Jump to content

jeremypayne

Member
  • Content Count

    1197
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by jeremypayne

  1. Yeah ... the incremental back-ups would be trickier, but that would work.
  2. I use Acronis Home. Very fast ... and I've successfully restored from backup several times - usually to increase the capacity of my system drive. (Hey Jeff! ... been SUPER busy building a new business ... )
  3. Jeff ... I agree with Phil ... I think the safari shots work a bit better than the U/W ... although I love the humpback ... and on that one I might be tempted to clone out the two small fish and what looks like a few dust bunnies. These will look amazing on the right fine-art matte paper with the right framing and presentation.
  4. Hey! ;-) My current dream kit would be: - Canon s90 (or s95) - Fisheye Fix Housing - 2 X Inon S2000s - Fisheye Fix Super Wide Fisheye Port - Stacked Macro Adapters like the UCL 165s BTW ... I have been underwater since I saw you in St. Croix ... :-(
  5. I think strobe positioning could be your problem.
  6. Sorry ... bad advice. Why are you advising NOT to go past 1/250?
  7. I don't think it will ... why do you need faster sync underwater?
  8. Canon S90 would be about the smallest of which I am aware.
  9. I wasn't suggesting that you should have. My point was this: Lightroom 3 is equal to or better than Lightroom 2 If you were compare LR2 to LR3 in the same manner as your example, many would pick LR2 Therefore, the method has issues, IMO Jeff ... you aren't reading my posts ...
  10. RAW has no real defined color space ... some might argue that each camera has its own color space ... but that's a silly semantic argument ... Here is some good info: http://www.ppmag.com/reviews/200509_rodneycm.pdf http://www.ppmag.com/reviews/200510_rodneycm.pdf
  11. yup ... very knowledgeable and helpful.
  12. I had a YS-27dx and a YS-110. I had no trouble lighting macro at those settings ... This was shot with that exact setup at f/8 and 1/2500th and I think each strobe was at about 1/2 power - note the very dark water ... Here's a macro shot using my w/a settings - which I did because I wanted bright blue water ... ... and here's a w/a at the w/a setup ... strobes on full I think.
  13. After quite a bit of experimentation ... and some guidance from Cathy Church's staff, my starting points with the G9 were: MACRO - f/8 and 1/1000th (or even 1/2500th) for 'black' water W/A - f/5.6 and 1/125th always gave me nice blue water on sunny days
  14. Go back and read my original post ... my expectation is that all three converters in qualified hands would produce comparable results and you would most likely end up picking your poison based on feature set. Where the new LR excels relative to the old LR is with respect to noisy images. Images at base ISO on most DSLRs do not really show off what the new pipeline can deliver - the more noise, the more you see the impact of the improvement ... AND ... on top of that ... at defaults, the new pipeline often looks worse - but what you can ultimately achieve in your raw conversion is FAR superior. Comparing LR 2.x to LR3.0 in the manner you did would likely convince some that the LR 2 engine was better - which is just not the case. That's why I think comparing at default settings that aren't truly comparable and merely arbitrary starting points is often misleading ...
  15. All processing is "manipulation"; I'm not sure I understand what is so special about the manufacturer defaults ... at least with LR, they aren't supposed to "the best" ... just a fairly neutral starting point. My final settings are no more or less a manipulation than the default default - which I personally haven't used since the 1.0 Beta ... I have defaults per camera ... and per ISO ... that I created, not adobe ... and they are quite flat with linear TRC and varying degrees of sharpening and NR based on ISO and camera. But heck ... if you don't want to see what LR can do ... you don't want to see what LR can do ...
  16. Post the RAW file and I'll do my best with LR3 ... and you do your best with Aperture and NX2 and then we can compare ...
  17. I don't see the point in comparing these applications at their default default settings ... I think the only fair comparison of converters involves getting the best you can out of each and comparing those results - which itself is quite subjective. When you do that, you see that they all can produce nice images ... and you are left comparing feature sets.
  18. Can it remote desktop to a windows machine?
  19. LR has that same kind of thing for a whole bunch of adjustments ... from sharpening to clarity to exposure, etc. ... with a very cool optional auto-masking feature ... but NR is still global at this point.
  20. Nah - you'd have to make a round trip to photoshop to selectively apply it. As far as how good it is ... it seems about as good as Define to my eye - which I like.
  21. I think the key is lots of diving ... I'm sure there are things you can do with your equipment, but if you are new, then nothing is gonna help like practice ... I've spent lots of dives simply practicing movement and buoyancy for photography with my camera topside. One thing I found helpful once was a bit of leg weight ... I dove a few times with one lb weights around my ankles and I kinda liked it ...
  22. Here's what changed, as I have been lead to understand and have gathered from lots of playing ... A) The demosaicing algorithm has been re-written ... with the most notable change being the removal of some 'hidden' noise reduction from this step - resulting in sharper, but noisier starting point B) The color noise reduction was VASTLY improved C) The luminance NR was improved, too D) The sharpening is basically the same, but given A, B, C it works differently at the same slider values - you need less all else equal E) The combination of A, B, C seem to make the recovery slider work more effectively, although that could be a direct improvement and not a knock-on
×
×
  • Create New...