photos - Wilma surf, Seaside sand returning - 10/27/05

[kurt]

;-) (http://www.sowal.com/photos-102705.html)

http://www.sowal.com/photos-102705.html

http://www.sowal.com/051024-grayton-048.jpg

[Mermaid]

Super photos, Kurt. The sea looks so blue! And I've never seen such high surf before. You'd think you were on the other coast from looking at that! And I'm glad we're not covered with high rises like PCB. :clap_1:

[RiverOtter]

Wow! :cool:

[Ocean Lover]

Thanks! Those are great! :clap_1:

[Paula]

Yup, those are great photos, as always. It's so nice to be able to see SoWal when I'm so far away (and when it's in the 40s here!)... But I'll be there in a few weeks to see the sand and surf myself (with friends). I hope the weather is at least in the 70s.

[iwishiwasthere]

The sunset at Redfish Lake was gorgeous! :clap_1: :clap_1: :clap_1: Thanks for sharing.

[Beach Runner]

Awesome! Thanks, Kurt.

[Miss Kitty]

The pic of Sunset at Redfish Lake looks like a different planet!

I overheard your name today!!! The person spoke very highly of your photographs and it was all I could do not to join in and agree!

[TooFarTampa]

WOW :blink: :D
http://www.sowal.com/_DSC5811.jpg

[skippertoo]

:bow: :bow:

[Beach Runner]

What kind of dog is that in your avatar?

[wetwilly]

What kind of dog is that in your avatar?

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.

[Waterman]

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:

[Shutters]

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.

[Smiling JOe]

Just beautiful. Nicely captured. :clap_1:

[Beach Runner]

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.
Thanks. I've never seen a black one.

[sarahj]

Thanks Kurt, lovely photos!

[kurt]

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.

Thanks for all the compliments everyone. :wub:

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?

[katie blue]

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.

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.)

[kurt]

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.)

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 (http://www.adobe.com/digitalimag/pdfs/understanding_digitalrawcapture.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.

[katie blue]

If only I had known. I did a backpacking trip through italy recently and got some great images...a gallery owner asked me to give her 5 of the prints for a show, but they had to look clean at 11x14 or larger...so no go due to the artifacts. Thanks Kurt, I learned something today. :clap_1:

[kurt]

If only I had known. I did a backpacking trip through italy recently and got some great images...a gallery owner asked me to give her 5 of the prints for a show, but they had to look clean at 11x14 or larger...so no go due to the artifacts. Thanks Kurt, I learned something today. :clap_1:

Try upsizing in Photoshop in 10% increments (110% in the resize dialog) multiple times using the bicubic smoother method until you get the desired size. Then sharpen as needed using smart sharpen (or unsharp mask).

While not optimal, you can get good results with a quality printer in the 150-200 dpi range instead of the normally desired 240-300 range. This keeps you from having to upsize as much.

[Shutters]

Kurt,

I remember reading about that when I first got a digital SLR and thought, "OK I'll get to that .... someday" Thanks, you've inspired me to try something new this weekend.

Time to RFM!