Biowizard

Biowizard

Lives in United States United States
Joined on Oct 21, 2011

Comments

Total: 459, showing: 41 – 60
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

Biowizard: All my photographic life (which takes in film from the mid-70s, up to about 12 years ago, when I switched to digital (mainly)), I have HATED the effects of badly position ND grads. Images look SO artificial, with a linear blurred darkening zone, and as others have noted, where tall objects poking above the gradation remain underexposed while reflections in foreground puddles are blown-out.

You can get SO much better results by squeezing off 5 bracketed exposures in quick succession, covering whichever range of EV you want to play with, and selectively combining them, with appropriate blurred masking, in Photoshop.

Not forgetting, there's probably a good spare 1.5-2EV at either end of your individual raw frames to play with, if you don't want to merge images but simply want to apply some selective exposure compensation masks.

Using Photoshop in this way is frankly no different than dodging and burning in the traditional darkroom - just less hit-and-miss, and a LOT less smelly.

Brian

True, but the answer is simple: expose shot 1 for the sea, shot 2 for the sky, and combine. NOT "HDR", just two exposures blurred together at the horizon - rather like using a Lee ND Grad, but with complete control

Brian

Link | Posted on Apr 8, 2016 at 21:46 UTC

All my photographic life (which takes in film from the mid-70s, up to about 12 years ago, when I switched to digital (mainly)), I have HATED the effects of badly position ND grads. Images look SO artificial, with a linear blurred darkening zone, and as others have noted, where tall objects poking above the gradation remain underexposed while reflections in foreground puddles are blown-out.

You can get SO much better results by squeezing off 5 bracketed exposures in quick succession, covering whichever range of EV you want to play with, and selectively combining them, with appropriate blurred masking, in Photoshop.

Not forgetting, there's probably a good spare 1.5-2EV at either end of your individual raw frames to play with, if you don't want to merge images but simply want to apply some selective exposure compensation masks.

Using Photoshop in this way is frankly no different than dodging and burning in the traditional darkroom - just less hit-and-miss, and a LOT less smelly.

Brian

Link | Posted on Apr 8, 2016 at 11:13 UTC as 8th comment | 8 replies
In reply to:

Biowizard: Only two filters are necessary in this day and age: a polariser, and a multi-stop ND, because both let you create images that cannot be achieved in any other way. Arguably, an IR filter too, if you do IR photography.

But graduated NDs are not necessary, Indeed, they nearly always produce unnatural results. For any landscape photo where you want to darken part of the image relative to others, you can simply take a bracketed exposure sequence, and merge as desired in Photoshop.

This approach lets you follow irregularities in the skyline (like mountains, buildings, trees) that an ND grad would artificially darken.

Brian

All my photographic life (which takes in film from the mid-70s, up to about 12 years ago, when I switched to digital (mainly)), I have HATED the effects of badly position ND grads. Images look SO artificial, and as others have noted, tall objects poking above the gradation just look silly. You can get SO much better results by squeezing off 5 bracketed exposures in quick succession, covering whichever range of EV you want to play with - not forgetting, there's probably a good spare 1.5-2EV at either end of your individual raw frames to play with, if you don't want to merge images.

Untill Lee find a way to make ND Grads that exactly match the skyline I am photographing, I will stick to modern methods.

Brian

Link | Posted on Apr 8, 2016 at 11:06 UTC

Only two filters are necessary in this day and age: a polariser, and a multi-stop ND, because both let you create images that cannot be achieved in any other way. Arguably, an IR filter too, if you do IR photography.

But graduated NDs are not necessary, Indeed, they nearly always produce unnatural results. For any landscape photo where you want to darken part of the image relative to others, you can simply take a bracketed exposure sequence, and merge as desired in Photoshop.

This approach lets you follow irregularities in the skyline (like mountains, buildings, trees) that an ND grad would artificially darken.

Brian

Link | Posted on Apr 7, 2016 at 22:49 UTC as 20th comment | 13 replies
On article Power Zoom: Panasonic Lumix DMC-ZS100/TZ100 Review (331 comments in total)
In reply to:

Biowizard: Can someone please remind me - how big IS a 1" sensor? Even 35mm "full frame" is less than 1" in the shorter dimension ...

Brian

Thanks both - I was being intentionally sardonic here - I frequently post on this forum about the stupidity of using old videcon tube sizes to refer to (some) digital sensors. Or, indeed, obsolete film formats like APS-C, which never received professional interest.

Why can't everyone JUST use the actual sensor size, or, if really necessary, choose some random format (eg, 135/35mm, at 24x36mm) as "1" or "100", and relate all other sensors relative to that, preferably with respect to the 135 diagonal, with an indication of aspect ratio too? I'd love "4/3rds" (my current cameras' format) to be known not in relation to a 1.333" videcon tube, but instead as "0.5/4:3" showing it's about half the diagonal of the 135 format, with 4:3 aspect ratio. And 135 itself would be known as 1.0/2:3 ...

From descriptions like this, you can figure out lens "crop factors" and "focal length" mulitpliers, without having to dig back into Wikipedia every time!

Brian

Link | Posted on Apr 6, 2016 at 19:16 UTC

Surprised? NO.

Other than, that is, that Lytro even still exists as a name.

Brian

Link | Posted on Apr 6, 2016 at 17:12 UTC as 13th comment
On article Power Zoom: Panasonic Lumix DMC-ZS100/TZ100 Review (331 comments in total)

Can someone please remind me - how big IS a 1" sensor? Even 35mm "full frame" is less than 1" in the shorter dimension ...

Brian

Link | Posted on Apr 4, 2016 at 21:54 UTC as 99th comment | 3 replies
In reply to:

mgm2: Drones, quadcopters or what ever you call them are becoming a real problem in natural areas. Wildlife are being harassed to the point where some game agencies are considering banning them from state game lands.

I'd rather be "bothered" by a man with a drone, than a man with a GUN. And in America, the latter is everywhere, yet no-one seems to give a shot!

Ooops - i

Brian

Link | Posted on Apr 1, 2016 at 13:33 UTC
In reply to:

Biowizard: And for those of us who don't spend our entire lives bungee jumping, skateboarding while being chased by a VW camper, kite surfing or going on harem scarem speedboat rides down rapids, I think the GoPro will continue to suffice when I want photos in places I would never dream of taking one of my real cameras!

Brian

Apparently not, as at least it garnered a response (yours), unlike most the other comments on this pointless product! ;-)

Brian

Link | Posted on Mar 22, 2016 at 23:39 UTC
On article Instagram is changing its feed to use algorithm (45 comments in total)

This was Facebook's BIGGEST screw-up ever. Ruined the service for me, as I no longer see things from people I actually care about, but see loads of rubbish that means little or nothing to me. Facebook doesn't know who I actually KNOW in real life, whose input I would find far more interesting than "friends" I've garnered from random groups.

Brian

Link | Posted on Mar 22, 2016 at 11:05 UTC as 8th comment
In reply to:

Lars V: The question on my mind is, does the True Tone technology solve an actual problem, or does it create more problems (comparing two displays next to each other with different automatic whitepoint etc)?
Looking forward to hearing about actual experiences, here and elsewhere.

White bezels look pretty on the shelf at John Lewis. But it's black every time that comes home, and currently that's 3 iPads, 2 iPhones and 1 iPod Touch.

Link | Posted on Mar 22, 2016 at 11:02 UTC
In reply to:

noflashplease: Is there anything less "cool" than another new iPad? Somehow, the iPad became a device for elderly people? Of course, the iPad only makes a negative contribution to Apple's bottom line, as overall sales have been in decline since late 2013. Sales declined 20% last year alone.

If Tim Cook really wants to be innovative, it might be time to pull the plug on the iPad line. It's a dying product.

Well I recently bought my third iPad (the big Pro), still having and using my original iPad and iPad 3. I also have a spanking new Surface Pro 4. And while the hardware is lovely, using the iPad is so much more fun than the Surface, in all manner of ways, thanks to the inventiveness of hundreds of thousands of brilliant App programmers.

