Any photographers in here?

[ChopstickHero]

I agree that every time you convert an image from one format to another you loose something in the translation. This is especially true if you are also compressing the image when converting, such as when you save as a JPEG. However, 100% quality JPEGs, saved/converted just one time, are equivilent in viewing and printing quality to TIFF which is a lossless format.

For those using CS2 to process RAW into something else, I would agree that PSD files are your best choice. However, since I use RawShooter: Essentials for my RAW processing I convert to the onyl common format, TIFF. This has the secondary advantage of being viewable on nearly any computer without further conversion. The downside, of course, is the poor handling of layers and the large file size.

Well in CS2, you don't even need to save your work as PSD. If you are using Adobe Raw convertor, the changes you are making to the RAW will save automatically as a settings file. you can take that setting and apply it to other images. But I do agree that if you are going to be doing more post processing, then PSD is the best option.

At work I sometimes get 400-500mb PSD or GeoTIFF files of high resolution orthophotos or other satellite imagery. They are fun to work on because you can see so much detail. but they take alot of processing, even on my PowerMAC.

 

[NVP5White]

At work I sometimes get 400-500mb PSD or GeoTIFF files of high resolution orthophotos or other satellite imagery. They are fun to work on because you can see so much detail. but they take alot of processing, even on my PowerMAC.

I wish I liked Macs...maybe if I had to use them at work. I really dig the new Intel-based Mac Pro. I just configured one on Apples site...$9400 bucks of batch processing heaven.

 

[jersey_emt]

I wish I liked Macs...maybe if I had to use them at work. I really dig the new Intel-based Mac Pro. I just configured one on Apples site...$9400 bucks of batch processing heaven.

I'm using a Intel iMac at my new job. First time I've actually used a Mac (for more than a few minutes in a store). I'm extremely impressed. When the new Intel Macs were announced, it perked my interest. I'd for a while toyed with the idea of converting to a Mac ever since OS X was released. Now that I've been using one for a few days, I consider myself converted. Everything just "feels" better. I plan on buying a MacBook Pro as soon as I can save up the cash to do so. I may even buy a Mac Mini for the time being.

 

[ChopstickHero]

i have a PowerMAC Dual G5 2.5ghz, 2GB ram ... very fast. dual monitors too. I actually work with a Windows machine and jump back and forth between them. OSX is definitely easier to use and find things. But I've been a Windows person (like everybody else) for my of my computing years. But if I had to buy a new machine tomorrow, it would be a Mac.

 

[G-Papi]

I'm an old school film guy who is just started learning the digital game a couple of years ago. You guys give good info on the technical aspects of working with Photoshop and the like.

One question and one observation here.

First, anybody know how to associate other files (like TIF, BMP, JPG) with Photoshop so that when they are initially opened they come up in the Photoshop application? I only know how to start the program, then open the image from the application, then do a "save as", then go back and reopen the new file. I know it can be done in Paintshop Pro, but I can't figure out how to do it in Photoshop.

Now for the observation, as an old school film guy, In the early days I spent a lot of time (and film) practising the business of framing and composing shots. There are a lot of good shots in this thread. Some could be improved with better framing and composition. I'd like to hear some of your thoughts on this, and the different variations on the rule(s) of threes.

Keep up the good work.

 

[ChopstickHero]

First, anybody know how to associate other files (like TIF, BMP, JPG) with Photoshop so that when they are initially opened they come up in the Photoshop application? I only know how to start the program, then open the image from the application, then do a "save as", then go back and reopen the new file. I know it can be done in Paintshop Pro, but I can't figure out how to do it in Photoshop.

Right-click on a file (TIF, BMP, JPG, etc) and select the "Open With" option in the menu. If there is no Adobe Photoshop program appearing in the list of programs, go to the "Choose Program" option. Choose Adobe Photoshop and then make sure the "Always use this selected program to open this file" check box is checked. It will default that file type to Photoshop.

