What kind of dog is that in your avatar?
photos - Wilma surf, Seaside sand returning - 10/27/05
- Thread starter Kurt
- Start date
-
Trouble logging in? Send us a message with your username and/or email address for help.
Beach Runner said:
I think it is a Goldendoodle (Golden Poodle mix). It was mentioned in one of his other posts. Beautiful dog. :clap_1: We have a blonde one.
I see big surf all the time here, but to see the gulf with such an incredible picture is great too see. Thanks for yet another great photo!
KURT...YOU are the man! :clap_1:
KURT...YOU are the man! :clap_1:
Really awsome work Kurt! I guessing the Redfish Lake Sunset had some serious Photoshop work done to it. A filter efx here, a little change of color there, etc.etc. Can you post the before now that we've all seen the after? I realize this is like asking the magician to show his trick but not really. I'm even more impressed by the before and after. And if this happend naturally? .... you're one lucky guy to have been there for just that moment.
Just beautiful. Nicely captured. :clap_1:
Thanks. I've never seen a black one.wetwilly said:
Thanks Kurt, lovely photos!
Shutters said:
Thanks for all the compliments everyone.
No filters or color changes were applied. I do very little to the images I post or print. Maybe one day I'll have the time to "play" around more and even try combining images and such.
I shoot RAW files, which means I am able to adjust exposure, tonal values, white balance, etc. on the computer, instead of letting the camera do it for me. When processing an image I am relying on what the camera saw and recorded, and my memory of the event.
A camera processing data to write a jpeg file has to make decisions and compromises I don't want it to. Still, you can capture very good jpeg images and manipulate them later somewhat.
How many times have you taken a pic and then looked at the image later on a monitor, or a print, and it didn't look like what you saw when you shot the picture?
Last edited:
kurt said:
Kurt--re: "raw" files. Do you mean that your camera stores the image as an uncompressed filetype (.raw, presumably?), that you later compress into jpeg, or do you just mean you capture jpeg's with little to no effects or pre-processing? I've never heard of a .raw extension. But I get way too many "artifacts" (tiny dots) in my digital images right now, even when I capture at highest quality, and am searching for ways to eliminate them. (My Olympus is several years old, perhaps I just need more megapixels..? I don't believe I have an option for capturing them completely uncompressed.)
katie blue said:
While people focus too much on megapixels (resolution), there are thresholds for quality. You should be able to get a decent 8X10 print with 3 mp minimum.
Check out this Adobe pdf for info on Raw capture vs Jpeg. In even simpler terms, a Raw file is like a digital negative, and a jpeg is like a print or slide (all the info from the camera has been "processed" into an output).
In general, only serious amateurs or pros will bother shooting Raw. It takes more work on the back end and takes up about 10 times the storage. You also need a good bit of computer power to process files.