For all you excellent photographers.
http://www.appalachiantrail.org/2014photocontest
http://www.appalachiantrail.org/2014photocontest
Lost in the right direction.
This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.
LIhikers wrote:
So many people taking so many great photos.
Makes me wonder why I can't, besides the fact that I can't find my camera.
AnotherKevin wrote:
I'll leave video to the young'uns. I'm not very good at either producing or consuming it. (I'd rather read at my own speed than be handed stuff at the videographer's timing.)
rafe wrote:
LIhikers wrote:
So many people taking so many great photos.
Makes me wonder why I can't, besides the fact that I can't find my camera.
I've skipped the camera for most of this summer's hiking and just used my cell phone. If you'd asked me two years ago if I'd ever do such a thing I'd have said no way. I was convinced that a real camera could certainly do better than a cell phone. Getting the best image warranted the extra weight. Now I'm not so sure. The cell phone is darned good and does all sorts of things that my "real" cameras can't. Video. Panoramics. I'd have to spend several hundred $$ to get a camera that's better than the one in the phone.
LIhikers wrote:
I've seen great photos taken with a cell phone, quite amazing actually.
I'd use my cell phone for photos too, if I had a cell phone
Well actually I do, but it's so old you have to pull up the antenna. And there's no camera, or anything else.
It only does phone calls and texts. It's one of those pay as you go, Tracfones.
rafe wrote:
LIhikers wrote:
I've seen great photos taken with a cell phone, quite amazing actually.
I'd use my cell phone for photos too, if I had a cell phone
Well actually I do, but it's so old you have to pull up the antenna. And there's no camera, or anything else.
It only does phone calls and texts. It's one of those pay as you go, Tracfones.
Smartphones are darned expensive, as far as the monthly plans go. If I don't find work I'll probably have to give up the plan once the contract runs out. It's only been a year or so now that I've owned a "smartphone" worthy of that name. And it's taken me this long to figure out and appreciate some of the stuff I can do with it.
hikerboy wrote:
Att pay as you go $65/month.
rafe wrote:
So far what I've seen of in-camera HDR is heavy-handed and fake-looking. I can do better with various tricks in Photoshop.
AnotherKevin wrote:
I'm wondering what you think of a picture like the following: is it heavy-handed? Without HDR processing, the exposure both blew out the sky AND left the inside of the shelter black.rafe wrote:
So far what I've seen of in-camera HDR is heavy-handed and fake-looking. I can do better with various tricks in Photoshop.
[IMG:https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5234/14279291625_791f5c015d.jpg]
The Mink Hollow lean-to by ke9tv, on Flickr
(Of course, that's not in-camera, it's done with Luminance.)
LIhikers wrote:
I have no idea what you mean by heavy handed of HDR
AnotherKevin wrote:
I'm wondering what you think of a picture like the following: is it heavy-handed? Without HDR processing, the exposure both blew out the sky AND left the inside of the shelter black.rafe wrote:
So far what I've seen of in-camera HDR is heavy-handed and fake-looking. I can do better with various tricks in Photoshop.
[IMG:https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5234/14279291625_791f5c015d.jpg]
The Mink Hollow lean-to by ke9tv, on Flickr
(Of course, that's not in-camera, it's done with Luminance.)
rafe wrote:
AK: here's a pic from your Flikr images with some slightly fake-looking HDR:
flickr.com/photos/ke9tv/14299471823/in/photostream/
HDR is trying to cram a huge tonal range into too small a space. It's not like I could do this better by hand (on this particular image) but the software isn't really doing it right either. In images like this I'd almost rather see part of the foreground go to black, or suffer the washed-out sky. The software HDR solution doesn't look natural to my eyes.
Rasty wrote:
I have 4 smart phones. One Samsung and 3 Crapples.
Astro wrote:
Rasty wrote:
I have 4 smart phones. One Samsung and 3 Crapples.
Let me guess yours is the Samsung and the women in the house have the iPhones.
AnotherKevin wrote:
rafe wrote:
AK: here's a pic from your Flikr images with some slightly fake-looking HDR:
flickr.com/photos/ke9tv/14299471823/in/photostream/
HDR is trying to cram a huge tonal range into too small a space. It's not like I could do this better by hand (on this particular image) but the software isn't really doing it right either. In images like this I'd almost rather see part of the foreground go to black, or suffer the washed-out sky. The software HDR solution doesn't look natural to my eyes.
Yeah, I'm going to have to say here that there's no accounting for taste. You're right that the light was just too harsh that day. But I was trying to go for a more "painterly" effect there. "Fake looking" was ok for that picture, because I wasn't trying to make it "photorealistic."
flickr.com/photos/ke9tv/6235916957/ and flickr.com/photos/ke9tv/6236431774 are even worse offenders along those lines, but I keep them up on Flickr because my wife loves them.
AnotherKevin wrote:
AT Lt: If you don't want your phone messaging you, come up to the ADKs. There are no cell towers in the park, so nearly no service. (And the park is larger in land area than Massachusetts.)
max.patch wrote:
i just take the picture that God put in front of me. who am i to try to improve on what He created?