Link | Posted on Mar 22, 2016 at 10:58 UTC

And for those of us who don't spend our entire lives bungee jumping, skateboarding while being chased by a VW camper, kite surfing or going on harem scarem speedboat rides down rapids, I think the GoPro will continue to suffice when I want photos in places I would never dream of taking one of my real cameras!

Brian

Link | Posted on Mar 18, 2016 at 00:48 UTC as 12th comment | 3 replies

I'd love to have space for one of these, but sadly don't! So I am stuck with using professional repro houses when I need large format.

I hope THEY buy these printers! :-)

Brian

Link | Posted on Mar 9, 2016 at 09:59 UTC as 15th comment
On article Opinion: Enthusiast compacts have finally come of age (492 comments in total)
In reply to:

Biowizard: Seeing the numerous responses to my earlier post about sensor sizes ("Can someone remind me - just HOW big is a '1 inch' sensor?"), several people suggested something relating to the 135 format (35mm, "Full Frame", actually 35mmx24mm, or about 43.25mm diagonal).

This makes sense to me too, but most folks suggested something relating to the _area_ of the sensor: however, this is now how anyone currently thinks. All those "35mm equivalent" and "crop factor" quotes beloved of this website, are _linear_, not squared.

Of course, we also need to know the aspect ratio, as there is a heck of a difference between formats, from square in the medium format world, to 16:9 in default modes in some consumer cameras.

So my suggestion is this: treat 135 as the "standard" full frame, and using its diagonal as the standard reference point, notate it as:

1.00/3:2 (1.0 diagonal, 3:2 aspect ratio)

4/3rds, with a diagonal of about 21.65mm, would be:

0.50/4:3 (0.5 diagonal, 4:3 aspect)

Brian

Olf, I think everyone else understands what I am talking about. All the info you need is in previous messages, so over and out on this one! Have a great weekend.

Brian

Link | Posted on Mar 5, 2016 at 10:09 UTC
On article UPDATED: CP+ 2016: shooting the Pentax K-1 in Yokohama (377 comments in total)

"Shooting the Pentax K-1" sounds like rather a bizarre fairground attraction - makes a change from tin ducks or clay pipes, I suppose!

Personally, I "shoot" _with_ my cameras! ;-)

Brian

Link | Posted on Mar 5, 2016 at 10:05 UTC as 23rd comment
On article Opinion: Enthusiast compacts have finally come of age (492 comments in total)
In reply to:

Biowizard: Seeing the numerous responses to my earlier post about sensor sizes ("Can someone remind me - just HOW big is a '1 inch' sensor?"), several people suggested something relating to the 135 format (35mm, "Full Frame", actually 35mmx24mm, or about 43.25mm diagonal).

This makes sense to me too, but most folks suggested something relating to the _area_ of the sensor: however, this is now how anyone currently thinks. All those "35mm equivalent" and "crop factor" quotes beloved of this website, are _linear_, not squared.

Of course, we also need to know the aspect ratio, as there is a heck of a difference between formats, from square in the medium format world, to 16:9 in default modes in some consumer cameras.

So my suggestion is this: treat 135 as the "standard" full frame, and using its diagonal as the standard reference point, notate it as:

1.00/3:2 (1.0 diagonal, 3:2 aspect ratio)

4/3rds, with a diagonal of about 21.65mm, would be:

0.50/4:3 (0.5 diagonal, 4:3 aspect)

Brian

Olf, if have you actually READ my post above, you'll see that I understand that. Which is why, in my suggestion, the aspect ratio should be included in the sensor description.

To repeat: I want to know TWO things about a sensor. (1) what is the diagonal relative to some standard (eg 135/35mm) so I know how it relates to fields of view relative to lens focal lengths and (2) what is the aspect ratio, so I know what in which format my images will be recorded.

1.0/3:2 tells me everything about so-called "full-frame"
0.5/4:3 tells me everything about so-called "four-thirds"

so guess what this would be?

2.0/1:1

Simples: classic Hassleblad 6cm square

Brian

Link | Posted on Mar 4, 2016 at 12:14 UTC
Total: 459, showing: 41 – 60
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »