keepreal

keepreal

Lives in United Kingdom Enfield, United Kingdom
Works as a Retired, was Information Technology Manager
Joined on Mar 24, 2007
About me:

Amateur with a passion for pictorial photography of more than fifty years. Likes to communicate and learn from others with expert knowledge, especially if they also live in the real world, have galleries or links to really good photos and put their camera to good use.

Comments

Total: 437, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »

When considering cameras I might buy, exposure bracketing is the first thing I look at because it will always be a key factor. That is because I often shoot landscapes in bright sunlight into the sun.

You may say I am over- reacting, but I am adamant about this.

If taking a picture where the dynamic range is beyond the capabilities of the camera, some people resort to exposure bracketing and use HDR software to merge the best from them.

With a good dynamic range, bracketed exposures often are unnecessary but not always. With my Nikon D610, for example, one can use 2 or 3 frames in 2 EV steps. That is fine with two exposures at 0 and -2, occasionally -2, 0 and +2, perhaps combined with exposure compensation to shift that to -3, -1 and +1.

Fuji camera have about 1½ less dynamic range, so all the more reason to allow for this as broadly. Their offering of AE Bracketing ±3 (3 frames at 1/3 EV steps) is daft, especially since all that is needed is a very minor change to the software.

Link | Posted on May 24, 2018 at 19:06 UTC as 56th comment | 4 replies
In reply to:

keepreal: I am less of a fan of DPR than I used to be because the quality and content of its articles have declined, but I have to say this one is very balanced and fair minded.

Yes, it makes sense that the relatively new kid on the block goes overboard with innovation to attract interest and the best of what Sony has achieved is impressive.

However, who needs all this? Even the two big established leaders offer more than most people need. That is not to decry progress, so much as to point out that many of the enthusiasts are not keen, accomplished photographers so much as equipment collectors and big spenders.

@T3, you are right of courss that you can be a good photographer and still enjoy collecting equipment. But judging from their galleries, not many of those people here.

Also, no problems with your opinions but when you suggest I am saying that new cameras are going to be the downfall of humanity you know as well as I do that was not what I was suggesting. Everyone else knows that I was just referring to this as being one case of consumerism, greed and selfishness nowadays. Even those people who do not agree with me can see that.

Link | Posted on May 16, 2018 at 21:51 UTC
In reply to:

keepreal: I think I will stick to panoramas using my 20mm f/1.8 Nikkor on my Nikon D610. That is because I cannot afford a printer to make prints 75 feet wide and I am not sure where I would keep them even if I did.

I was being sarcastic. But thanks for doing the math. I could not be bothered but, no surprise to me, 75 feet turns out to be a decent guess.

Link | Posted on May 16, 2018 at 21:42 UTC
In reply to:

keepreal: Maybe NASA could do something similar of the Andromeda Galaxy from just a few light years away. Then maybe we can see where the black holes are.

OK, I knew that. Maybe Nikon can make a super tele lens.

Link | Posted on May 16, 2018 at 21:39 UTC
In reply to:

keepreal: I am less of a fan of DPR than I used to be because the quality and content of its articles have declined, but I have to say this one is very balanced and fair minded.

Yes, it makes sense that the relatively new kid on the block goes overboard with innovation to attract interest and the best of what Sony has achieved is impressive.

However, who needs all this? Even the two big established leaders offer more than most people need. That is not to decry progress, so much as to point out that many of the enthusiasts are not keen, accomplished photographers so much as equipment collectors and big spenders.

@T3 says "That's kind of the problem when you just have two established big brands dominating the market. They can just keep re-hashing the same products with minor tweaks, rather than really innovating. It's just more of the same. At least when you have a new contender, it can spur innovation and new product development."

Most of the minor tweaks are of no benefit to the vast majority, let alone the weekly innovations, the more meaningful ones. Both are just a way of using up raw materials and energy so that the quality of life for future generations will begin to suffer earlier.

Link | Posted on May 16, 2018 at 16:40 UTC

Maybe NASA could do something similar of the Andromeda Galaxy from just a few light years away. Then maybe we can see where the black holes are.

Link | Posted on May 16, 2018 at 16:33 UTC as 9th comment | 3 replies

I think I will stick to panoramas using my 20mm f/1.8 Nikkor on my Nikon D610. That is because I cannot afford a printer to make prints 75 feet wide and I am not sure where I would keep them even if I did.

Link | Posted on May 16, 2018 at 16:26 UTC as 10th comment | 4 replies
In reply to:

GaryJP: Writing a lot about Sony is one thing. Being unable or unwilling to see that people have different emphases and very sound reason for choosing other brands is another and renders this site ever more irrelevant for my interests. This "Top Ten"/horse race obsession approach gets rather silly. Believe it or not, photography is not "Sony and a bunch of also-rans". Some of us have even tried it and dropped it.

