*OFFICIAL* general photography conversation thread

[Weebl]

Dave,
Makes me want to abuse my BH account. :/

It doesn't have to be the Burton but anything with a waist strap to put the weight on your hips also. The Burton is very well made, I am a fan of Oakley and it is as well made as those. I have the 26L and if you visit your daughter there is a store there or in Berkeley. I doubt the 500 will fit but a body or two with 3 lenses and other travel equipment plus a tripod will work with them.
https://www.burton.com/us/en/backpac...&sz=24&start=0

[druu]

Been a while, but that i've now returned from my wedding/honeymoon, I can probably start sharing photos again. More importantly though, I've picked up an x-pro2 and a 5D4 (getting rid of other gear though has been a little bit heartbreaking).

[dcstep]

Originally Posted by druu

Been a while, but that i've now returned from my wedding/honeymoon, I can probably start sharing photos again. More importantly though, I've picked up an x-pro2 and a 5D4 (getting rid of other gear though has been a little bit heartbreaking).

Congrats!

You'll love the MkIV.

Ready for pix...

[ddk632]

Just picked up DXO 11 Elite to add to my workflow for especially noisy shots. Going to be doing some research for tips and tutorials.

dcstep I know you are a big proponent of this software, which was a large part of my decision to buy it. Definitely would love to hear your thoughts.

If anyone has any links to useful/good DXO 11 tutorials (right now I am mainly interested in using the NR in the best way possible, to process my Milky Way shot from Death Valley). It just seems like Lightroom is butchering it no matter what I do, so I am hoping the NR in DXO 11 is going to do some magic for me in this regard.

I still plan to use Lightroom for organization and all the other stuff, so any tips on best ways to combine both LR and DXO in one workflow are also welcome.

[dcstep]

Dmitriy, I think you'll love DxO's PRIME noise reduction. I leave the Chrominescence on 100%, since it doesn't crush detail at all. For Luminescence on things with fur and feathers, I pull it down to 30. The Default is a little high and does tend to blur detail. I also raise MicroContrast to around 30 when using PRIME. For things where micro detail is not so important, I leave it up at the Default.

I don't remember if you shoot Canon or not, but I do. For long-exposure night shots, I do use the in-camera noise reduction. It doubles the time that it takes for each shot, because it takes a second image with the shutter closed and then subtracts the resulting noise from the first shot. Since most of the light is point-source, being heavy handed with Luminescence has no major penalty.

If you want to keep LR as your base processor, Export to DxO, turn off all other adjustments, apply NR and MicroContrast, convert to TIFF and then send it back to LR for final processing.

While we're talking about complicating our lives, I've bought a software called Piccure+. Like PRIME, it does a pixel-by-pixel analysis for purposes of Sharpening, correcting for lens distortions and micro-movement of the camera. I posted examples here:

http://www.m3post.com/forums/showthr...ccure&page=426
Panes 9361 and 9362. Maybe I should added it to this thread. (I did, it's in the next Pane).

Anyway, it is the best sharpening tool that I've found. That example that I posted had tons of movement. No way that any software could get rid of all that subject-movement, but the improvement is dramatic. Looking at less flawed images at 200% and more, it's really impressive. I can't see halo or other artifacts in any image that I've used it on.

[dcstep]

Piccure+ testing:

Reprocessed Blackbird On Owl Shot by David Stephens, on Flickr

I tried the free 30-day trial of Piccure+ this weekend. My very first test was this red-wing blackbird attack on a great horned owl, from 2014. It was at ISO 1600, a low shutter speed (I'd been shooting perched owls in overcast light) and at a pretty great distance. Piccure overcomes camera/subject movement with a pixel-by-pixel analysis and sharpening.

No miracle happened, but a substantial improvement was rendered. I'll post the original in the next window for comparison.

Piccure+ is intuitive to use and relatively fast when used on a fast computer.