Now for the observation, as an old school film guy, In the early days I spent a lot of time (and film) practising the business of framing and composing shots. There are a lot of good shots in this thread. Some could be improved with better framing and composition. I'd like to hear some of your thoughts on this, and the different variations on the rule(s) of threes.

Yeah, that is a basic fundamental of composition. Definitely something that you have to learn, practice and apply to your photography all the time. I find framing a little harder. Sometimes you just have to experiment to get the right framing.

 

[G-Papi]

Right-click on a file (TIF, BMP, JPG, etc) and select the "Open With" option in the menu. If there is no Adobe Photoshop program appearing in the list of programs, go to the "Choose Program" option. Choose Adobe Photoshop and then make sure the "Always use this selected program to open this file" check box is checked. It will default that file type to Photoshop.

Duhhh. . . Thanks

You'll never know how much time I spent in Program Preferences and Help trying to find out how to do that. And it isn't that I didn't know how to do that all along. My brain just never did make the association, I guess.

Much props to the use of Forums as a learning tool!!!

Thanks again!

 

[Jliao]

Don't think, just do it. This rule essentially applies to anything, but most importantly for ones that are considering switching to mac, you just got to do it. Bite the dust and go get yourself a mac and just dive right in to use it. The more you use it, the better it gets and easier it becomes. Eventually, you will find yourself becoming more productive with the tools available on macs and the organizations.

I recently switched from PC to Macbook Pro and I have to say I wll never go back to PC again. Although, I have Windows install on my MBP, but that mainly is use for gaming, which I do once every 3 months.

 

[Breeegz]

I'm an old school film guy who is just started learning the digital game a couple of years ago. You guys give good info on the technical aspects of working with Photoshop and the like.

Now for the observation, as an old school film guy, In the early days I spent a lot of time (and film) practising the business of framing and composing shots. There are a lot of good shots in this thread. Some could be improved with better framing and composition. I'd like to hear some of your thoughts on this, and the different variations on the rule(s) of threes.

Keep up the good work.

This is probably rule number one in landscapes, but I always try to shoot where the sky/land/object/ect take thirds horizontally...

This remeinded me of an ongoing discussion I have with my mother in law and her sister, both of whom use Film-SLR cameras. They are afraid after seeing what I can do with my digital camera that film will go extinct, I keep telling them that film will always be around (even if Walgreens stops carrying film) because film is an analog medium, and analog will always have greater quality that digital (take vinyl records vs mp3's for example). Is there any other reason that Film will be used over digital? I can think of a bunch of reasons for
Digital > Film

But I can only think of the one for
Film > Digital

any ideas?

 

[winty87]

^^Its a similar debate in Hollywood, some of the older directors,producers etc. that grew up with film are shooting film but may sometimes try digital because it is easier and somewhat crisper whereas the new guys are jumping straight into digital...

I could have asked for a digital from my parents but chose film because in my eyes its just cooler, easier and makes you focus more on whats being taken so you dont waste film. I was out shooting today with my friend and another guy and they have digital cameras and once they found something interesting they were just pressing that button like they had an epiplepsy, I guess its fine in some aspects to get numerous shots and possibly angles. But with my film I focused more on lighting, f/stop, and shutter speed. Film just makes you take a step back and say "Do I really want to take this picture." Atleast thats how it is to me because I dont want to waste money on pointless pictures.

 

[NVP5White]

its just cooler, easier and makes you focus more on whats being taken so you dont waste film. I was out shooting today with my friend and once they found something interesting they were just pressing that button like they had an epiplepsy, "Do I really want to take this picture." Atleast thats how it is to me because I dont want to waste money on pointless pictures.

I think you raise a very interesting and important point when considering digital. The high level of automation combined with the nearly free cost of taking an image makes epileptics of us all at times. But I think that any real photographer, a person who studies and practices the art of capturing life through a lens, is going to go through the thought process of composition, lighting, depth of field, etc. I do, but not because I have certain type of camera. But I also have to temper my desire to always capture a technically perfect image with the opportunity to take a great artistic image when the one is presented. This doesn't always afford the time necessary to work out all the details before snapping the shutter. And ask National Geographic photojournalists how many shots they take for a single assignment. For film it was around 10-20K frames. With digital it is around 40k images...for a single story!

To contrast, the ultimate scientist of modern photography was Ansel Adams. His Zone system and other tools he developed were both revolutionary and very accurate at a time when camera technology had barely advanced past the pinhole compared to today. But he also shot using 6x8 inch glass plates. He used a 60lb camera. He waited days or even weeks to get the right sun angle, the right atmospheric conditions to capture an image.

So somewhere along that continuum, from epileptic to Adams, you have to decide where you are. I'm closer to epileptic. That why I use simple tools like the rule of thirds which can help you place your subject properly in the frame while adding interest to the resulting image. I have been using this technique for so long that it is natural for me, so I don't spend a lot of time calculating composition. Plus with digital it is so easy to crop after the fact.

While this might make me less old-school I really dont put much weight behind one way of doing things or the other. I try many different things, based on mood, time of day, alignment of the stars, and stick with what works best. I suggest everyone do the same thing: trial and error until you get better. The key to this is number of shots. Kind of like when they say you have to hit 100K golf balls before you really develop the muscle memory to be a consistent player. The same thing applies with the photographic process, which ever one you use. You have to do it again and again until your mind decides whats best. That, and read a lot of forum posts on www.dpreview.com.

 

[NVP5White]

This is probably rule number one in landscapes, but I always try to shoot where the sky/land/object/ect take thirds horizontally...

because film is an analog medium, and analog will always have greater quality that digital (take vinyl records vs mp3's for example). Is there any other reason that Film will be used over digital? I can think of a bunch of reasons for Digital > Film

But I can only think of the one for
Film > Digital

Analog versus digital is really a debate about sampling rate in the limits of the human brain to differentiate. Get enough information about whats being played in digital and the braind can;t tall the difference between an LP and a digital recording.

The same goes for pictures on there is another criticle step in the process and that's the medium by which you view the pictures. If your looking online at 600x400 pixel images then you'd be hard pressed to tell the difference between digital and slide film that's been drum-scanned to digital at 600dpi.

 

[G-Papi]

My idea of good composition. Another that comes to mind when I find it.

 

[G-Papi]

Originally posted by Breegz

http://www.mazdas247.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=88813&stc=1&thumb=1

Another where I like the composition.

 

[ChopstickHero]

My idea of good composition. Another that comes to mind when I find it.

Thanks...

And I agree with winty87 about the "epileptic" shutter button action. Just because you can, doesn't mean you have to. I am very selective of my shots. i'm not one that shoots meaninglessly at a scene, hoping to get a good shot out of the series. the truck pictured above, if you believe it or not, was one shot. I didn't take multiple shots in that angle. I took a few shots around the truck, but at that angle and position, it was only one shot.

Having good composition techniques comes without thinking after doing it for a while. However, it's still nice to go against the grain sometimes and produce some shots that just look different. We are in the digital era and with all the tools that we have, it's possible to change the entire look of a photo quite easily. So one method of framing in the camera can dynamically change during post-processing. But again, just because you can, doesn't mean you have to.

 

[G-Papi]

With all the things that can be done after the photograph is shot, it's just so much nicer to have a good shot to begin with. Then all the editing potential is just icing on the cake.

 

[Breeegz]

With all the things that can be done after the photograph is shot, it's just so much nicer to have a good shot to begin with. Then all the editing potential is just icing on the cake.

true, sometimes you can "overdo" post processing and take away what made that picture so good in the first place.

 

[Breeegz]

any tips for taking night/starry/norther light pics?

I'm guessing the shutter speed set to bulb, but what about fstop? We have a forcast for extreme activity norther light action... I'm hoping to capture some.

 

[BeNegative]

 

[BradC]

Cute cat!!

Here are two shots playing around with my new 50 milly.