Welcome to the IHoP v.2

[dem beats 1,223]

BTW,

Don't sell yourself short. Your shots are beautiful.

What was you focal length?

[dem beats 1,223]

The ARE great shots.

[dem beats 1,223]

Fooooooooook. Need to sleep.

Nighthop

[Tirefryr 1,742]

No can sleep.  Fuck this!

[ssh 924]

I would have LOVED some blue sky I suppose there is a way to fix that in photoshop, but I pretty much shoot pictures and don't dick with them outside of a white balance fix here and there.

Get Lightroom. 900 times more useful for us. Nothing to learn, just really easy and helps so much. Your machine shoots in RAW right?

I have heard aperture is a good one too, but I tend to trust Adobe.

There's really no point in using raw for anything any of us do. Perhaps for a single landscape shot, or the alike, but otherwise tiff would suffice.

[sandt38 448]

 

You have no idea how common that is.

 

Other than those, the rest of my shots are of my dick.

 

One hell of a zoom on that bitch, eh?

[///M5 2,833]

I would have LOVED some blue sky I suppose there is a way to fix that in photoshop, but I pretty much shoot pictures and don't dick with them outside of a white balance fix here and there.

Get Lightroom. 900 times more useful for us. Nothing to learn, just really easy and helps so much. Your machine shoots in RAW right?

I have heard aperture is a good one too, but I tend to trust Adobe.

There's really no point in using raw for anything any of us do. Perhaps for a single landscape shot, or the alike, but otherwise tiff would suffice.

I could post the non adjusted white balance and you'd change your mind.

[///M5 2,833]

BTW,

Don't sell yourself short. Your shots are beautiful.

What was you focal length?

Both taken at 11mm, 1/250s and therein lies the problem as my F stop was all the way in the 3's on the trees. Just means I can't enlarge that one too much.

Wednesday should be fine. I am out doing some consulting at Starkey today.

[dem beats 1,223]

I would have LOVED some blue sky I suppose there is a way to fix that in photoshop, but I pretty much shoot pictures and don't dick with them outside of a white balance fix here and there.

Get Lightroom. 900 times more useful for us. Nothing to learn, just really easy and helps so much. Your machine shoots in RAW right?

I have heard aperture is a good one too, but I tend to trust Adobe.

There's really no point in using raw for anything any of us do. Perhaps for a single landscape shot, or the alike, but otherwise tiff would suffice.

Tiff?

It is jpeg or RAW. Only options.

As for no reason, I completely disagree. You and I don't have kids either, but if you have a shot that is over or under exposed, fixing a RAW file is easy peasy. Jpegs not so much.

[///M5 2,833]

You can fix the jpg if you don't mind degrading it. At some point of print size any degradation is damaging.

I don't see why not shoot raw. It isn't like storage is a concern these days. I took ove 1300 pictures in Scandihoovia and never changed my memory card. Hell only charged my battery once

[///M5 2,833]

Of course, being more computer literate than I perhaps my info is antiquated.

[dem beats 1,223]

BTW,

Don't sell yourself short. Your shots are beautiful.

What was you focal length?

Both taken at 11mm, 1/250s and therein lies the problem as my F stop was all the way in the 3's on the trees. Just means I can't enlarge that one too much.

Wednesday should be fine. I am out doing some consulting at Starkey today.

Those look especially nice fore 11mm. So little distortion for such a wide shot.

[dem beats 1,223]

You can fix the jpg if you don't mind degrading it. At some point of print size any degradation is damaging.

I don't see why not shoot raw. It isn't like storage is a concern these days. I took ove 1300 pictures in Scandihoovia and never changed my memory card. Hell only charged my battery once

Is it really that it just degrades it? I don't know enough about the files and the info from the sensor to know why RAW is better. I do know that even with my shifty Canon application, if I adjust a jpeg it's horse shit. But in RAW I can make the image do what I want.

I also know with Lightroom, I can make a RAW image dance for me like a trained whore and do my biding without thinking at all. You can make a shit image that has color or balance issues beautiful.

[dem beats 1,223]

Wife's tires are loosing pressure every week. Not good.

[dem beats 1,223]

Took the dog to groomers, had to be there at 7. No one else there so I had to help him into the tub.

I worked so late last night that the lights in the store turned off. I was closing a deal that felt sooooooooo low, I am concerned I priced it below our "cost". I hope I don't have to pay it back, I did call twice to check price. Something feels wrong though. Software cut out on me 3 times. And I solved 3-4 problems from other tickets at close and after while helping her out.

Now on my day off, after dropping off the pup, going to spend a few min in the gym to work off my stress and hot tub, then back into work to see if I can fix the 3-4 problems I couldn't before close last night.

Damn software woukdn't cooperate. I shouldn't be having to do this, and working with the warehouse manager to solve software issues because a bed was on invintory, but not in the warehouse.

I did the customer service shuffle for well over 18k in sales yesterday. My commitment better pay off fast.

I need to get put in Eden Prairie or Ridgedale where my hustle helps my paycheck.

[dem beats 1,223]

Wife's tires are loosing pressure every week. Not good.

Maybe my old enkies will fit....... Hmmmmm.

[Godsmack 361]

If it is a ways out I will have either a 7D m2 or 70D by then

I am thinking long term I may want a full frame some day. I have the potential to make some money off shooting... I just don't know if I want to turn something I like this much into an obligation even if it makes people and myself happy.

If you don't mind my asking, shooting what and for who?

J

Well I have been done pre and post photos at 2 weddings and a few concerts. Also some family functions with video.

I haven't been the main photographer, but I could have if I had invested in portrait friendly lenses, and flashes/reflectors. I really should call the photographer who did our wedding. Ask him his opinion. He is a photo journalist primarily, but did an AMAZING job for our wedding. He is a fantastic guy.

Most wedding guys are effing D bags. Obviously we all need portraits, but 99.9% of an event like that is the bride, and the people she loves and the day. It shouldn't be a photoshoot IMHO with tons of manufacturing of shots.

Weddings I have no experience to speak on. Concerts on the other hand I will saymare one hell of a challenge. No flash allowed, limited shooting angles, and quite often random light flashes/pyro to work with.

I really need to step up my game on shooting modes, and on how to adjust my settings. Soon I'll start more adjustments and shots with my current body, but I'll be picking up a higher end one VERY soon, some flashes, and more glass.

J

[Godsmack 361]

BTW,Don't sell yourself short. Your shots are beautiful.What was you focal length?

Both taken at 11mm, 1/250s and therein lies the problem as my F stop was all the way in the 3's on the trees. Just means I can't enlarge that one too much.Wednesday should be fine. I am out doing some consulting at Starkey today.

Really amazing. You have an eye for shots Sean.

J

[ssh 924]

 

 

I would have LOVED some blue sky I suppose there is a way to fix that in photoshop, but I pretty much shoot pictures and don't dick with them outside of a white balance fix here and there.

Get Lightroom. 900 times more useful for us. Nothing to learn, just really easy and helps so much. Your machine shoots in RAW right?

I have heard aperture is a good one too, but I tend to trust Adobe.

There's really no point in using raw for anything any of us do. Perhaps for a single landscape shot, or the alike, but otherwise tiff would suffice.

Tiff?

It is jpeg or RAW. Only options.

As for no reason, I completely disagree. You and I don't have kids either, but if you have a shot that is over or under exposed, fixing a RAW file is easy peasy. Jpegs not so much.

 

That's a bit odd about only having jpg or raw. Raw maintains all the information from the picture where as jpeg throws some out in compression IIRC, so yeah you can do more adjustment with the raw before the picture starts looking like shit, but the tradeoff vs time/speed and converting everything back to jpg for the end person doesn't always seem worth it to me. I could see if someone took a bunch of pictures and had the exposure way off to begin with that raw would be awesome cause then they could fix it to a better extent in the computer. I'm curious have you ever used up the buffer on your camera from taking too many shots closely timed together with raw, and had to wait? I know that use to be an issue with shooting raw since the files were big and the write speeds couldn't keep up, but I don't know how the newer cameras are.

 

I guess that's my two biggest reasons for not using raw: write speed vs camera buffer (which matters for weddings, events, etc, but for the landscape photographer or taking pictures over vacation it doesn't come into play), and having to convert all the pictures afterwards into a traditional format.

 

But since your camera doesn't shoot in tiff then I could see using raw instead, if write speed isn't an issue.

Edited June 11, 2013 by stefanhinote

[Penguin4x4 1,761]

Let's face it, Toyota does not believe in electric cars. Not the battery-powered plug-in kind anyway. Plug-in hybrids? Sure. Fuel cells? As soon as feasible. But a simple EV? No, that just isn't Toyota's thing – a few side projects notwithstanding.

The latest example of the company line comes from Didier Stevens, Toyota Europe's head of government affairs and environmental issues. He told Responding To Climate Change that EVs aren't a good idea as long as the electricity used to power them is full of carbon. Stevens' exact words were, "We always assess a vehicle from well to wheel. If the electricity is not sourced from renewables then it makes little sense." Good point, but if that's your logic, then why sell gas-powered cars? There's carbon in there, too, you know. Stevens also said, "We are looking with some concern at the German plan of having 1m electric vehicles on the road by 2020. If more and more of their electricity is going to come from coal, then this does not solve the problem. It just shifts the emissions to another area. This is not how it should be."

Stevens does feel that government regulations have been key to making gas-burning cars cleaner, and says that the same kind of force needs to be brought to bear on electricity providers: "Some pressure is always needed. Look at the progress made on CO2 emissions standards for cars, would that progress be made without targets? I doubt it."

[ssh 924]

Okay raw does give you a lot more flexibility on the computer than either jpg or tiff, so for a small number of shots I would use it, but for a wedding with tons of pictures it still seems like a pain in the ass to deal with and not worth it unless you plan on working on every single picture.

[topgun 262]

Okay raw does give you a lot more flexibility on the computer than either jpg or tiff, so for a small number of shots I would use it, but for a wedding with tons of pictures it still seems like a pain in the ass to deal with and not worth it unless you plan on working on every single picture.

 

 

You can batch process RAW files.  

 

My wedding photog shoots in .jpg for the fact file size is smaller but she has to make sure to get the exposure right the first time since there is no saving it later.  

[ssh 924]

Okay raw does give you a lot more flexibility on the computer than either jpg or tiff, so for a small number of shots I would use it, but for a wedding with tons of pictures it still seems like a pain in the ass to deal with and not worth it unless you plan on working on every single picture.

 

 

You can batch process RAW files.  

 

My wedding photog shoots in .jpg for the fact file size is smaller but she has to make sure to get the exposure right the first time since there is no saving it later.  

Yeah my father does the same, 1000+ weddings and no issues.

[dem beats 1,223]

Jesus. I don't know anyone who shoots in JPEG.I get 5fps on RAW before the buffer and once full I get 2-3fps direct write on to the card. SD cards have come a long way, and CF cards are even better. My camera is considered slow and I havI never missed a shot so far.

The 7D is 7fps or more and doesn't slow down too much. The full frame 5D is pretty fast and has SD and CF card slots.

No wedding person would complain about any of that. If they did the new 1D is BEAST MODE. Some insanity of 12+ fps or something and a buffer so huge you can do your taxes before it fills.

Either way, when shooting in RAW I get all the data the sensor has. By not shooting in RAW you loose so much posibility. If you haven't used Lightroom with RAW you don't know what your missing, you can really make things happen. Blacks are a big thing. You have to use it to see....

JPEGs do not have all the data, and are actually not as clean of an image. The compression will make it more contrasty. While we want that normally, it can really Fuck with saturation.

Edited June 11, 2013 by dem beats

[topgun 262]

When you are shooting well into 4 digits of pictures on weddings, RAW files get huge, and space to store them gets pretty huge too.  I'm guessing ~120 files/gb of storage starts to add up.