Avatar480234 says to @GaryJp
"You sound as if DPR is ramming Sony into our mouths and we can't make our own choices. You haven't read the article, have you?"

Before this article, that is exactly what they were doing.

Link | Posted on May 16, 2018 at 15:51 UTC

I am less of a fan of DPR than I used to be because the quality and content of its articles have declined, but I have to say this one is very balanced and fair minded.

Yes, it makes sense that the relatively new kid on the block goes overboard with innovation to attract interest and the best of what Sony has achieved is impressive.

However, who needs all this? Even the two big established leaders offer more than most people need. That is not to decry progress, so much as to point out that many of the enthusiasts are not keen, accomplished photographers so much as equipment collectors and big spenders.

Link | Posted on May 16, 2018 at 15:43 UTC as 51st comment | 9 replies

I use Photoshop CS2, so I often copy and merge all the layers so that, in effect, I can make changes non-destructive that otherwise would not be. I regularly use that to see if auto contrast or auto colour improve the results. Sometimes I think the effect of doing that is helpful but too severe. An easy way to solve that is to make a further adjustment by lowering the opacity.

But another use for this is sharpening. Rather than change the settings for that, if a less severe setting is likely to be preferred, sometimes I adjust the opacity. I find that a useful thing to do and I would do so sometimes even if I had a version of Photoshop where sharpening is non-destructive. It is especially useful where one wants sharpening of only part of the image. Adding a mask to the top layer is the way I do that.

Link | Posted on May 2, 2018 at 16:40 UTC as 33rd comment | 1 reply

No disputing this is a high quality lens, but the size and weight for MFT is as much as I would tolerate on full frame and then only grudgingly. As for the price, gear now often is aimed at those who are prepared to pay way over the top. Even with the quality, this is not value for money.

Ephotozine of this lens says " It is easy to see the attraction of lighter, smaller cameras and lenses, especially when the quality is still extremely high." LOL.

Link | Posted on May 1, 2018 at 18:31 UTC as 26th comment | 8 replies

In spite of what I wrote earlier, now after a very meticulous and careful test with five of the frames from the author, I am not going to use this technique.

Either I am doing something wrong or the methodology just does not work. Using one frame I got far sharper results and, even if used in some way, merging frames can do better, it just is not worth the considerable hassle.

Besides, unless there is a clear advantage why bother with a technique that is bound to have ghosting, even if only from leaves on the trees (if they are reproduced big enough) or worse giving you the extra work to check and find out where this has occurred and to deal with it.

Also, who in their right mind really needs the extra sharpening? A full frame camera of high quality is going to give you more than sufficient sharpness even for a large print.

Link | Posted on Apr 27, 2018 at 17:15 UTC as 14th comment | 1 reply

Just have a look in their galleries. It is mostly the pixel peepers to whom this extravagant process will be of more than passing interest, but I would rather such folk would learn to take pictures, real pictures and not just satisfy themselves with the typical garbage we see from most of them.

I am wondering if the author of the article, Ian Norman, is as guilty. Certainly the twenty images he shot to demonstrate this technique are awful. I am not talking of them regarding their pictorial merit, but too much is in very heavy shade and no adjustments I could find will overcome this. Why could he have not found and used something better, considerably better?

Link | Posted on Apr 27, 2018 at 17:15 UTC as 15th comment

See just below for what I did. But I was about to go over the size limit for an entry here, so let me now add this.

There is ghosting of a moving car and a pedestrian after combined four images. However, using one frame for those parts of the image, most of it will be much sharper and the deficit over a small portion not noticeable.

Besides, for landscape photographers like me, that will not often be a problem.

Link | Posted on Apr 26, 2018 at 08:41 UTC as 30th comment

Another method but have look at the Petapixel video first. It is explained more clearly.

I have Photoshop CS2 so resized four of the sample images in On1 Perfect Photo to 1200 dpi, saved as psd. Then in CS2 manually realigned the 4 images I used, applied levels 10,3,255, then adjusted the opacities, flattened and resized to 300 again. Finally I applied sharpening and saved.

The result was much sharper.

So in future with my Nikon D610 NEF files I will try processing in my RAW developer using the same preset for each, then combine in CS2 as before, except that I will not need to use levels there as I can use the RAW developer to adjust. What is not clear yet is what will happen if I open all four as a merge in my HDR developer and forgo resizing up by 400%, so I will try that too.

But my conclusion is do not be bound to follow the method in the article. I have described another method that works pretty good. There obviously are alternatives, so try others that may be easier for you.

