Page 3 of 11 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 202

Thread: Running Water

  1. #41
    Sometimes it's fun to stop the water motion (on the right half) AND show the water motion (on the left half)...

    Anyone guess how I did this?


  2. # ADS
    Circuit advertisement
    Join Date
    Always
    Location
    Advertising world
    Posts
    Many
     

  3. #42
    while i feel my landscape eye is still very much a work in progress, i have always been satisfied w/ my shots of running water. and i love hiking to lakes or along rivers/streams whenever posssible. got this one over the weekend. i just wish the banks weren't so cluttered and unaccomadating to me and my camera sometimes.
    Attached Images Attached Images  
    signature

  4. #43
    Very nice goofball

  5. #44
    Quote Originally Posted by goofball
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Barron
    Quote Originally Posted by CarpeyBiggs

    Yeah, RAW is definitely the way to go.
    I got a very beat-up D1 for shooting news last year for just $300, and shooting RAW with it and opening those files in Photoshop tames most of that old girl's sins. It's pretty amazing, really, how much better they are than the JPEGs.
    is it the compression of the image when converting that makes the difference so noticeable ? and on that as well, my raw files are 10-14m and tif at 16 bit reaches 57+. if my files is being compressed to convert, how does it get so much BIGGER ?
    Is not the benefit of shooting raw the ability to adjust white balance and other controls....and not the fact that raw is actually a "better" pic then a fine jpeg? Jpeg being harder due to the fact that you have to nail the exposure/wb as compared to raw where you can "fix" a not so perfect shot after the fact. All being equal and you nail the shot without need to PP....is the raw still a better quality picture? Without blowing the pic up to huge sizes...could you actually tell?

    The other question is if 16 bit is really that much better then 14....again can you actually see the differnce? I've been searching around on a bunch of photo sites and a lot say ...No???? Anyone have examples?

    (didn't mean to hijack thread.....)

    Thoughts??

    Thanks

  6. #45
    In the case of my old, old D1, the fact is that the camera has a very primitive JPEG engine compared to Nikon Capture, Bibble, or Adobe Camera RAW. Those programs are capable of extracting better color rendition and less noise from the original data than that camera's outdated processing. The same is true for my D100 - I shoot RAW with it all the time, not because I need the features of the NEF files, but because the camera does a fairly mediocre job of extracting image quality from the data and producing JPEGs. Most modern RAW converters can acquire much better images. By the time the D70S came into my hands (and my wife's), the JPEG rendering engine had been improved enough that I seldom shoot RAW with it.

    Everyone's needs are different. I tell my students to shoot, shoot, shoot. Nothing the internet can tell you will help the way actual hands-on experience can.

  7. #46
    Quote Originally Posted by hallkc
    Sometimes it's fun to stop the water motion (on the right half) AND show the water motion (on the left half)...

    Anyone guess how I did this?

    Photoshop? I give up. I have been waiting patiently for someone who knows about picture taking to guess. I can't wait any longer how is it done?
    The man thong is wrong.

  8. #47
    Definitely photoshop. Two pictures, different shutter speeds

    In the old days, similar effects could be done by overexposing two images, both at different shutter speeds. Then, they would take the slides, and put two images in one slide holder. The combined images would then have a proper exposure value, but have properties of both the slow shutter speed, and the fast speed.

    Of course, it would be more difficult to do this type of effect in a dark room, without some tricky masking.

  9. #48
    Quote Originally Posted by rooster32
    Is not the benefit of shooting raw the ability to adjust white balance and other controls....and not the fact that raw is actually a "better" pic then a fine jpeg?
    For some things, JPEG is faster, and better. Like shooting sports, where you shoot tons of images, and need to turn them around to clients quickly. Nail it in camera, and move on.

