Big Blue Huddle

I posted the wrong finished picture.  The final is the one below where I whitened the adults teeth and removed a red mark on the fathers face.

Gentlemen, I haven't posted in a while to to this thread as I have been busy working in lightroom and Photoshop.  So here goes some of that  work.

This image of a lighthouse with the sun directly behind it bother me.  I knew that I wanted to remove the windmill and some of the artifacts next to the Lighthouse.  So I used it as an example in a workshop that I attend once a month and opened it up for ideas about how to improve it. One of the suggestions was to make it vertical or portrait which I did and I think it looks much better in the second photo below.  Notice that the windmill and the garbage on the island is now gone.


vertical orientation and cleaned up photo.


These photos were were taken at my nephews 4th birthday party on a pirate ship.  I had two phots were one of the boys looked good and the another photo where the other boy look good.  I'm sure we have all come across this situation.  I took both phots and opened them as layers in Photoshop, masked out all but one of the people in the picture and came up with a decent picture of both kids.  Because you and the subjects will move between photos I had to align both photo before I did this.  This is not done as I'm going to replace the sky with a new Adobe tool for sky replacement that is coming out in the next few weeks. When I do it I will post the new photo.

The kid on the left looks good.


The one on the right looks good.


Replacement image.


There are some things wrong with the replacement.  See if you can identify it.

Quote from: Giant Jim on May 09, 2020, 12:26:40 PM
Cleveland/Los Angeles Rams-The Cleveland Rams started out playing in what is known as the second American Football League in 1936. The first American Football League was organized by C. C. Pyle featuring Red Grange in 1926 and folded after one season. The Rams were scheduled to play for their league's championship that first season against the Boston Shamrocks. Boston's owner never paid the Rams for their regular season game earlier in Boston and also hadn't paid his players for several games. The Shamrock players refused to travel to Cleveland without being paid the money owed to them. Boston's owner announced to the press the game was canceled because of the weather without consulting with the league or the Rams. The Shamrocks were awarded the league championship due to their higher winning percentage. The game would've made the season profitable for the Rams. The Rams, feeling betrayed by Boston and the league, announced they were leaving the league and started negotiations to join the NFL. The NFL had been playing with an odd number(9) of teams for a few years, and Joe Carr, the commissioner, wanted a tenth team to have an even schedule. The Rams had the 2nd best winning percentage and were in better financial condition than most of the AFL. The Cleveland Rams were chosen and joined the NFL in 1937. After losing the Rams, the 2nd AFL folded before the end of its 2nd season.

Side note- The league wouldn't allow the Rams to move to Los Angles or Dallas until they threatened to leave the NFL. In 1945, as league champions, the NFL was afraid they'd join the AAFC which was starting its first season in 1946, giving the new league instant credibility so they allowed the Rams to move to prevent them from joining the new league.

Jim, great thread.  The movement of the Rams to LA led to the league integration of African American players to the objections of the Washington owner George Preston Marshal who was know to be a racist.  Apparently the Rams were going to play their games in the LA Coliseum which was owned by the city.  The city wouldn't let them play there unless they integrated their team.  As they say, the rest is history.

Great shots of the covered bridge Ozzie.

Quote from: LennG on August 11, 2020, 04:57:39 PM
It is truly amazing what you can do Frank,
Serious kudos to you.

thank you Lenn.

Worked on this photo taken on 1/21/20 at 2:54 at Broadkill Beach which is on the Delaware River bay.  The first is is the original or before and the second was after I worked on it in Lightroom.  The picture was taken in the raw format so all of the pixels were as recorded by the camera. As part of my workflow I tweaked the white balance or temperature, tint, vibrance and exposure.  This first set of steps ensure that you have the right exposure.  I also adjusted the exposure for the green channel.  The next step is to adjust the color to bring them out so that it looks more like what I saw.  I calibrated the red, blue, and green pixels to allow the next step of adjusting the colors work better.  I then adjusted the horizon where the water meets the Jersey shore across the bay.  If you look it is now more of a straight line.  I then used a graduated filter that allows me to address a portion of the photo only.  This allows me to target specific area for Hue or color, saturation or the intensity of the color and the luminance or the brightness of the color.  This method allows me to address one color while not affecting another.  At a certain point I leave the picture for a few days and them will come back to see if any other adjustments might be needed.  That's where I am now.

take a close look at the horizon line in each photo.

Before


After

Lenn, who has it better?  You have a cold shocking look on you with your feet in the water.  I really enjoy catching up with both you and your better half when you guys come down.  I really enjoyed this past January when you and your wife and Tim (T200) and his wife and my wife, my son and I were able to have dinner together.

Quote from: LennG on August 09, 2020, 02:15:11 PM
I agree Frank, but I would attribute the decline in these cameras with the fact that phones and tablets have improved so much. For the average picture takers, a good phone will do the trick, They take remarkable pix when you consider people are using their phones. AND as the dinosaurs like us leave this planet, do we really think the younger gneration will spend the money on these type of cameras, unless they are truly serious into photography. There will always be a market for 'real' cameras' but it will get less and less as phones improve more and more.
When I ask some one to take a pix of me and the missus, I always look for someone with what I call a 'real' camera and not a phone. When I take pix I always look thru the eyepiece, as I'm sure you do also,. I have seen some people I have asked before, to take a pix of us, looking at the screen, not understanding that they have to look thru the eye piece and not even knowing where to look.
That's why I usually carry a tripod with me.

Lenn, I feel that the cell phone camera is the perfect camera for the portion of the public that doesn't want to get into or understand the art and science of camera.  They get a phone and they don't have to buy a camera.  It makes perfect sense to me.  I could go into the differences but it doesn't make any sense to do so.  I like to print my better photos.  To me it is more of what I like to do.  If you print the quality of the picture matters.  If you post online like here or on social media then the resolution isn't as important.  The point is cameras are becoming a smaller specialty consumer product industry and the players are going to be fewer and fewer.  In my opinion, less competition results in higher prices and less innovation which is bad for the consumer.

Quote from: LennG on August 09, 2020, 12:32:32 PM
Interesting about SONY. The only problem I see with that is you would have to use it as a secondary camera or go out and start buying a stock of lenses for it. I seriously doubt they would make a camera with an adapter to use other manufacturers lenses? That's why I stayed with a Canon, even when I went in for a Nikon, because I had a slew of lenses for a Canon and the money saved, there would be minimal difference between the Nikon and the Canon.

You are correct about the Nikon and Canon brand and the fact that there are millions of users of each brand that have lens and other accessories that users will not want to change because of the cost.  I fall under that category.  Keep in mind, the lens mount is different for a DSLR and a mirrorless so much of the old lens will no longer be transferable without an adapter and people might not want to go that route.

I currently have 3 lens' that fit the nikon f mount.  I've already looked into a trade in for my D7200 camera ($380) and ($615) for a Sigma 150-600 mm lens.  Thats close to $1000 to be applied to my next camera.  The Sony A7R II camera body can be bought for $1,398 today.  I've been looking at a Tamron 28-75 mm f2.8 for between $750 to $850.  Changing moves me to not only the mirrorless body but also to a full frame system.  I'm waiting for the holidays when camera companies have special sales.  If the price is right I might make the move. 

The camera market is shrinking for both Nikon and Canon but more so nikon as Canon has other businesses that can pump up the bottom line.  Nikon might not have any other alternative but to sell or merge their brand with another company.  Don't be surprised if you see a take over of Nikon by a company like Samsung.  Either way I don't see Nikon as a viable player in the camera market for much longer.  They are projected to be in the red for this year before the pandemic and who knows where there future now lies.  Out of the top 3 of Canon, Nikon and Sony it is Sony with its diversified business lines that can absorb a shrinking camera market and stay viable.

One last thought, the first thing that a company that is in the red does is cut cost and that normally translates into cutting staff and also R&D.  If you cut these two things you decrease your chances of coming out with new and creative ideas that allow you to catch up or move ahead of your competition.

