mobile phone photo's with my (Samsung) phone instead of with my friend's IPhone, the 'mobile phone' photos would have been good enough to print at A4 too.

@John Seaman, @samstevens, Yep, the table more green than blue 👍

Hi @marc_rochkind, first off many thanks for posting this photo for 'critique'! I really like your composition. Especially the textured diagonal planks and the the 'organic' shells. I also note that the 'yellow/beige' of the shells against the blue table is a perfect color contrast! My main suggestion for improvement is to tone down the intensity (saturation) of the blue color on the table. To my eye the table is much too highly saturated. As a consequence, the main thing that viewer's attention is drawn to is the vivid blue of the textured table. The shells then unfortunately pale against the vivid blue table. As a rule of thumb, the main 'subject' of a photo (I'm assuming the shells) should stand out from the 'background' (I'm assuming the table). How can subjects stand out from backgrounds? A couple of ways I know are: - Focus: subjects in focus stand out from less sharp backgrounds - Lighting: Lighter subjects stand out from darker backgrounds - Color: subjects with a more vivid color stand out from backgrounds with more muted (or darker) colors The texture of the table is wonderful so I wouldn't suggest making the table less sharp. To make the Shells stand out more against the blue table, I suggest 'muting' the blue table (saturation and perhaps very slightly darkening) so that the Shells really shine in the photo! And that the wonderful texture of the table (as a background) is also visible.

My 2 cts, Mobile phone camera's are getting better each year. I've never looked up a 'mobile camera vs DSLR' comparison but I'm pretty sure comparisons are available on the internet. When on an (amateur) photoshoot, my primary camera is a FF DSLR with 2 lenses: 24-70mm and 70 -200mm. But I've gotten into the habit of taking some photos with my (Samsung) mobile too. IHMO, photographers who use mobile phone camera's (semi-)professionally know exactly how to use these cameras to get the best photos. There are mobile phone apps which allow users to precisely dial in the settings that they want. Similar to 'manual mode' on a DSLR. And it's a no-brainer to set the largest photo size, saved format and resolution if you want to do any post-processing or printing. As far as weddings, events, etc. go mobile phone cameras - with the right set-up - can IMHO produce great photos! They're certainly a lot less 'intrusive' than a big DSLR + lens for shooting 'spontaneous' photos. In contrast, many 'amateur' users IMHO don't have a clue. I recently got together with a couple of friends to shoot a couple of 'fun photos'. The aim was to get them printed in A4 format. Some of the photos were shot on one of my friend's IPhone but I also took my DSLR along and asked the 'photographer' - a neighbour of one of my friends - to take photos with my DSLR (on automatic mode) too. The IPhone photos I I received were just 320x240 px. OK for sharing on mobile phones but much too low resolution to be post-processed or printed. In contrast, the photos shot on my DLSR were 5200X3467 px. Plenty big to post-process (crop, enhance) and print. So my guess is that the main factor that affects the quality of mobile phone photos is whether the user is motivated and competent enough to make the best use of the evolving camera technology. For example, just by reading the manual 😉.

I don't agree. A couple of points: - There are no absolute standards for 'imaging' or photography; your photo club may want to introduce it's own standards - Why do you feel that you need to compete? Why not just show off your own personal work? - People who postprocess photos with something like Lightroom/Photoshop/Gimp have some options. > Some AI apps can 'generate' images that be further edited > Enhancement/adaptive options: Photoshop has so-called 'neural networks' (AI) filters that can transform photos. Some Photoshop filter plugins (for example Topaz) are increasingly presented as an 'AI filter' My opinions: - Some post-processing has often been applied to both analogue and digital photos - AI-enhanced photos are not always better than the original photos

I'm absolutely sure that AI-generated photos are already being used in 'product catalogues' of many stores. Why hire (or employ) a photographer for each new chair, couch, piece of equipment, etc. when these images can be AI-generated (based on the specs) for the on-line catalogue. Ikea (as far as I know) is an example. But even stores also need photos that express their 'vibe' or 'mood' for categories of products. So when we get down to photography basics: like subtle lighting, perspective, depth of field, post-processing, etc,. AI - at the moment - doesn't cut it in terms of 'vibe or mood' photos. From what I've seen, AI-software is - at the moment - much worse in generating images that attempt to replicate 'real photos' (people, animals).

I saw your initial post and have been following the (great!) thread since then. It's only now that I'm really comparing the AI-generated image with the real photo. At first glance, the AI-generated coyote does indeed look like a coyote in the snow. So someone looking at the photo for a couple of seconds might think: OK, nice shot of a coyote in the snow. But on closer inspection - and certainly for discerning viewers and photographers - after a couple of seconds it's becomes more obvious that the AI-generated coyote is a 'fudge'. Posting a real photo makes this even more obvious! In the AI-version, the focal point seems to be the nose, whereas a real photographer would always focus on the eyes. The whiskers on the AI-version just look weird! But the main difference for me is in the fine texture of the hair. The AI-version has none (a bland rendering) whereas the real photo has plenty of sharp hair details (including ice/snow). My conclusion: anyone who was tempted to publish this 'AI-coyote' would leave themselves open to becoming a laughing stock! AI-generated images will probably improve. But at the moment, for most 'realistic' photo categories, AI just doesn't cut it.

Agree. My emotional reaction browsing through the photos was: "these photos are just boring - they all look bland and pretty much the same". I'm guessing that the 'parameters' input to the AI software was the main factor in the similarities (including the 'head and shoulders' format, the background blur and the lighting effects). I noticed that none of the AI-generated photos had any skin texture or variations (other that skin color tint). I also noticed that exactly the same background (sometimes flipped) appeared in different 'countries'.

IMHO, there are a variety of ways in which (real) photos/videos may be used, including: - Traditionally, that is to photograph/film what you see at any location, perhaps with some PP; professional photoshoots often involve artificial lighting - Photo/videos made (through location, composition, lighting and/or post-processing techniques) as artworks - Artworks that incorporate photo's/images/videos - Constructed (possibly AI-constructed) images/videos that incorporate one or multiple real photos/films with possible post-processing In short IMHO, we're living in the age of (many) 'constructed' images. On the other hand, a current exhibition of a wide range of 'Bird photos' in my home town predominantly features analogue photographers from the 1960's, 70's and 80's. My gut feeling is that AI images don't (yet) cut it on the 'art market'. While some people may feel fine with putting AI-generated images on their walls, I think that there's still a market for 'authentic' photos. Just as there is for 'authentic' (and restored) furniture. As far as photography is concerned, I believe that you should do what you love doing.

Nice photo ! But the highlights stay 'blown out'. Maybe there's a posible correction is something like Photoshop - seléct only the 'blown out' highlights; - paint on a separate layer, some matching color into the 'blown out areas - Blend and Blur the 'painted areas' back into the original - apply an 'exposure' or other PS function to blend the 'painted areas' layer better

Thanks for your response, @inoneeye. TBH I don't don't know a whole lot about printers. I certainly don't do a 'test print' on my home computer every week but it seems to work just fine.But I do use it a couple of times a month and it doesn't have an 'in-built' print head. When I was at 'my client' and printed a 'test page', most of the page was in B/W. But at the bottom, there was a 'color bar' that - to my eye - seemed to print the spectrum of colors available on the printer.. So I'm assuming that if she prints this test page once a week, through the color bar, she'll be able to keep the ink in all cartridges flowing and prevent clogging up. My 'client', Corry van Hoof, has a degree in 'art' and used to have her own atelier and website but decided to let both lapse because of the costs. And also because she had little interest on selling her works online. As she herself says "whatever I create, is driven my feeling to express something. I sometimes just try things that don't get anywhere. But I've never created anything with the idea of selling it." There are still a couple of websites through which Corry is represented that give a good (2-D) impression of her (3-D) work: - gallerienastyalice - kunstdrift She has an upcoming exhibition in december. I'm still fascinated by how 'Corry' continues to use her own photos to create 3-D 'artworks' (each with an underlying artistic meaning), I'm also seriously impressed by Corry's drive, motivation and creativity (at her advanced age) to produce new innovative works. Mike

I do voluntary work helping (usually elderly) people with 'tech' problems: PC's/Laptops/Tablets/phones and also wifi and connections to 'periphera'ls' like printers, security cameras, smart doorbells, etc. I just want to mention that this thread helped me to sort out a P400 printer problem for one of the people I sometimes help. Perhaps not directly, but it promted me to look up more info on clogged print heads, how to test for them and how to clean them. A couple of weeks back, I got nowhere with the P400 printer problem. The front of the P400 indicated that there was an 'ink problem'. But none of the individual color cartridges indicated 'empty'. On the (Windows 7) printer software, the 'diagonostics' options were greyed out. So, thanks to this thread (and additional Youtube resources), I yesterday went back armed with more knowledge of: - how to test that 'ink is still flowing' in each cartridge - materials (alcohol + swabs) to clean clogged up cartridges and/or the chips on each cartridge - screwdrivers to get to (what I assumed to be) an in-built print head - P400 software installed on my own W11 Laptop As it turned out, the P400 software on my own Laptop quickly showed that all the color cartidges were OK but that the 'gloss' cartridge was causing the printer error. Luckily, my 'client' had a new 'gloss cartridge' and after replacing the old one, the printer worked just fine. As it turned out, I didn't need my screwdrivers and cleaning materials after all. Still, I felt good visiting this client again prepared for other possibilities. And - thankis to this thread, I've learned a whole lot more than I ever knew about printers🙂. I've advised my 'client' to print a 'test page' once a week just to keep the ink flowing. OT: This 'client' is an (elderly - but still active) artist who constructs her 3-D artworks using her own photos. Often as background texture. She then 'washes' crops of these photo's with semi-transparent paint so that her crops remain clearly visible behind a light 'color wash'. I saw one of her exhibitions years ago (before she ever asked me for help) and I was astounded by her '3-D photo constructions'. For me, it's always a delight whenever I visit her to help her out on a 'tech' problem. We've gotten to know each other and we spend as much time discussing her latest artworks and upcoming exhibitions as we do on fixing 'tech problems'. As an amateur photographer (and art lover), I still find her artistic application of photography fascinating and (in my limited experience) unique. IMHO, she's (like many others) a 'true artist' in the sense that each of her works is her personal expression of something that she feels is important. Although my feeling is that many of her works are highly 'saleable', she never creates anything with any intention of selling it. And she spends no time or attention on selling any of her works.

Disclaimer: I have no experience whatsoever in scanning negatives. Or grain aliasing. I just want to add 3 points that may or may not be relevant. 1. As I understand it, Adobe Denoise AI is not a stand-alone program but is a component of Bridge (free), and LR and Photoshop (paid). As you say, it (currently) only works with camera RAW files (not JPEG, PSD or TIFF files). So Adobe Denoise doesn't work with scanned (or saved) photo files in any of these photos. Adobe says it's currently working on Denoise AI solutions for other file formats. 2. LR still has its normal (manual) noise reduction options. But this involves a bit of trial and error to get the right level of luminance noise (and color noise for color photos). 3. There are many 3rd party noise reduction 'plugins' for LR & Photoshop. See for example capturetheatlas. I was delighted to read that Topax Denoise AI came out top of the list. I've used Topaz plugins for LR & PS for many years and I have no regrets. I use their recent 'Denoise AI' and 'Sharpen AI' plugins often (more often for 'enhancing' other peoples' photos than my own 😉). One of the great things I love about Topaz is that - when you buy a suite of products - you basically get a free lifetime subscripton to any future updates. All 'AI' updates/options were - for me - completely free of charge. Most 'De-noise' software suppliers offer (free) trial periods. You might want to experiment with a couple of software plugins/stand-alone programs to get an idea of what works best for you.