Original blackbird/owl shot for comparison:

Red-winged blackbird harasses Great Horned Owl by David Stephens, on Flickr

Here's a less flawed example:

With piccure+

Piccure Comparison by David Stephens, on Flickr

Without piccure+
(Sorry, I raised the level a little on the piccure+ example because I was going to print it):

He Sees Me by David Stephens, on Flickr

[ddk632]

Hey Dave,

Thanks for the info, appreciate it!

I do shoot Canon ... still have my pre-order 6D from 2012 which I love. I use the dark frame subtraction noise reduction feature; it makes no sense not to.

I'll check out Piccure+ also along with the other thread. Nice. Yeah LR is great but for more precise processing it does fall short.

Hoping to get a deep dive into DxO this weekend, so I am sure I'll have questions here and there and will post for the benefit of all

[dcstep]

Is anyone using either BackBlaze or CrashPlan for backing up multi-TB of image files?

If so, what was your upload experience for you initial archiving? I'm expecting weeks for 2 to 3-TB, but there's a big difference between 3-weeks and 3-months!

Also, I'm worried about the financial stability of these companies. The companies like Carbonite, Amazon, etc., with a lot of financial wherewithal, have severe limits on total storage usage. These smaller companies have unlimited plans and very competitive prices, but I wonder if they'll be around when it's time to recover files.

I'm beginning to think that putting a NAS drive at a friend's house and keeping one for them at my house is the way to get offsite backup that's reasonably reliable and reasonably cost-effective. Still, after initial load-up, cloud storage is very tempting.

[M_Six]

Yeah, multi-TB storage is rough especially if you're dealing with home internet service. My supposed upload speed is around 10Mb/s, but that only holds for a while and then I think the ISP starts throttling it down. A few files move up quickly, but then I can see a huge slow down in transfer speeds. My upload for the university is about the same initial level or 10Mb/s, but it will stay that way, so in the long run it's faster to upload than my home internet.

[dcstep]

Originally Posted by M_Six

Yeah, multi-TB storage is rough especially if you're dealing with home internet service. My supposed upload speed is around 10Mb/s, but that only holds for a while and then I think the ISP starts throttling it down. A few files move up quickly, but then I can see a huge slow down in transfer speeds. My upload for the university is about the same initial level or 10Mb/s, but it will stay that way, so in the long run it's faster to upload than my home internet.

I'm not sure where the throttling occurs, but it's a real pisser. I've got Comcast at home and Comcast Business at work, both are 10-mps whenever I do a speed test, but try uploading even 10-GB and it starts choking. 2-TB is going to take weeks. My pro-photographer friend as 48-TB!!! The pro-level cold storage, like Amazon S3, costs something like $3,600 PER MONTH for him. I suggested that he use both BackBlaze and CrashPlan with the expectation that one of them will go out of business. He can't afford to lose his life's work, but he can't afford $3,600 per month either. I think that rolling the dice is the way to go and then hedge your bets by using two services.

[M_Six]

I was playing around today with an app for the iPhone I bought from the Apple Store for $1.99. It's called Pro HDR X. It creates HDR images in your iPhone. I'm thinking it must take more than one shot, as you'll see a bit of ghosting in one of these images. It seems to work pretty well in extremely difficult situations, though.

Here I was standing in dark shadow shooting into the sun with the sun just barely behind the edge of the building. This is untouched out of my iPhone. Pretty impressive dynamic range.



This shot shows some ghosting in the trees and the legs of the students passing by, and it didn't handle the sky very well (created some noise), but the range isn't bad.



And here's another where I was in very dark shadows. No ghosting here, but nice dynamic range.



Not bad for a $2 app.

[dcstep]

It'd be interesting to see how those compare to raising Shadows in LR or DxO.

[M_Six]

I picked up an Apple TV 4 the other day and set up Flickr on it last night. It's very cool watching a slideshow of my images on a big screen. I'm surprised how sharp and vivid they look when viewed like that.

[dcstep]

Originally Posted by M_Six

I picked up an Apple TV 4 the other day and set up Flickr on it last night. It's very cool watching a slideshow of my images on a big screen. I'm surprised how sharp and vivid they look when viewed like that.

Will the new Apple TV now allow 4k viewing, or is it limited to 1080p? My older version wouldn't allow me to take full advantage of my 4k TV. (At the moment, I'm using a USB-3 thumb-drive for 4-k viewing.

Dave

[M_Six]

Apple TV 4 does not do 4K. Folks aren't happy about that, but it doesn't affect me as I don't have a 4K TV and likely won't for years to come. It's rumored that the Apple TV 5 will have 4K just because every other streaming TV device has it already.

[dcstep]

Originally Posted by M_Six

Apple TV 4 does not do 4K. Folks aren't happy about that, but it doesn't affect me as I don't have a 4K TV and likely won't for years to come. It's rumored that the Apple TV 5 will have 4K just because every other streaming TV device has it already.

I remember that my first Apple TV was 720p.

I don't understand why Apple often chooses to stay one or two-steps behind. Maybe the designers really do rule the engineers there. They design the box first and then if the latest technology won't fit in, too bad. Their boxes do look good.

[GoHokiesGo]

Have any of you guys had metal prints created before? (not metallic paper, but the actual sheet metal plots)

I have a few landscapes that I'd like to have large prints made from ~20x30 to 24x36 or so, but I can't decide on the finish to choose. They offer the glossy white surface they can print on or the translucent sheer finish where you see the metal a bit. I have a few samples prints from Bay Photo that were a couple years old, but I really can't decide on which surface finish to pick.

Costco even offers metal prints now too!

[dcstep]

Originally Posted by GoHokiesGo

Have any of you guys had metal prints created before? (not metallic paper, but the actual sheet metal plots)

I have a few landscapes that I'd like to have large prints made from ~20x30 to 24x36 or so, but I can't decide on the finish to choose. They offer the glossy white surface they can print on or the translucent sheer finish where you see the metal a bit. I have a few samples prints from Bay Photo that were a couple years old, but I really can't decide on which surface finish to pick.

Costco even offers metal prints now too!

Costco is great. I'm going to do my 2017 calendar there. However, I used BayPhoto for my metal print.

I was pleased with the color and detail, BUT when hung in a room with lots of exterior light, it was way too reflective. You had to stand in just the right place to view it and that place moved as the sun moved.

I have friends that love their metal prints. I prefer high quality luster paper or linen. If it'll be hung on an interior wall that doesn't get direct light, you may be okay. I'd suggest a small test to see what you think. In the end, it's a personal preference kind of thing.

Dave

[GoHokiesGo]

Bay Photo is who I was mainly planning to use, but it's definitely hard to pick which finish to use; I think that is the lab that SmugMug uses too, which makes it easy since they host my albums. After some digging the reviews for the metal prints from Costco are mixed, even though they do great for regular prints.

My fear is exactly what you describe - the metal prints pop really well which is the look I wanted for these shots, but reflections can be hard to work around. It's tough to see how a picture will turn out until you see if full size. I'm planning 1-2 large prints for our living room that are directly opposite two big windows, so lighting and reflections will definitely be a factor. They do have a few of the matte and satin options now, so I might have to lean towards one of those.

[ddk632]

Originally Posted by GoHokiesGo

Have any of you guys had metal prints created before? (not metallic paper, but the actual sheet metal plots)

I have a few landscapes that I'd like to have large prints made from ~20x30 to 24x36 or so, but I can't decide on the finish to choose. They offer the glossy white surface they can print on or the translucent sheer finish where you see the metal a bit. I have a few samples prints from Bay Photo that were a couple years old, but I really can't decide on which surface finish to pick.

Costco even offers metal prints now too!

I use BayPhoto for MetalPrints. For vivid landscapes, they look amazing. I prefer the glossy, but you can order a sample pack of five 12x8 MetalPrints which will give you each finish to see in person.

Not familiar with CostCo metal prints, but I love CostCo and will check it out too.

Edit: Just re-read and saw that you have some samples, so you probably already knew this

[dcstep]

If you've got a room with windows all along one side, I can almost guarantee that it'll be problematic to use metal. I don't like canvas, but some of the fine weave linen is spectacular. I've got a 50" print of the grand canyon on my office wall, on that kind of paper, and it blows everyone away.