Link | Posted on Apr 26, 2018 at 08:26 UTC as 31st comment

I just combined four images using my HDR program, thinking that, maybe rather than arbitrarily using one of them, all four will be aggregated, possibly with the same resolution gain.

In fact, I cannot see any improvement in resolution. Nevertheless, I will keep trying, at least for a while. I suspect it will not work because there are no more pixels in the four images combined than just with one. However, maybe if I process each separately and up sample by 400% first before combining in my HDR program, maybe that will have the desired effect. I think it is worth trying.

I see no reason why the manufacturers of HDR software could not build in the necessarily extra logic to do this properly, making it easier than using Photoshop. So I may even get in touch with the company that is behind mine and suggest they add the feature. My hope is that they will see it as a selling point and so be in favour of adding the logic to do this.

Link | Posted on Apr 25, 2018 at 18:57 UTC as 45th comment
On article Sony a7 III Review (2166 comments in total)

As I have been saying all along, lenses are two big, too heavy and too expensive. Only a proportion of camera users need wide aperture lenses. Unless you actually like EVF, the Nikon D750 is still the new D750, What a waste of brilliant technology this is.

In this review "Nikon's aging D750..." what nonsense.

Link | Posted on Apr 24, 2018 at 06:32 UTC as 170th comment | 9 replies
On article Nikon dominates World Press Photo 2018 camera breakdown (385 comments in total)

Opinion: the Nikon D750 could be the new Nikon D750, not the a7 III.

All this nonsense about DSLR being near dead and EVFs superceding OVF.

My D610 may not be quite up on the technology as some but I chose it because I do not need what is added in the D750. I do not need to focus all over the screen or cope with moving subjects. My landscapes tend to stay put, so one focus point in the centre, spot metering at the centre, both locked before I frame and shoot is fine by me.

If you want good quality in a fairly large image size, the better gear on offer makes sense but being overly absorbed in the leading edge technology on offer and having to have it, regardless of the ability to take more than just very ordinary pictures is a sickness too many DPR readers seems to suffer from.

Link | Posted on Apr 17, 2018 at 23:19 UTC as 22nd comment
In reply to:

keepreal: An EVF in high contrast lighting with deep shadows is awful. Younger people without sufficient experience like us seniors may have a better idea what to expect from the manipulated image in a decent EVF, but not me nor a lot of my contemporaries. We can judge from the original subject or a full range image through a quality Albalda viewinder like the Leica M, as good or better still with the OVF of a DSLR.

A lot of us old folk would by choice have nothing else than a DSLR. I do not believe dropping them is justified. Regrettably, manufacturers are only interested in profit. Otherwise they would not keep offering often trivial upgrades every few months.

The a7 RIII is a splendid example of technology but so is a D850 and even lesser models than leading edge, like my D610. I and many others do not need the focus capabilities or other fringe features that mostly for marketing reasons have become the norm.

@T3 "The problem with DSLRs like the D850 is that they've become behemoths of cameras! Not everyone needs/wants something so big!"

Absolutely. Even my D610 is too big and heavy. So are many lenses, including for Sony FF, APS-C and MFT. The lack of quality lenses at modest apertures is a crime against sanity. I am convinced that FF DSLRS the size of an Olympus OM1 and lenses like they had then would be perfectly possible if not for the manufacturers focusing on adding bells and whistles, more bells and more whistles instead of miniaturised circuits. They are fine for the 1% who need those features.

@Like26 "Give me a big bright OVF anytime."

The manufacturers should continue to provide for people like us.

@Like7 "And in dim lighting an OVF is inferior to an EVF".

Perfectly true. But the reverse in typical lighting for most people most of the time, very many people all of the time.

Link | Posted on Apr 9, 2018 at 17:57 UTC

An EVF in high contrast lighting with deep shadows is awful. Younger people without sufficient experience like us seniors may have a better idea what to expect from the manipulated image in a decent EVF, but not me nor a lot of my contemporaries. We can judge from the original subject or a full range image through a quality Albalda viewinder like the Leica M, as good or better still with the OVF of a DSLR.

A lot of us old folk would by choice have nothing else than a DSLR. I do not believe dropping them is justified. Regrettably, manufacturers are only interested in profit. Otherwise they would not keep offering often trivial upgrades every few months.

The a7 RIII is a splendid example of technology but so is a D850 and even lesser models than leading edge, like my D610. I and many others do not need the focus capabilities or other fringe features that mostly for marketing reasons have become the norm.

Link | Posted on Apr 9, 2018 at 15:58 UTC as 118th comment | 14 replies
Total: 437, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »