|
Forum: Travel, Events, and Groups
17 Hours Ago
|
| |
Impressive collection. There are a few species missing that I've seen or photographed - pīhoihoi, kāhu, cirl bunting, greenfinch, pākaha, weka, spur winged plover, goldfinch, hedge sparrow, skylark
There seems to be a Murphy's Law of bird photography, that no matter how long your lens is, it's never long enough for the species in question.
Here are some of my efforts (quality of images is highly variable, and missing in a couple of cases, as my effort has been about documenting species in my region, whether I have photos or not. It's time consuming one way or another):
Birds species in Marlborough |
|
Forum: Post-Processing Articles
3 Days Ago
|
| |
Something else I forgot to mention, and I don't think anyone else has touched on: The likes of Lightroom, DxO PhotoLab, RawTherapee don't actually alter your original image, but store a list of parameters that define what adjustments you've applied to it, and you only get the finished image when you export. This has the advantage of not taking up a lot of disk space, and not messing with your original image.
The likes of Photoshop, Gimp, etc make permanent, irreversible changes to an image, and also create huge files if you don't want to lose detail each time you save. You can get around the irreversible changes to a point, by using layers, but this means files can get very big very quickly. It's not unusual for a Photoshop file to grow to several hundred MB or even more, whereas with Lightroom, your entire Lightroom catalog might be this size, and Lightroom etc specifically require you to export an image, so there's no chance of permanently messing up your original.
That said, Photoshop, Gimp etc allow pretty much unlimited editing potential. If you can imagine it, and have the skill, you can do it, whereas Lightroom, PhotoLab etc are more like your camera's own image processor on steroids, ie you'll still get basically the image your camera captured, but you can play around with lighting, colour, grain etc to make it look the way you want, but you can't create completely different subject matter to what your camera captured.
|
|
Forum: Weekly Photo Challenges
3 Days Ago
|
| |
...and who was saying photography was an expensive hobby?
|
|
Forum: Post-Processing Articles
3 Days Ago
|
| |
Here's my assessment based on what I've used:
Photoshop/Lightroom/Bridge (You get them all together with an Adobe Photography plan). Pros: Low upfront cost, capable editing and cataloguing can do most things. Cons: Ongoing subscription cost, Lightroom isn't as capable as alternatives in some areas. Import process rather than file browsing is not all that intuitive for new users. (Adobe Bridge may be your option if you can't get your head around how Lightroom works)
DxO Photolab. Pros: Only have to pay once. Much better noise reduction than Lightroom, reasonable cataloguing, control points and lines can offer more effective and faster selective lighting than LR. Extensive lens corrections. Cons: Expensive upfront cost for Elite Edition (watch out for sales though), some useful features only available with additional FilmPack addon. Cataloguing is not as good as LR.
RawTherapee: Pros: Free, capable range of raw processing options. Cons: can be complicated to learn how to use all the options.
Corel Paintshop Pro: Pros: Reasonably priced, pay only once, can do most things Photoshop can do, much lighter footprint than Photoshop, basic cataloguing. Cons: Awful raw processing (may have improved, but was terrible last time I checked). Annoying ads encouraging you to upgrade.
Gimp: Pros: Free, can do many of the things Photoshop can do. Cons: Need a separate raw editor.
I haven't really used Topaz or On1 to evaluate them, although last time I took at look at Topaz it seemed quite bloated in terms of disk space usage compared to DxO Photolab.
There's no right answer what software you should use, and all come with free trials, so I'd suggest you try them all out before you decide whether to spend any money.
|
|
Forum: Troubleshooting and Beginner Help
5 Days Ago
|
| |
DA 55-300 older model, or latest PLM version? PLM version is meant to be better, faster AF and sharper, but the older model is OK, but needs to be stopped down a little. I use it on TAv mode with aperture at f/8 or slower, and it gives acceptable results, although AF can struggle to keep up with fast moving objects.
If you're getting blurry images, something to check is whether the lens needs AF fine adjustment.
I bought a used DA 16-85 based on lots of good reviews on here, and was severely disappointed, as its sharpness seemed worse than the kit DA-L 18-55, but after a bit, I wondered if it might not be focussing correctly, and sure enough, after doing some AF fine adjustments the sharpness has improved significantly. This is the first time I've ever had to make AF corrections for a lens, so I didn't think of it at first, but I guess it can apply to any lens, so it's worth checking.
Also, are you shooting RAW or jpg? If jpg, what image profile are you using, and what quality setting? I shoot RAW so if colour is off I just fix it in software, and that also minimises noise reduction applied by the camera.
I've generally been very happy with the results I get with the K-70.
|
|
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors
6 Days Ago
|
| |
Often carry my K-70 but it doesn't fit in my pocket, but my Olympus TG-6 does. Good as the weather sealing on the K-70 is, it's not designed for total immersion, but the TG-6 is. Also, a fairly lightly used TG-6 cost me not a whole lot more than an O-GPS, but it takes pictures and video too, and if I keep the clocks in sync between it and the K-70 it's easy enough to geotag the K-70 images later. I lust after a more capable pocketable waterproof camera, but currently there's nothing on the market. (Sorry Ricoh, the WG series don't shoot raw, so no cookie.)
|
|
Forum: Weekly Photo Challenges
04-15-2024, 01:06 PM
|
| |
Actually, might be a crossover movie - The Chuckinator.
|
|
Forum: Weekly Photo Challenges
04-15-2024, 01:10 AM
|
| |
Generally AI is used to generate images of humans, but in this case a human generated an image of an AI.
|
|
Forum: Travel, Events, and Groups
04-10-2024, 03:19 PM
|
| |
I misread this at first, and thought you wrote 'It was in my house...' :)
I've had starlings, blackbirds, the odd sparrow, and fantails end up inside at various times, but having a kererū inside would certainly be pretty novel.
|
|
Forum: Digital Processing, Software, and Printing
03-31-2024, 02:21 AM
|
| |
Another one to try if you have a RAW file, is DxO PhotoLab (Ultimate Edition), and it's DeepPrime or DeepPrime XD noise reduction. It's slow, but quite impressive with it's noise reduction. DxO allow a 30 day trial, so you can see if it does what you need.
It's slow, but my experience is that it's really effective.
|
|
Forum: Travel, Events, and Groups
03-25-2024, 04:03 PM
|
| |
That is quite a substantial collection. It looks like it's more than my entire lens collection, and my wife thinks that I have too many.
I was actually just thinking that maybe I should consolidate, although my daughter uses my old K-x and when I get around to replacing the solenoid in my K-50 she'll upgrade to that, so I'm not entirely crazy having some similar lenses as there are some scenarios when two similar ones may be in use at the same time.
|
|
Forum: Weekly Photo Challenges
03-22-2024, 07:59 PM
|
| |
A politician perhaps? Lots of words and no action.
|
|
Forum: Travel, Events, and Groups
03-21-2024, 01:56 PM
|
| |
You'd think they'd want to make it easy to spend money.
That almost sounds like the kind of silly bureaucracy of some government departments. O wait - once upon a time long, long ago, Spark was a government department! :confused:
|
|
Forum: Travel, Events, and Groups
03-21-2024, 01:13 AM
|
| |
I'm not sure, but I think the contrails form from water vapour condensing on particles of soot. Obviously soot means unburnt fuel, and although it's less carbon dioxide it's also less efficient use of fuel, so I'd imagine that airlines would be quite keen to minimise unburnt fuel. The old Hercules and Orions left a noticeable black streak behind them.
|
|
Forum: Travel, Events, and Groups
03-20-2024, 02:45 AM
|
| |
Chemtrails. :rolleyes: Lots of dihydrogen-monoxide being released into the stratosphere. It will turn us all into blobs of liquid. :D
|
|
Forum: Travel, Events, and Groups
03-18-2024, 01:17 AM
|
| |
My wife was really tempted to go, as there was a famous Brazilian singer performing, but it was going to cost us a fair bit to get up there, and she wants to actually go to Brazil as it's five years since she's seen family.
I get to stay behind, because it's too expensive for three of us to go and the dog won't like being alone for long, so might have to plan an expedition into the bush with camera and the dog while she's away.
|
|
Forum: Travel, Events, and Groups
03-17-2024, 11:43 PM
|
| |
Should have yelled out. I could have maybe put a face to a name. I was off on a wild kitten chase (with even less success than a wild goose chase - I've actually caught one of them once), with my daughter Sunday afternoon.
While the kitten we saw yesterday, as expected put in no show today, I did take the camera, and the dog got a good walk.
It's been extremely dry here, so I haven't seen much water about in a while, but I found somewhere new for dog and human walking I hadn't been to before that I thought was quite scenic. It did involve a wee bit of a drive, but it was so nice to hear running water again.
I took my Sigma 17-70 for an outing for the first time in ages. I'd acquired a Pentax DA 16-85WR that I thought would become my walk-around lens, but in spite of WR, quick-shift and a useful zoom range, it's the most disappointing lens I've ever bought. It's really soft at the edges unless stopped down to f/11. I haven't tried the DA18-135 which I thought had those sort of issues, but I thought the 16-85 was meant to be better, however my copy definitely isn't.
I was hoping for D-FA 28-105 type quality, as that's a great lens, just not really wide enough on APS-C, and I thought the 16-85 was the APS-C equivalent, as it's a fairly expensive lens, but my copy at least, is extremely disappointing.
 |
|
Forum: Travel, Events, and Groups
03-06-2024, 09:02 PM
|
| |
That would be helpful. I've skipped the upgrade to PhotoLab 7 at this stage, as with PhotoLab 6 and Filmpack 6 already, the upgrade seemed too small an improvement to pay up again. I think upgrade pricing is valid for two versions, and DxO must know that not everyone is going to upgrade every version. If I did, even at upgrade pricing, it starts costing not much less than an Adobe photography plan subscription for just a single app, and some incremental upgrades.
|
|
Forum: Travel, Events, and Groups
03-02-2024, 06:48 PM
|
| |
Looks familiar. I was across in Wellington a fortnight ago for the weekend. It was a very rushed weekend. I my big Sigma 150-500 got some use for the first time in ages. It's not as sharp as the DA 55-300 but I wanted to photograph sea birds if there were any about. Even at 500mm things can look small out in Cook Strait.
This is lightly cropped:
 |
|
Forum: Travel, Events, and Groups
03-02-2024, 05:14 PM
|
| |
Already have one too, although it hasn't had much use since I got a DA 12-24/4. Price looks pretty good.
The 12-24 is noticeably sharper at the edges and has constant aperture, at the cost of 2mm at the wide end. Unfortunately they're out of production, and I've never seen one locally (mine came from Australia).
|
|
Forum: Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras
02-29-2024, 08:59 PM
|
| |
Welcome. That's some good gear to start with. An M 100mm might be a useful addition, also, if you want flexibility without having to change lens, a 35-70 zoom is worth having. They don't have as wide an aperture as a prime, but do have good image quality for a zoom, and should be easy to find at a reasonable price.
I happen to have visited Joinville, and you have some interesting photographic opportunities. I remember getting some dirty looks at the yacht club many years ago, as I think it tends to be for rich people, and they didn't really like stray people photographing their yachts. Here in New Zealand, going to the marina and photographing boats coming and going is no problem, but in Brazil, the attitude seems a bit different.
If my memory serves me, you've got a variety of cityscapes, forest, coastline, so there's no shortage of photographic subjects.
|
|
Forum: General Photography
02-25-2024, 12:50 PM
|
| |
I work for myself, so income can be unpredictable. When things are going well, I invest in gear if there's something I want, although I have lenses that cover me now from 10mm - 500mm (with varying image quality and weather sealing) so I don't NEED anything more.
The one other essential photography tools I have are a bike, my computer and a good pair of hiking boots.
My computer I need for work, so I'd have it whether I did photography or not.
Apart from camera gear, the other major expense I've found in relation to photography is travel, but a bike costs nothing to run day to day, and it's a lot more convenient than a car for photography as you can stop if a photographic opportunity presents itself in a lot more places than a car.
My wife has occasionally tried to convince me to go to the gym, but I have a camera and a bike, so I have all I need to get exercise with no ongoing expense, and I get to make art while I'm at it.
Digital photography can be an expensive hobby to get into, but once you've got your gear, it's certainly got to be one of the most affordable in terms of ongoing costs.
|
|
Forum: Monthly Photo Contests
02-20-2024, 03:46 PM
|
| |
| |
|
Forum: Travel, Events, and Groups
01-27-2024, 01:12 PM
|
| |
That's come up really well. I wonder how many people are sitting on interesting bits of history but don't know how to duplicate them.
I can scan ok, although my scanner software isn't compatible with Photoshop, as it's too old, and it is slow. My efforts at reproducing photos have been a bit less precise than yours, but still seem as good if not better than what I can achieve with the scanner, and a lot faster.
|
|
Forum: Troubleshooting and Beginner Help
01-26-2024, 10:23 PM
|
| |
I think that's one of the hardest things newcomers to Lightroom have to grapple with, it's concept of catalogs. You actually can move things around on disk, but you have to do it from within Lightroom, as it doesn't track external changes to file and folder locations.
I know someone who's only ever used Adobe Bridge (also included with an Adobe Photography subscription) for this reason, as it only reads your file organisation on disk, it doesn't enforce its own catalog. It integrates with ACR, so basically you can do pretty much the same things as with Lightroom, just the workflow is different - some things are quicker, some are more clunky.
I'm happy with Lightroom for organising, as I use its collections for grouping images in alternative ways to how they're organised on disk, but I know many people struggle with its organisational system.
If the OP just wants to edit photos they've already organised themselves, then Lightroom is probably not the best tool for the job. Photoshop, Gimp, Paintshop Pro or any of the other software mentioned would be better.
---------- Post added 01-27-24 at 07:04 PM ----------
The big difference between Bridge and Lightroom, is that Lightroom requires you to import images into its catalog, and it has no knowledge of anything you do to the files outside of Lightroom.
If you want to move or rename anything after you've imported it into Lightroom, you can do it, but need to do it from Lightroom, otherwise it will lose track of any changes.
Bridge just looks at the file system, so if you move or rename anything outside of Bridge, then Bridge keeps up with those changes.
Both user ACR as their raw processing engine, but Lightroom has it's own integrated UI to all the adjustments that ACR allows, whereas Bridge can't edit images directly but opens up the ACR app itself when you want to make adjustments, so the UI is different, and not as integrated, but all the same adjustment options are there.
Bridge has an advantage if you're renaming or moving files with the OS file management tools, or if you access files from different computers on a network drive, but Lightroom has an advantage if you want to search your entire catalog even when some files are offline, as they still show up in the catalog.
Bridge is also designed to work with a wider range of media files, whereas Lightroom is primarily for photos, with some support for video files as well.
There's definitely some crossover in functionality, however depending on your workflow, you may find one or the other more to your taste.
If you just want to apply raw adjustments to files, don't want to muck around with importing and catalogs, and don't want to wait for Photoshop to load so that you can use the ACR raw filter, then Bridge might be worth a look.
If you get an Adobe Photography subscription, you get Bridge, Photoshop, Lightroom and ACR anyway, so you can try all of them and decide what works.
One of my personal gripes with Lightroom is that it is slow and unstable (even with 32GB of RAM). It reminds me of the bad old days of Windows 3.1 or Windows 95 when app crashes were a regular thing. I find it good while it's working, but it needs regular restarts otherwise it glitches.
|