One thing further if anyone is looking at buying a camera or any gear for that matter be it lens', flashes, tripods or whatever let's discuss it.  Someone here might have a different perspective about it.  For example, I purchased a used nikon D5300 around 2017 through Amazon.  Loved the camera did great with it but I saw a deal for the Nikon D7200 which was a significant upgrade from the D5300.  Nikon was closing out the D7200 and had placed a significant reduction on it's price.  I went to MPB which is a reputable company that deals with buying and selling of used equipment.  They gave me a quote on the D5300 that was good so off went the camera along with an old D60 that I had.  They examined it and found the sensor to be scratched which meant that the camera was worthless.  They took the D60 off my hands at a decent price but not the D5300.  I believe that the camera sensor was scratched when I got it used through Amazon but can't prove it.  It was one of those secondary companies that Amazon deals with where you think you are buying online from Amazon but you are not dealing with them directly.  From now on I only deal with 2 companies for cameras, B&H Photo and Adorama the official camera store of the NY Giants.  The D7200 was new when I got it from B&H and was under warranty when I got it.

Buyer beware.  I say all this because if someone here is planing on investing in something that cost a lot maybe someone here has had dealings with whomever and could help and guide in the correct direction.  Also, we may have experience with buying certain products and can help so if anyone needs any advice please feel free to raise any questions you may have.

By the way this has not stopped me from looking at equipment.  I just got new flash equipment and will be working with that to learn the use of it.  Just another fun thing to do.  Also, going forward I will be looking to get into full frame mirrorless cameras and may even make a switch to a Sony which is considered to be the best of mirrorless.  In the next 5 years most pros and hobbyist will have moved to mirrorless it is not will but when they will make the switch.  What can be done with the newer cameras are remarkable and Sony right now has at least a two year advantage over Nikon and Cannon.  The Sony auto focus system is some of the most remarkable camera equipment out there.  Nikon and Cannon are hurting.  They lost out on the low end camera market when the cell phone moved in and took over that part of the market and when Sony came out with the advancements in mirrorless that was another area they lost.  There market is being cut at both ends and they may have nowhere to go.

Quote from: Jim143 on August 08, 2020, 08:18:52 AM
I know the digital world has changed photography a lot.  In the film based world, when I was shooting track meets or anything fast, I would use a faster speed film.  In High School, all I knew was 400 iso.  I have some good pictures of me pole vaulting (a friend who is now a professional photographer used my camera).  I wish is still had it, but last day of senior year for the class two grades ahead of me, some of the guys with muscle cars decided to smoke the tires in the parking lot.  I had a great black and white photo of an old GTO, smoke billowing off the back tires, yet the speed of the film stopped the tires to where you could read the white lettering on the tires.

In Japan, I learned that FujiFilm made 800 iso and I learned you could "push" it at higher speeds.  I ran 800 iso, pushed to 1200 iso for Air Shows.  Those were some great pictures that I wish I could find.  They are in a box somewhere in the house.  For closeups and portraits, 100 or 200 iso was the best.

So, my question - in the digital world, can you change the iso or does that even exist anymore?  I am wondering because in the film world, I would push the iso for a clearer photo on the surfer.  This is in NO way a slam on the picture.  I know how hard it is to capture a moving target.  And the distance from the shore to the wave, and him moving quickly, those are good pictures.

When I first started ISO was know as ASA or (American Standards Association).  That changed to ISO (International Standards Organization) in 1987. 

To understand ISO you really need to understand the exposure triangle.  There are 3 parts to the photographic exposure triangle Aperture, shutter speed and ISO.

Aperture is the opening of the lens.  The larger the aperture the more light is let in however,  you sacrifice depth of field (DOF) or the area of the picture that is in focus with a larger aperture lens opening.  The smaller the opening the greater the greater the DOF.  If you open the aperture you can create an effect know as bokeh which is the blurring of the background.  This helps you to direct the viewer to look at a subject that is closer to you such as a person.  If you open or close the aperture to the maximum you may see out of focus pictures in the 4 corners while the center may be in focus.  As you look to the center of the picture it should be more in focus.  Move the aperture to the middle f stops of say f8 or f11 and the edges becomes more in focus.  These f stops are the sweet spot of the lens.

Shutter speed is speed at which you expose the sensor to light.  The faster the shutter means less light but you can then freeze action.  The slower the shutter means more light but action will be blurred like the picture of the surfer that I shot.  That was shot at 1/13 of a second while it should have been between 1/500 and 1/1000 of a second at a minimum.

Now for ISO.  You can set the ISO to whatever you choose just like your film with an ISO of 400 or pushed to 800.  Contrary to some thoughts ISO doesn't allow more or less light onto the sensor.  Instead it changes the sensitivity of the sensor and how it reads the light and adjust but the same amount of light is hitting the sensor based on the aperture and shutter.  The higher the number the more sensitive which means the less light you need to get detail in shadows.  With film, the lower ISO rating meant that the film acetate were very fine, thus producing a smoother, cleaner image. A higher ISO had larger, jagged grains, thus producing

Quote from: LennG on August 07, 2020, 12:12:27 PM
Frank

I am with Ozzie on this, I LOVE the surfer pix. Just looking at it shows action color and just sets the mood. Do you have what the original looked like before you made it what it is? Just curious and I am simply amazed what one can do with pics with software and knowledge.

Lenn, I've attached the original picture below (surfer not cropped).  I wasn't happy with the results but it was a learning experience.  When listening and talking to experienced photographers they all say that they take a lot and out of many they may get only 4 maybe 5 that they are happy with.  One man that I respect as a photographer a lot in the camera club that I belong to told me that he went on a  photographic trip to Alaska last year and of 6,000 pictures that he took he had a handful, maybe 4 or 5 at the most that he liked.

Let's say on a shoot where I take say 500 pictures the first thing that I do after loading them into Lightroom is rate each photo with a 5 star rating system.  One and two stars being bad, 3 star is worth a second look while 4 is worth working on with Lightroom.  One and two star are deleted.  I almost never get a 5 star photo.  The fishing boat is a good example of a 5 star photo.  Very rare.  The sunset photo above was a 4 star.

Surfer not cropped (3 star).


This is the first picture in a series (3 star). 


This is a second (3 star).


Wipe out (4 star).

I removed the lights in the background on both sides on the horizon line and if you look closely on the left side of the horizon line you will see that a building was removed.  This was all done in Lightroom.  The items on the railing will need to be removed in Photoshop as it requires the use of some content aware tools that are pretty sophisticated.

Lightroom Changes

Here are two taken on the same day.  I went to one of the state parks on 3/28/2019 to capture a sunset by an inlet with my new Nikon D7200 camera.  When I got to the park there were a group of surfers on the Atlantic Ocean side.  I was so excited that I had this opportunity to capture action shots with the new camera and a 150-600 mm Sigma lens that I forgot to reset my exposure settings to accommodate the motion so some really good shots turned out to be really bad.  The picture of the surfer was one that I was able to salvage.  I don't think that I will make the mistake again but one never knows.  I did get some good shots of the sunset.  I think I took over 500 pictures of which I whittled it down to about 200 and then down to about 10.  I couldn't do much in post processing with the surfer but I was able to work on the sunset and pop the colors a bit.  By the way I'm not finished with the sunset photo there are some lights in the right side of the horizon line that I want to remove and along the railing there are some things on it that I don't think adds to the photo so I'm thinking of removing them.

surfer


Sunset

Lenn, the shot with the natural arch is famous with many photographers taken its picture.  Two ways to take in the full arch the first is to use a wide angle lens with a crop sensor you will need something around 20 MM wide or you can do it the less expensive way by just stepping back until you get the whole arch in the frame.  The second option will only work if there is no clif behind you.  Make sure to look.

If you want you can email me the lighthouse picture and a few of the small harbor pictures and I'll see what I can do.