    But if you are shooting fine-art landscape, or fashion, etc... RAW is without comparison. The reason is simple. The data is completely untouched from the digital to analog converter, and you, as the "developer" of the negative, can extract that information any way you desire. With JPEG, much of the information is lost. So yes, it is "better" than a fine JPEG. Much of it depends on how your camera processes the RAW data to convert it to a JPEG too. That is the step where data is lost.

    Quote Originally Posted by rooster32
    Jpeg being harder due to the fact that you have to nail the exposure/wb as compared to raw where you can "fix" a not so perfect shot after the fact. All being equal and you nail the shot without need to PP....is the raw still a better quality picture? Without blowing the pic up to huge sizes...could you actually tell?
    Yep, RAW is still better, though depending on how you "develop" your RAW image, the difference could be significant, or negligible. The main reason RAW is better though, from a quality standpoint, is the ability to reduce noise before conversion, thus ensuring you have the highest quality information from your camera.

    Quote Originally Posted by rooster32
    The other question is if 16 bit is really that much better then 14....again can you actually see the differnce? I've been searching around on a bunch of photo sites and a lot say ...No???? Anyone have examples?
    Well, most cameras are 12-bit devices, that record 16 bit data. 14-bit is new technology, and actually happens before the data is written to the card, but the resulting files are still either 8 bit, or 16 bit when opened on a computer. 16 bit or 8 bit conversion happen during the RAW to JPEG conversion, whether on your camera or on a computer.

    The reason 16 bit is preferable to 8-bit though, is the enhanced color gamuts. For web use, this doesn't matter much, but for fine-art prints, it does. If you master color gamuts and color profiling, your prints will be much better, and avoid problems like posterization, which is more common with 8 bit files.

    I think...

  10. #49
    CB....good stuff...thanks!

    Normally not too much of a tech geek, but I've been reading my new D300 users manual and been searching out info on some of the settings.

    Should only need to read the whole thing about 12 more times till it sinks in

    I've been shooting more and more in raw and learning to use Lightroom and CS2......

  11. #50
    D300, eh? I hear wonderful things about those guys. Yet to see one in action though. I need to give it a whirl one of these days.

  12. #51
    Well....we'll have to hook-up and let you test drive her.....

    I got it last Friday and have been harrasing the wife, kids and dog with it. I think my dog is the most photographed dog in the world!

    Hope to get out later this week or this weekend and break it in.

  13. #52
    Where do you hail from rooster?

  14. #53
    Sandy...need to add that to my profile

  15. #54
    Yellow Creek, Bryce Canyon NP
    Attached Images Attached Images  

  16. #55
    Bogley BigShot
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Just a few miles from Zion National Park
    Posts
    8,456
    Yellow Creek? I don't know that one unless it's the one that runs through the Mossy Cave area?

  17. #56
    Yellow Creek is the drainage below Paria Point.

  18. #57
    Very interesting shot. I don't think I've ever seen anything quite like it.
    Stan

    Check out my photo gallery at www.pbase.com/sparker1

  19. #58
    Quote Originally Posted by sparker1
    Very interesting shot. I don't think I've ever seen anything quite like it.

    It's a small flume placed in the stream to measure water flow. Works on small creeks where it is easy to steer the flow of water.

  20. #59
    Bogley BigShot
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Just a few miles from Zion National Park
    Posts
    8,456
    I need to go and see this creek!

  21. #60
    Zions the "s" is silent trackrunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    indoors wanting to be outdoors
    Posts
    3,216
    Kanarraville Canyon waterfall
    Attached Images Attached Images  

Similar Threads

  1. Running from camera
    By asdf in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 29
    Last Post: 04-15-2009, 11:19 AM
  2. [Trip Report] Running the dunes
    By MTpockets in forum Offroad 4x4, Side by Side and ATV
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 02-19-2007, 11:50 AM
  3. Running rapids in an SUV
    By rock_ski_cowboy in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 09-06-2006, 04:12 PM
  4. Windows running on a Mac?
    By stefan in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 04-05-2006, 07:58 AM

Visitors found this page by searching for:

Outdoor Forum

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •