craigvince

And how.

I 'only' have 11+ TB of storage (depending on what's plugged in), but tiff and psd files are usually just too large for ME to save much in those formats, I normally just save RAW plus small jpg.

 

However, storage is still pretty cheap these days. Remember, if you're wise, you'll save backups as well.

Well I certainly don't have anywhere near your storage capacity! I will need to look into saving to another format to reduce file size. On a positive note I have two NAS units that I could upgrade with some more WD Red drives.

Saving to psd? Wow, how big are those files?

 

i just open in PS out of ACR, save to jpeg at the max quality 12 level and the edits stay with the raw files. You must be working in layers from in Photoshop after opening from ACR. I can only imagine the size of those files. I can’t remember the last time I did any additional editing in PS after doing all the edits in ACR.

Yeah I work with layers in PS and the files sizes are ahem... rather large to say the least. Typical file size for d700 was between 150mb/300mb. These new files are 500+mb lol Gonna need bigger drives I think!

I am back with an update.. Purchased a mint D810. Very happy and cant wait to get out with it. I have been playing with it in the house and garden. I have stumbled on an unexpected surprise that I cant explain though.

After using my D700 with its modest raw file sizes my computer always seemed sluggish when saving to .psd in photoshop. Photoshop seemed to hang for ages on 99% of the save process. Moving onto the 36mp raw files of the d810, yes it does take some time saving these files but it seems more fluid. No hanging just a fluid count up to 100% And it seems faster too. Also the transfer speed from CF to PC seems to have increased somewhat too.

Is this due to the D810 being more modern and better firmware than the d700? my computer is rather old.. but its decently specd for what i use it for which is Photoshop. Weird but wonderful initial findings. love the high res images too!!

Thanks everyone for your input and helping me reach my desision. I think the d810 will be the direction I will go.

I like the idea of more megapixels and I do enjoy the button layout on my D700 so keeping that familiar is ideal.

I will be keeping my D700 too. They seem to be appreciating in price so worth hanging onto.

So thanks again guys.

So I have been saving my pennies for a new camera body for a while now and I am in a position now to pull the trigger on a new to me Nikon. I have had my eye on the D750 for a while now but the D810 keeps nagging at me too.

I am currently using a D700, but this dilemma is bugging me. Not sure which one I'd go for tbh. Either cameras has more megapixels than the 700. After using my tank of a camera for a few years now I thought a smaller camera would be ideal which the d750 fits the bill. The d750/810 is much newer than d700 too.

Oh I have no idea what to choose! Does anyone have any experience with both bodies and have an opinion which would be the better purchase?

Huawei P20

So here is my latest crazy experiment. It's a motel card key attached to the wall of the room I was staying in and converted to black and white. The wall's actual color is orange (see the "Motel A." picture; same room.).

 

[ATTACH]1363512[/ATTACH]

Looking at this on my phone.. Having fun scrolling the image up and down. I'm easily amused

Very good photo. I can feel the gloomy and gloomy atmosphere.

I don't know what you're looking for, but I would work a bit more on editing, not just on the pipeline but on the depth. It would increase the contrast in the nearby areas and decrease it in the later areas. I would like the catwalk to invite me in. It would also make it a bit more dramatic.

 

[ATTACH=full]1365802[/ATTACH]

 

Maybe this way?... ? (I overemphasized it to make it easier to see)

As I mentioned I have a in progress copy on my pc so I will try your suggestions.

First attempt at Black and white in a long while. In the photo is an old lace factory in east Ayrshire, Scotland.

Note: I have since cloned out the white pipe next to bridge. However that file is sitting on my Pc and not on my phone which I'm using to post this.

Please don't take this the wrong way. But the viewer doesn't care what problems you had getting the shot. Either it works or it doesn't. Either there are problems with it or there aren't. Don't make excuses. Learn from them.

 

The viewer doesn't;t care if I trekked up a mountain in an ice storm for three days to get the picture. If it wasn't exposed right because I was blinded by the ice, he could care less. The picture failed. I try to always keep that thought in my mind. It forces me to go the extra mile to get it right, or come back and shoot again, or whatever. It's often the difference between success and failure.

 

Again, I apologize if this sounds stern. But when someone told me this once, it made a lot of sense to me and I try to remember it when I shoot.

Cheers Alan, food for thought

Iv been using this technique for a year now in landscape photography. It's a good way to sharpen without introducing noise. Admittingly I dont know much about sharpening and I should brush up on photoshops other sharpening features.

Check out the video tutorial I'm sure alot if you will find it cool to play about with.

1.

 

The contrasting colours and tones, and the meandering path within a basic one third / one third / one third vertical composition make for a pleasing and interesting scene.

 

The post production of the hues, tones, and vibrancy are very good as they appear on my Studio Monitor.

 

Overall Tonal Gradation is noted to have little at the right hand side of the Histogram and the image's dynamic range could certainly extend into brighter areas - (i.e. make it 'brighter') however as an artistic element you may have intended to compress the bright tones to create a more sombre feel: if not then you should at the least compare and contrast that option.

 

*****

 

2.

 

There are some whose Viewer's eye can become terribly disturbed when elements are skewed for no apparent reason: my eye is one.

 

It appears that you made the image with the camera angled slightly upwards and also rotated from the vertical slightly counter-clockwise: these factors render the verticals skewed, (not only the foreground lamp-post - all the verticals).

 

Adding more confusion to an eye which nit-picks at these details is the hedge and the fence are not horizontal - which indeed they might not be, but the two combined create a mental architectural chaos.

 

Hyperbole aside, the skewed verticals are especially annoying in images that are generally meant (or interpreted) as 'architectural' in flavour, which this is.

 

Minor skews can be 'corrected' in post production, but this will create a loss of some of the image palette: it is far better to get the camera and lens axis square on, in the first instance - or - (at a guess) you probably were pointing the camera upwards to frame more of the tree - in this situation it is usually a good idea to frame the shot a bit wider so you have more image palette to work with, when you correct the converging verticals in post production. Although beware with some wide lenses you can get barrel distortion, and there was a tad present in your shot.

 

In regard to only this second section of the critique I have made an A/B correction for your interest; the original is on the left -

 

 

WW

Hi William Thanks for your input. When I initially straightened this image I used the church as a reference. I remember the lamp posts being wonky when I was there so didn't bother trying to change that. The walls there are that old (Church dates back to 1870 odds, so the walls havent been plumb for a long time. I know what you mean all the same :)

Nice shot. I'd brighten it a bit. Make the lamppost plumb. It's making me a little dizzy. Crop out a little of the asphalt at the bottom. It's out of focus and does nothing for the scene even if it was. When you shoot landscapes in particular, consider Depth of Field DOF. You want to get near to far in focus. Out of focus portions, Especially nearest the camera, tend to pull your eye away from the scene's main subject. So DOF and aperture/focal point become issues. Nice work.

Thanks Alan Consider the bottom part of the path cropped :) Those lamp posts were actually leaning a little.

I really like the scene and the fall colors too. This is not meant as criticism, I'm just highlighting an alternative crop to this one. Not necessarily better, just an alternative.

 

My first impression was that I liked the scene and the colors. My second impression was that what made the photo so attractive is essentially contained in the middle 1/3 of the photo: the lamppost, the Church, the sweep of golden lower branches, the curve of the road. So being deliberately critical here, 'more road' at the bottom doesn't add much (for me) to the leading line of the road or the curve of the road in the distance. Similarly, having 'more tree' at the top doesn't add much to the visual information that the branches lower down convey.

 

So you could IMHO make a 3/4 landscape crop that contains all the essential visual information and brings the Church , the road, the lamppost, the lower branches, etc, just that much "closer". It might be a more focused photo on the leading road to the Church with the frame of the lower branches. A landscape crop would emphasize the broad sweep of the lower branches and the curve of the road even more.

 

Again, I'm not suggesting you do this, but just consider it.

 

Mike

Thanks Mike, your feedback is much appreciated. I think when I go back there I will consider your alternative crop. To be honest though, this was a really busy little lane and I was having to wait for pedestrians walking by to get my shot. So was a matter of swoop in when nobody was there and get the shot before another person walked by.

I agree with the Izzys - it's a really good shot. The only thing I would do differently is lower the camera position so that more of the door frame and building are clearly visible. Also, cloning out the "garbage can" (?) without affecting the surrounding foliage might be a problem. You could try selecting out that device and lowering the red brightness of the item so that it's less distracting. But, overall, nice work!

Thanks William, Cloning out the bin shouldnt be a problem given that theres a wall behind it. The distracting red item.. I think thats the back of a grave stone full of lycan! Its an old church indeed.

Good comp! Road leading the eye into the scene. Wall and tree on the left and wall in back keeping it on track. That left wall and tree along with the right side of the road and the overhanging branches forms a natural frame for the church (think it's a church) on the other side of that back wall. The mix of colors and tangle of branches also adds to the scene and provides a feeling of being there. Nudging the brightness up a bit might not hurt but contrast and color looks right on. I'd probably try to clone out that garbage can and the pole next to it, as well as the traffic light looking thing on the other side of that back wall. The can and pole would probably not be much of a problem but the traffic light would likely be another story. No matter though, it's still a good image.

Hey thanks for your feedback, yes I really need to clean up the image somewhat, could say that for most of my images.

Thanks again.

Yeah, plain adapter for both, use manual focus and aperture. AF adapters exist but I don’t think there are any that work with lenses that don’t have built in motors.

Oh right so manual aperture too. On my D700 I set the manual aperture to f22 then from then on all aperture settings were set in camera. Thank you so much for the info

That has an aperture ring, right? Any old plain adapter will do. Don’t get a speed booster - those aren’t for use on full frame cameras. You don’t need a G adapter either, unless you have some lenses without aperture rings that you also want to use.

Yeah it has a aperture ring. Wells that good news then. I do have a 24mm nikon d prime so would the plain adapter work for that too? Also I'm guessing AF will be disabled on both lenses with a plain adapter?

Hi there,

I am in need of some advice. I would like to buy a Sony A7 body and use my old Nikon fit Tokina at-x pro 28-70mm f2.6-2.8 with it. The trouble is I am unsure of which adapter to couple it to the A7 with.

Do any of you guys know which adapter to use?

Thanks in advance any info would be greatly appreciated.

Craig.