Photography Edit the RAW thread

[Wazzerphuk]

I think that's the one I have. Can't recall offhand but it's deffo a Hoya, and that prodcut rings a bell.

 

[Clown]

Deebs' nephew.

 

[caLLous]

I wouldn't crop it at all tbh. As a candid it works but I might argue that it is framed too tight as it is.

 

[Clown]

I have no problem with these sort of imperfections (cropped too tight, head got cut off, chin too close to edge) as sometimes it gives the picture some character. I even like the grain!

I might try a black and white. B&W saves everything. EVERYTHING.


Ah man, I can't unsee the blown out bit under his left eye in either edit now.

 

[old.user4556]

Pull the clarity slider down a bit to soften the micro contrast, works well with kids faces.

 

[Wazzerphuk]

That's one disgusting euphemism.

 

[Deebs]

Like it Clown

 

[old.user4556]

Ah man, I can't unsee the blown out bit under his left eye in either edit now.

Doesn't look blown to me?

If it looks blown on your monitor then it's probably not calibrated properly.

 

[Deebs]

Doesn't look blown to me?

If it looks blown on your monitor then it's probably not calibrated properly.

Big G, do you subscribe to putting UV filters on your lenses to protect them?

 

[old.user4556]

No, generally my lens is covered with filters anyway.

There's not really any harm though if you're concerned about damage to the front element and want piece of mind.

 

[Gumbo]

Anyone fancy having a go at this one? I froze my tits off last night to have my first go at nighttime photography If I've done it right, the picture should link to the Raw file. I've had a go at it in PS, but I lack the knowledge/skills/patience to get very far.

 

[old.user4556]

Here's a stab

 

[Gumbo]

That's awesome G, the colours are really punchy!

 

[Clown]

Don't really know. Meh.

 

[Gumbo]

Excellent Clowneh! Makes it look all 1960's horror movieish.

 

[Clown]

I remember when I had an exclamation mark after my name. I never did get around to spazzing out like mank! did

 

[Wazzerphuk]

I used to willingly have a ^ in it ffs.

 

[Ch3tan]

yeah swift cunt.

Fuck you both, at least I'm still l33t.

 

[caLLous]

Least Wazz is properly avatar'd up now. He was somebody else for a while there.

 

[Gumbo]

This is the best I can do, I took inspiration from G's treatment of the colour, and played with sliders till I could get as close as I could, then I tried to make the verticals more vertical. It was taken at 11mm so has quite a fish eye, and the church in reality sits on a level graveyard, but the lens makes it look like it's on a hill. Anyway,...

It's supposed to be clear here again at the weekend, so I might well head out again.

 

[old.user4556]

Yeah my main adjustments were for the distortion and the white balance. Correcting the distortion too much got rid of the sky too much.

 

[Gumbo]

I see what you mean, I have much to learn.

I was calculating the longest exposure I could do with the iso set to 100 and the aperture to f/22 to get the same result in terms of light gathered, and made it 33 minutes. I'm thinking of trying a similar shot, but with star trails if that would work. Anyone have some experience of trying that?

 

[caLLous]

You only need an exposure of a couple of minutes to get star trails. Obviously it depends how long you want the trails to be. I think I accidentally caught a shooting star or something once, there was minimal movement generally across the sky and just a big white line where *something* was moving across the frame.

 

[Gumbo]

Yeah I was thinking exagerrated long ones, but also with the low iso getting rid of as much noise as possible, and the different aperture making the depth of field massive too. It's really bloody hard to focus in the dark

 

[Wazzerphuk]

You only need an exposure of a couple of minutes to get star trails. Obviously it depends how long you want the trails to be. I think I accidentally caught a shooting star or something once, there was minimal movement generally across the sky and just a big white line where *something* was moving across the frame.

Spider ejaculate.

 

[old.user4556]

I see what you mean, I have much to learn.

I was calculating the longest exposure I could do with the iso set to 100 and the aperture to f/22 to get the same result in terms of light gathered, and made it 33 minutes. I'm thinking of trying a similar shot, but with star trails if that would work. Anyone have some experience of trying that?

Gumbo, if you're doing star trails the best way to do it is to take lots and lots of exposures of a few minutes each and then use a specialist piece of software to stack the exposures.

http://theamusing.com/photography/startrails.html/

Yeah I was thinking exagerrated long ones, but also with the low iso getting rid of as much noise as possible, and the different aperture making the depth of field massive too. It's really bloody hard to focus in the dark

With the Tokina 11-16mm, the depth of field is so huge at 11mm that you can simply switch the lens into manual mode and pre-focus it using the markets on the lens itself. This is how I usually focus for my landscapes - set the focus point at 2 metres and then let the aperture take care of the depth of field itself. If you go down below f/3.4, then you need to be careful as the DoF will obviously shrink so you will need to set it to between 2m and infinity. For my star pics at f/2.8, I set the lens to just shy of infinity to ensure that the DoF is sufficient.

Don't be squinting through the viewfinder trying to focus in the dark .

http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html

There is an app for the iPhone to calculate DoF, great wee tool.

 

[Clown]

30 seconds gets a star trail. It isn't very long but it's there. G man has already said it but you're better off stacking multiple exposures.

 

[Deebs]

Don't really know. Meh.

View attachment 7962

Any post processing done on this image? Btw, fucking awesome.

 

[Clown]

Did you forget what thread you were in old man?

 

[Deebs]

Did you forget what thread you were in old man?

Indeed I did, what post processing did you perform? (cunt)