Jackson Hole, Grand Teton National Park
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
I agree that the Carbonite upload takes forever, particularly the initial and after a photo trip, but the security offsite from my computer makes it worthwhile.I just bought WD My Book 4TB External Hard Drive Storage. Today, it will be used on a USB2 PC, and later, a USB3. After I move the images, I plan to get a Carbonite account, the one that backs up external drives. I'm guessing a new backup of an external drive with ~500GB of images, will day a few days, depending on fast Comcast's upload speed is that day(s)
I don't want to discourage you from using Carbonite, because it's a great service to have, but you should know they throttle uploads to 2-3 GB a day (at least they did when I did my initial backup). It took me months to get my computer initially backed up, and that was less than 400GB of data.
Natural looking HDR is just like dodging and burning a B&W print. You over expose the shadows and under expose the highlights. It's been done in the wet darkroom for decades.Agree. I use HDR quite often to expand dynamic range, but am sure to make it subtle. My complaint about HDR is the overuse of the sliders, resulting in a comic book look. It's the same problem I have with over-saturation, and over-sharpening that seems the norm too often.
Here too.Often. With limits.
.+! - thanks!
Thanks. That's helpful as I move toward deciding when to update.
hi guys,I've had a similar problem with my 6D. The images I take look dull when imported into Lightroom, and I've never had that issue with my 7D using the same processes. It's to the point I've been questioning the accuracy of the light meter in the camera.
was just interested to know, what sort of processing is the canon 6d (or rough equivalent) doing to the photos before it displays it on the lcd display?
i ask because i took a reference photo of a nice sky the other evening, there were some subtle colours that i wanted to remember.
i know i shouldnt rely onthe lcd screen for colours or anything like that but a quick glance never hurts, i remember being happy with what i saw ( just a simple Av setting 100mm f2)
i downloaded the file which was a raw image, which has everything zeroed, so photos need a bit of processing, but the image i got was almost grey compared to what i saw on the lcd screen.and i had to process the raw in lightroom to look like the image from the back of my camera,as it was what i wanted it to look like! which seems totally stupid lol ive attached the files.
just for reference and for comparison id love to know what sort of processing is applied for the lcd output ?
sometimes digital photography is so darn backward lol
( the first photo is the raw no processing turned into a small jpeg, the second is the procssed image to look like what i saw on back of lcd screen and more what the actual sky looked like )
Either way, put it on Post Your Bird Portraits...I wasn't kidding about the bird. Calibrated monitor? Oh, please. I see it in my iPhone. It looks like the silhouette of an accipiter, an American kestrel to be specific.
Oooh, could it be? I get a chance to correct Neuro on something not at all related to cameras? ;-)
Kestrels (Falco sparverius) are falcons- the only 3 accipiters in N.A. are the Northern Goshawk, Cooper's Hawk, and Sharp-shinned hawk.
My bad - thanks! Been a long day, starting too early. In fact, it probably looks most like a sharp-shinned anyway. The 'wings' are a little too big for a kestrel.
Fledgling Cooper's Hawk, relieving the boredom
That's a great shot. Nicely done.
+1 very nice shot.
Mail-in rebates?! WTF?!
Instant rebates or nothing.