Photography

[Army 1911]

This was with a 24-70 zoom at 48mm f11 and 1/200 sec flash from 45 degrees with a reflector for fill. This my be more what you want.

By the way, I have a 40mm DX f2.8 Nikkor macro lens with hood and a B+W Haze filter that could be yours for $120.00
You bought the Z50 right? You would need the FTZ adapter.

 

[Army 1911]

This orchid was shot with a 18-55mm lens at 52mm and f11, 1/10 second outdoors with tripod.
I may be addicted to tripods, I have 9.

 

[Tex62]

I’ve bookmarked this. I might have to break out the gear.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Sam7sf]

By the way, I have a 40mm DX f2.8 Nikkor macro lens with hood and a B+W Haze filter that could be yours for $120.00
You bought the Z50 right? You would need the FTZ adapter.

I’ll definitely approach you about that in the near future.

Thanks for uploading all that. Good to see. No post editing?

 

[Army 1911]

If there was any post processing it was minor.

 

[Sam7sf]

Any photos showing difference in filters? Uv vs polarized?

Got myself a hood and some uv filters coming so I can start playing with the camera.

 

[Army 1911]

A uv filter eliminates haze and is often used as lens protection. A CPL helps to control glare and some reflections. It also tends to enhance colors in nature so they look more vibrant, like after a rain. They are most effective when the light is perpendicular to the lens axis.

CPLs eat up 1.5 to two stops of light which with todays cameras isn't much of a problem like it used to sometimes be.

 

[Sam7sf]

Ok...stupid questions: when post editing, do you leave the format size alone so say if others want to buy they can fiddle with it? I figure I’ll start with raw/jpeg. Any advice on pros and cons to different formats?

 

[Younggun]

Ok...stupid questions: when post editing, do you leave the format size alone so say if others want to buy they can fiddle with it? I figure I’ll start with raw/jpeg. Any advice on pros and cons to different formats?

Format and size aren’t necessarily interchangeable.

Typically you wouldn’t leave something in a Raw format though. At least we don’t when my wife does weddings and such. It tends to hog up lots of memory and most don’t go far enough in to the editing to need raw. Especially if their are no whites or blacks that are near or appear to be blown out. Anything needing raw format to fix should be fixed already really.

That said, we don’t reduce the image size as it relates to pixels per inch. So any room wanted for cropping is still there. And most any other color editing can still be done. Photoshop will let you convert back to a raw format to open up more options, though you don’t get any lost info back. But it really shouldn’t be needed.

Pro’s of raw format: You get the picture data without any internal processing or compression. You get everything the sensor got which means you have a little more room to pull down the brights or lighten up dark a dark area. Every bit of data is there.

Cons: Most cameras have pretty good internal processing that can apply some light sharpening and noise reduction. You’d need to do this yourself. And you may or may not have to apply your own white balance. I don’t believe the white balance is kept in raw format on our R6, but photoshop does an auto WB by default which tends to be pretty good. You usually need dedicated software to open a raw image. I had to download an extra plugin for windows to handle them for quick viewing and The previews tend to not show unless the picture has been opened already.

JPEG pros: Pretty much everything can open a JPEG. File size is smaller. Cameras internal processing effects are applied so pictures tend to look a little better straight from the camera.

Cons: Some data loss on the extremes. Anything removed by internal processing is gone forever. More evident if trying to bring back detail on a heavily shadowed or dark area.

Raw is really only needed if you plan to really dive deep in to the editing. Most photos shot decently don’t need to be edited in raw and it kind of fits some specific circumstances.


Lots of opinions on it though. If the memory is available in the camera I prefer raw. But don’t save raw format for long term storage. Edit and save as JPEG. If possible, save both formats and compare to see which you prefer for editing. But I see no reason to keep the Raw format unless it’s something that was requested. We delete them once someone says they are happy with their results and just keep the JPEGs on case they need them replaced for some reason.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Tnhawk]

Shot 4 is nice. I am a sucker for B&W. I would have tried a little more contrast in post production and maybe cropping a little sky to make the road bed appear more elevated.

As an art student I had an instructor who told me to master B&W, then learn to use color. Much of my art and photography was monochrome.

 

[Sam7sf]

Format and size aren’t necessarily interchangeable.

Typically you wouldn’t leave something in a Raw format though. At least we don’t when my wife does weddings and such. It tends to hog up lots of memory and most don’t go far enough in to the editing to need raw. Especially if their are no whites or blacks that are near or appear to be blown out. Anything needing raw format to fix should be fixed already really.

That said, we don’t reduce the image size as it relates to pixels per inch. So any room wanted for cropping is still there. And most any other color editing can still be done. Photoshop will let you convert back to a raw format to open up more options, though you don’t get any lost info back. But it really shouldn’t be needed.

Pro’s of raw format: You get the picture data without any internal processing or compression. You get everything the sensor got which means you have a little more room to pull down the brights or lighten up dark a dark area. Every bit of data is there.

Cons: Most cameras have pretty good internal processing that can apply some light sharpening and noise reduction. You’d need to do this yourself. And you may or may not have to apply your own white balance. I don’t believe the white balance is kept in raw format on our R6, but photoshop does an auto WB by default which tends to be pretty good. You usually need dedicated software to open a raw image. I had to download an extra plugin for windows to handle them for quick viewing and The previews tend to not show unless the picture has been opened already.

JPEG pros: Pretty much everything can open a JPEG. File size is smaller. Cameras internal processing effects are applied so pictures tend to look a little better straight from the camera.

Cons: Some data loss on the extremes. Anything removed by internal processing is gone forever. More evident if trying to bring back detail on a heavily shadowed or dark area.

Raw is really only needed if you plan to really dive deep in to the editing. Most photos shot decently don’t need to be edited in raw and it kind of fits some specific circumstances.


Lots of opinions on it though. If the memory is available in the camera I prefer raw. But don’t save raw format for long term storage. Edit and save as JPEG. If possible, save both formats and compare to see which you prefer for editing. But I see no reason to keep the Raw format unless it’s something that was requested. We delete them once someone says they are happy with their results and just keep the JPEGs on case they need them replaced for some reason.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Noted and thank you.

 

[Rhino]

Ok...stupid questions: when post editing, do you leave the format size alone so say if others want to buy they can fiddle with it? I figure I’ll start with raw/jpeg. Any advice on pros and cons to different formats?

The biggest con to RAW is that it will start to eat your storage space about 4x faster than the .jpgs will.

I transferred about 80 GB of photos last week... some of them RAW, but mostly .jpg. The total was somewhere close to 400 GB that got saved to the hard drive for last month.
At some point you have to make decisions about storage and delivery.

 

[Army 1911]

Younggun has a good explanation of the differences. For editing, Adobe has their photography package which includes Lightroom, Photoshop, Snapbridge and their camera raw. For $10 a month it's a deal.

Each camera maker has it's own unique raw format. For Nikon it's .NEF files which I think may stand fore Nikon Electronic File or exchange file.

Nikon also has a free editing program called NX Studio and there is Photopea which is also free.

Never release an image to someone until it is fully edited and cropped. They may be able to further crop an image but they can't un-crop it an mess up your vision that way.

 

[Army 1911]

FYI: I am switching to mirrorless cameras and will be selling my Nikon DSLRs and lenses if anyone is interested.

 

[Younggun]

Younggun has a good explanation of the differences. For editing, Adobe has their photography package which includes Lightroom, Photoshop, Snapbridge and their camera raw. For $10 a month it's a deal.

Each camera maker has it's own unique raw format. For Nikon it's .NEF files which I think may stand fore Nikon Electronic File or exchange file.

Nikon also has a free editing program called NX Studio and there is Photopea which is also free.

Never release an image to someone until it is fully edited and cropped. They may be able to further crop an image but they can't un-crop it an mess up your vision that way.

We have the photo package. I don’t think it includes Snapbridge but can’t swear it isn’t there and we just don’t know it.

When we bought the package it had Lightroom, Lightroom Classic, Photoshop, and the Creative Cloud, plus 20gigs of online storage that we don’t really use.

Photoshop Elements is also an option if you don’t like subscriptions. It works fine, but the subscription version allows for much more fine tuning and many more “AI” based tools.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Army 1911]

Here's something to consider. Every maker and every model a maker makes processes JPG files slightly differently. And every camera has settings for different scenes, portrait, landscape, night, macro, etc. Each of those settings processes the JPG differently in the camera. So if you use a scene setting, you you can't go back to what no scene setting would have been.

However, you can apply scene settings in editing software after you down load the image.

I guess the point is to shoot with no scene setting and apply it in post-processing.

 

[Sam7sf]

FYI: I am switching to mirrorless cameras and will be selling my Nikon DSLRs and lenses if anyone is interested.

When you get your new camera let me know. Would like to observe and learn from others.

 

[Army 1911]

YG was right, snapbridge is not part of the photo package but I think Bridge is. My adobe checker says I have it, but I don't use it as all my cataloging is in light room. Bridge is an adobe cataloging app that will catalog virtually all your Adobe CC projects, images etc.

 

[Sam7sf]

We have the photo package. I don’t think it includes Snapbridge but can’t swear it isn’t there and we just don’t know it.

When we bought the package it had Lightroom, Lightroom Classic, Photoshop, and the Creative Cloud, plus 20gigs of online storage that we don’t really use.

Photoshop Elements is also an option if you don’t like subscriptions. It works fine, but the subscription version allows for much more fine tuning and many more “AI” based tools.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I used to use elements back in the day. Gave up web design in the early 2000’s.

I will use my wife’s iMac for a while then get my own.

I got everything I needed except memory cards. Completely forgot when I ordered all my filters and hood.

 

[Army 1911]

When you get your new camera let me know. Would like to observe and learn from others.

I already have the Z6ii and want the Z7ii with the 105mm micro (macro) lens.
What camera did you get again? I don't recall.