The HDR processing on #10 seems a bit extreme.
gordonpritchard: I don't understand the anger.The subscription model made PShop affordable for me.$10 a month vs about $1200 for the standalone app.What's your problem?
@ By gskolenda - well I had no choice before, it was either pay the full price (which I couldn't afford) or nothing. No option to subscribe.Even if Adobe double their subscription price it would still make it affordable for the next 5 years and who's to say that a purchased full PShop would still run on the OS of the day? You'd have to avoid updating your OS to keep your purchased version running.If I quit paying the monthly fee I don't lose - I still have my files and can work with them using some other image editing software.
I don't understand the anger.The subscription model made PShop affordable for me.$10 a month vs about $1200 for the standalone app.What's your problem?
Taken with a Sony a57 - 18-250mm lens
This article is a bit hard to follow as it muddles some important terminology.First off he is not doing "camera calibration" as the title and article suggests. Calibration is the process of putting a device, e.g. a camera, into a known condition which he isn't doing. What he is actually doing is characterizing the output of the camera - or as he says "profiling" its output. (In color management terminology he is "characterizing" the output.) Then, I don't think he actually ends up with a "profile" that he uses in Lightroom. I'm not sure, but what I think that he creates is a script like the .xmp text script that you get when processing a RAW .arw file. That script, like any other .xmp script, then is applied by Lightroom to his images.
Why the paper limitation to 19" in length? It should allow you to print out 13" by whatever length of paper you have.
If I remember correctly, it is possible to change the effective aperture on a catadioptric lens by making an off center hole in a lens cap and placing that in front of the lens.
art n science: I LOVE this photo! I am a big Hopper fan too, which I'm sure is no surprise. When I saw the this on the front page, I thought "cool, a staged Hopper tribute!", but when I read the article I realized there was a lot more to it. I really appreciate the story of how the image was created and the insight into the thought process of the photographer. I don't think it was explicitly intended to emulate Nighthawks, but I'm sure the photographer realized the similarity long before we pointed it out. I'm sure Hopper was a strong influence here on a subconscious level. Barnaby, please correct me if I am wrong. The subject matter is similar to Nighthawks, and the two artists clearly followed the same basic compositional rules in creating the images. That's okay, it doesn't make this photo any less pleasing. Aside from the composition, lighting and subject, I think the boost in the blue channel adds to the "painted" look of the image, which further leads one to recall Hopper's painting.
Far from being distracting the red light on the shore, because it is similar to the red the fellow is wearing, helps to tie the isolated figure to the rest of the image.Wonderful!
WOW! Beautiful. I love the image and the well-written article. While it does echo "Nighthawks" the 1942 painting by Edward Hopper your photo has it's own melancholic feel. Who cares if it has noise? I've taken late-night ferries, and your photo captures beautifully that fluorescent lit loneliness of the traveller. Thank you so much.