• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by morpheme

  1. The CMYK printing process is actually quite a bit more limited than your screen is, as far as dynamic range and number of colors that can actually be reproduced goes. Using the proofing setup tools in your editing software can help, but only if your screen is well calibrated. You can still use them in a limited way without investing in a piece of professional calibration equipment - but you'll need to go into it with an understanding that your results won't be as finely tuned as they could be, and realize that the prints won't look exactly like your screen image so adjust your mental image accordingly when making changes (like know that your prints always run a hint magenta and adjust for it even if the screen image looks fine).... I probably wouldn't be any better at explaining the step by step process than the hundreds of tutorials already out there... so I won't go into specifics, but you can find tons of information already on the web about how to prepare an image for printing.
  2. There are a number of things that this could be... try taking the lens off and reseating it. If the camera thinks there is no lens mounted (and it's not set to "shoot without lens") it won't fire but this is only the first thing that comes to mind.. you could also take the battery out or reset all the settings to default and see what happens
  3. Lol.. perhaps I should have worded that differently - I totally agree with you and my old prof - just sitting around patting one another on the back has little point and I still "suffer" from his influence, as I choose to not engage in it. If I see something that I really, truly like and truly impresses me, I will comment, but in general I don't say anything because I don't want to engage in superficiality and know that critique is generally unwelcome. And really that's fine - not everyone needs to want critique - if you are just taking photos to make yourself happy and they do that's reasonable and what I or anyone else thinks is completely superfluous. Ah but then - if you go out of your way to solicit comments and then blow up if they are not all simply oozing and fawning over your PRIZE WINNING PHOTO, that is a totally different story. To the OP - if you are still around, I was one of the people who looked at your post when it was first up and yes, I did not comment, mainly because the subject matter holds little interest for me. Cars and car racing simply isn't a particularly interesting subject to me, but the performance of the lens and camera combination can apply to other things that move, so I did indeed browse through your post. You want to know my honest opinion? Your photos seemed fine, but nothing in there made me, a person who has no interest or expertise in cars, go oh wow, that is an awesome photo that I might want to hang on my wall, kind of thing, but I have no idea, a car person might like to and further more you did say that it was a shoot for pay - I also work as a photographer and while I do always most certainly try to provide my client with the best possible image, it's not like I expect every photograph to win an award or wow anyone. Most of them are pretty mundane to tell you the truth, but they do exactly what they need to, which in my field is to document a medical condition accurately and be of a quality that they can provide actual useful information should they be used for education, research and/or publication. Well.. sometimes they might wow someone who knows what they are looking at... but for other, probably most, people it's more often than not something they'd actually rather not look at... I am also a bit of a mycophile- I have an real interest in mushrooms. I have some pretty cool photos of some of them too, but honestly I don't expect people who have little to no interest in fungi to take any great appreciation of them..
  4. For myself, I'll freely admit that I comment rarely on other people's work. I find that few folks actually want any real critique and to this day I'm still suffering the influence of a professor who wouldn't allow the class to just sit around and say nice but meaningless things about other people's work. One of the few times I did offer some criticism (not here.. on a different site that focuses on nature and skews towards the scientific end of things) I dared to suggest that I preferred unaltered images of animals in the wild when some debate came up about a specific photo. Attacked about why I would say that I explained that the replaced sky was not unnoticeable as it didn't match the subject lighting, the clipping around the subject was less than perfect and the subject had been photographed at a much higher ISO than the background, and so had significantly more noise. I was subjected to insults and personal attacks until the person was booted from the site. Fine done..
  5. I noticed recently and in the past that some people post to sites like the National Geographic "Your Shot" and similar sites. I was looking it over again today and I was reminded that the license agreement has really quite put me off... you hereby grant to National Geographic and our NG Affiliates, licensees, assignees, and authorized users, a worldwide, perpetual, irrevocable, non-exclusive, fully-paid and royalty-free, freely sublicensable and transferable (in whole or in part) right (including any moral rights) and license to use, modify, excerpt, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works.... and it goes on...the ending bit pretty much says they can do it without notifying you as well... to me that is a bit of a road too far and signing away way too much. I like to share, but steer clear from sites that have agreements that are that broad. I even steer clear of most Flickr groups that posting to is an agreement for reuse, except for one of the bird groups that allows them to use images on Cornell's all about birds site. I'm OK with that and the agreement is limited to just them - none of this freely sublicense stuff... How do you all feel about it? Do you submit to many sharing sites, do you read licensing agreements - do you care?
  6. I'm glad I'm not the only one that this bothers. I do think that some of these sites take advantage of amateurs who are eager to share and are looking for affirmation. I would bet that it is not super uncommon that people don't even really know about what rights they have to their own works, so signing them away doesn't even really have much meaning to them.... I think it does bother me even more that it is National Geographic... they are such a household name that it excites people to be able to talk about having their images there... it bothers me too that enticing people who are talented amateurs like that creates a situation wherein these people who in the past might have been offered money for their work and become a professional now think it to be perfectly normal to give their work away for the sake of a lot of "likes".... not to mention undermining the people who already are professionals. I hadn't even thought about the contest angle. I rarely enter them and have certainly never paid to enter anything. That sounds even sneakier... like getting people to pay for the privilege of losing the rights to their own photos...
  7. Found this lovely raptor just outside my house. I was actually sitting in the living room near a big window and saw white flakes floating down out of the sky. At first I though SNOW! - but it's not cold enough, so I quickly realized they were way too big to be snow flakes and were in fact feathers. I found this lovely juvenile hawk having a meal of pigeon in a tree. I was super lucky - the sun broke out of the clouds and the bird gave me a perfect pose for a few seconds.
  8. thanks - I feel so lucky. I was going to go down to a park for a while today, but staying home probably got me something way better.
  9. lol - we went down for a wedding, but we'd never been there, so we stayed a few extra days. It's was a nice get away, but I really love living in Seattle.
  10. Thanks for upping the size for gallery photos. Most of mine were almost all about 1/2 mb over the limit before, but now even sized down stiched panos can be small enough.
  11. sunset behind the golden gate bridge
  12. I think this was pretty high surf for the area, if you look very closely you can see little black dots that are surfers catching the wave coming around the point at the fort
  13. Apparently yes- grabbing the short form of the link (the option Flickr calls "share") and pasting it hot links the image right in. Doesn't look like it works from Google though? It looks like this in it's text form (without the space of course) h ttps://
  14. testing.. "BB code" [url=][img][/img][/url][url=]_DSF9252[/url] by [url=]jiggumbob[/url], on Flickr vs "embed" <a data-flickr-embed="true" href="" title="_DSF9313"><img src="" width="1067" height="1600" alt="_DSF9313"></a><script async src="//" charset="utf-8"></script> vs "share" aha! - I've been trying the embed code and the BB code, and those fail, but for whatever reason just pasting in the link works to hot link.
  15. I'm with Farrell. I rarely post images to the Gallery here because of the size limit. I generally downsize anything I post to the web relatively small, but my standard size that I use for Flickr and Jungle Dragon is still too big. Making yet another size just for this site isn't something I'm compelled to do on a regular basis. In the past I've had some problems getting the Flickr embed code to work right. Now it seems to be working fine though.
  16. You don't think the shadows don't have a magenta cast? Looks that way to me. It's not really strong, but I see it. I seem to recall on my XE-1 at least, there's a menu item that allows you to do some color shifting in the camera. I accidentally bumped it once and was wondering why all my RAW files were strangely blue... I'd check it out and see if you haven't got that set to give yourself a subtle magenta shift.
  17. I didn't delve too deeply into the web site, but I did look at the example photos they have on the front page (the ones with the before and after sliders). I can't say I'm off the bat deeply impressed that it has any capabilities beyond what I already have in Photoshop. They all just looked like he posted the RAWs (which tend to be kind of dull) vs an image that had basic cleanup done to it- tonality adjusted, saturation bumped and blue skies enhanced in the ones that had blue skies. - oh and the one with the temple looks like it had a not so great automatic removal of the guy on the far left done - it left some weird looking ghost behind. It looked like motion blur in the final image, but certainly didn't remove him completely or seamlessly. I'm not into the make my digital photo look like a photocopy/instamatic/Diana camera/etc. kind of thing, so that one, I preferred the before...
  18. Ha! That's just perfect for here - it's been raining and raining...
  19. How long to expose? Do you mean for different subject matter - like blurring clouds vs blurring a waterfall vs making the people disappear from a shot vs light trails at night? As with most things, it depends on the situation, the shot and the look you are going for. Some people prefer shorter exposures on water that just blur while other like a very long exposure that turns the water silky/smoky looking. The look you'll want for waves may be entirely different to what you like on a waterfall. Clouds - it'll depend on the atmospheric conditions and how fast they are rolling through the sky - experiment and you'll find what you like. Just remember - you never waste anything but a little time when you're working digital, so go ahead and play. Editing - this can stir up controversy.. I'll say this much. I'm an old fart and I figure it colors my view. I started back in the days of film and to me the idea that an image is supposed to be exactly right directly out of the camera is just a silly notion. If that had been true there'd have been no need to learn to process film and print, no need for differently graded papers, or zone system processing - everything could have gone to the commercial lab, been run through the machines and it would have been just right.... sure.... I treat a digital file like a negative and Photoshop like a film processing tank/enlarger. You want to print everything on number two paper, you better adjust your development. That I can do this with color now - awesome. Now I can pretty much use the zone system for every photograph without hauling around a view camera. Why wouldn't I edit? Now coming from a darkroom background I already knew all of the concepts, so I just had to learn how to apply them in a digital form. To me it's not that different, just a lot less messy. I don't smell like chemicals all of the time, no longer have an contact dermatitis on my hands and get more daylight than I used to. I occasionally miss it - working in a darkroom could be rather peaceful and meditative in a way, but on the whole I don't mind at all that I don't have to do it anymore.