I hope that a couple of professional wedding photographers will weigh in here, because they have the experience! As an amateur, I've never photographed a wedding and would never do so. But I have covered a couple of 'events' ranging from 2-hour ceremonies to 6-hour (amateur) sporting events. I've only ever published photos on-line but with enough resolution that they can be downloaded by participants to make decent size prints if they so wish. 'Static' (formal) portaits of groups have never posed a real problem for me. At a sign 'hey, groupphoto coming up', people 'adopt their pose' and a couple of 'burst' shots are enough to choose the 'best of the bunch'. They're not usually the most interesting photos but some groups want them For more interesting spontaneous (moving and/or talking) subects, I shoot almost exclusively in 'burst mode' so that at least one shot in a 'burst' captures the subects with their eyes open and with a non-weird expression (especially the mouth). In groups, I try to take multiple 'bursts' in order to capture most people with open eyes and non-weird expressions. As a consequence, I end up with hundreds of 'burst shots' .l end up spending much more time in photo selection and (light) post-processing than I do at the event itself. I spend 2-3 times as much time on photo selection and final post-processing as I do at the actual event. I'm an amateur and I do it for 4444444444444444444444444fun. But I've often thought that no professional photographer could ever make a living with 'my process'. At any event, I'm usually there at least an hour beforehand. To get to know the organizers, pick up a programme for the event, check the light/lighting and choose a couple of different shooting positions (with lenses) for different parts of the 'event'. My (amateur) guess is that for weddings, the amount of time in prepararations, post-event culling/selection, formatting photos for a 'wedding book 'and (possible) design and production in agreement with the couple is huge! If you already have multiple bodies, backup cards, etc, then that's fine. If not you IMHO need to consider additional costs of renting 'fail-safe' backup equipent. As far as I know, professional photographers carry backup equipment to important shoots. Just in case their main equipment fails in the moment. And multiple bodies attached to both wide-angle and close-up zoom lenses will of course enable you to get different shots quickly. If you Google 'How to photograph Weddings', you'll probably see at least hundreds of results. These are just a few. Interestingly, these 3 independent websites share similar tips: - masterclass.com - digital photography school - Iso.500px.com I'm not sure whether you are also contracted (in agreement with the couple) to produce a printed ''wedding album', If so, there are also many tips on-line about designing and producing a 'wedding album': - https://www.brides.com/best-wedding-photo-albums-4775816 My guess us that you would need to discuss the scope and format of the printed 'wedding album beforehand with the couple, My personal opinion (bottom line) is; given all the (probably unpaid) hoops you would have to jump through - and the risks you might run as an 'amateur' wedding photographer, I would seriously consider whether you might to take on this a assignment as an amateur. The fact that you don't quite know what to charge gives me the impression that you don't yet understand 'wedding photography ' from a professional and business perspective. So (as a complete amateur) I would talk honestly to the couple. If they hire you on a 'best effort' basis (including prep, shooting, PP and perhaps album/photo production) for a reasonable payment for your total labor and costs, then go for it T.B.H. I suspect that one-off 'amatuer wedding photographers' probably spend more time in prep and post-event activities that they'd initally budgeted for. And run more risk than pro-photographers. So my basic question is: should you you go ahead and calcue your (possible) time, equipment and PP costs into a Fixed- Price or hourly price? Or would the couple be better served by a professional wedding photographer who has done these gigs many times before and can probaby do it better more efficientielly and with less overall (real) cost than you can? IMHO, weddings are not for amateurs. There's just so much that (potentially) could turn out not that the coupld had hoped for, Uo to you.

Hi, I have a Syrian (ex-refugee) friend who - just as I do - voluntary takes photos for a local not-for-profit organization. 5 years ago, he was on a a very tight budget and someone (not me) recommended that he buy a a very cheap but very old (2005) Olympus E-500 kit. The kit included the body,1 lens and an on-camera flash. Which he bought.. But he and I noticed that the color in his digital photo's is widely "off' Most of his photo's have a strong 'blue tint' Via internet, I read that this was a common complaint of the Olympus E-500. .Together with him, I recently went through all his camera settings (and also reset these). Nothing helped. The 2nd option was to upgrade his camera (and probably his lens). I offered him him the (free) use of my older cameras and lenses in the meantime but his choice was to buy a better 2nd hand camera + lens. He has a budget of about $1000 dollars.. I had promised him to suggest some camera/lens combinations within his budget. AndI will will look around on the Dutch sites. Bit if you have any any suggestions, please let me know. PS. I've always shot on Canon cameras so body 'upgrades' have always been easy. But perhaps, for my friend, other 'upgrades' would be better.

Hmm. mixed feelings out this. Just out of curiosity, I tried to visit http://www.bigblackbag.com/. The website has an (old) "http" address rather than the much more current and safer "https" address. Never a good sign for an organization. Especially a 'web hoster'! My Chrome browser immediately flagged the website as an 'unsecure website' and I decided not to proceed. On BigBlackBag's Facebook page, cclaim that they were hacked with ransomware, have paid the ransom and are gradually getting things back to normal. I don't know 'BigBlackBags's' business model. It seems that they provide services to photographers. It's quite possible that BigBlackBag use GoDaddy for their webhosting and storage. My advice: 1. follow the (published) developments at BigBlackBags on Facebook 2. If their record of being hacked (and still having a 'http' address) does't inspire confidence, consider alternatives. 3, I should add that some of the best protected organizations globally have been hacked with 'ransomware'. So BigBlackBags's website is just one of many.

I like the photo too. Good title! The photo looks a bit grainy (noise) to me. Not sure whether it's from the camera or jpeg comprossion in PP. Maybe you like it this way. If so, that's fine. I wonder how it would look with less noise.

Thanks, Robin! I agree on both counts. FWIW, I do have a photo of the gent communicating (much more expressively) with 3 other guitarists. A learning point for me is why I continue to post 'static, close-up, informal portraits' for critique rather than more expressive, dynamic ones. Your comment has certainly made me think aboout this! I think I've probably got into a rut w.r.t. which kind of photos I instinctively like. Comments like yours help me break out of the rut. Thanks, Mike

Haha, OT but I'm meeting up with a Syrian (ex-refugee) friend tomorrow whose digital photos are 'all over the place' too! Not through bracketing but through the color balance of his exposures. Like me, he's a 'volunteer photographer'. He still uses a very old (and very cheap) 2nd hand 'camera kit' (body, lens and flash). The downside is that his limited and poor ISO performance means that he almost always needs to use a flash indoors. It could also be that his old DSLR sensor just doesn't work correctly any more. So tomorrow, we're first going to look at his current camera settings to discover whether and how these could affect the 'color' so extremely. But he also wants to buy a better, newer DSLR. So we're going to look at those options too. I've offered him (free) my previous body. So we're going to discuss whether whatever money he can invest can be better spent on a lens and my 'free' body or a more recent 2nd hand 'kit'.

Great examples, @samstevens! Apart from the obvious red to B/W color correction, I love you're subtle adjustments. Not just cropping but really bringing out the left face, transforming The exposure of the 'subject's' armpit and torso and bringing out both texture and detail on the subject's left arm. I'm sure I could discover more subtle adjustments if I spent more time.

Hi Sam, I agree. Especially the bit about "intention and some degree of skill and mastery'. FWIW, I think that there are 4 very different categories where this applies: - the desire of many amateur photographers to correct and enhance their photo's to get a 'natural look' - a further developed (or temporary) 'style' or 'look' can be important (and natural) for artists - including artistic photographers; Through their unique 'style' or 'look', they stand out form the crowd - a 'brand-oriented' (temporary) 'style' or 'look' - photographers who experiment with how what PP can do to their photos IHMO, the 1st category (including me) is wide and includes amateur photographers who just aim to PP their out-of-camera shots (or not) to get a 'natural look'. No frills. The 2nd category includes artists and photographers who - for artistic and/or commercial reasons - gradually establish a unique 'style' or 'look' with which they gradually become associated. The 3rd categorie is commercial. Many brands usually strive - through ads - to a) stand out from the crowd and b) nuture some kind of 'positive consumer relationship' with the brand The 4th category includes a relatively small group of photographers/imagers who continue to experiment with what they can do with images that are based on photography. Disclaimer: all the above is just my personal opinion, for which I have no evidence whatsoever!