Bogley

[Jaxx]

hallkc wrote: 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?

[CarpeyBiggs]

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.

[CarpeyBiggs]

rooster32 wrote: 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.

rooster32 wrote: 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.

rooster32 wrote: 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... :ne_nau:

[rooster32]

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 :dizzy:

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

[CarpeyBiggs]

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.

[rooster32]

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.

[CarpeyBiggs]

Where do you hail from rooster?

[rooster32]

Sandy...need to add that to my profile

[fire]

Yellow Creek, Bryce Canyon NP

[tanya]

Yellow Creek? I don't know that one unless it's the one that runs through the Mossy Cave area?

[fire]

Yellow Creek is the drainage below Paria Point.

[sparker1]

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

[fire]

sparker1 wrote: 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.

[tanya]

I need to go and see this creek!

[trackrunner]

Kanarraville Canyon waterfall