Re: GPS for Nikon

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by PeterN, Apr 30, 2013.

  1. PeterN

    PeterN Guest

    On 4/27/2013 9:34 PM, Savageduck wrote:


    <snip>

    > So if you take one of my shots from that day:
    > < http://db.tt/TtJ20HXK >
    > and paste that URL into "Jeffery's EXIF Viewer" you should get this result.
    > < http://regex.info/exif.cgi?imgurl=http://db.tt/TtJ20HXK >
    >



    OT Good abstraction.
    i really like that capture. It has a nice ethereal, feel about it, with
    strong contrasts. The highlights are not blown, nor are the dark areas
    too muddy. I see strong lines and even a self portrait of the
    photographer. Did you do any tone mapping?

    --
    PeterN
     
    PeterN, Apr 30, 2013
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. PeterN

    PeterN Guest

    On 4/30/2013 10:21 PM, Savageduck wrote:
    > On 2013-04-30 18:57:43 -0700, Savageduck
    > <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> said:
    >
    >> On 2013-04-30 18:40:19 -0700, Eric Stevens <> said:
    >>
    >>> On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 05:24:52 -0700, Savageduck
    >>> <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> On 2013-04-30 05:00:27 -0700, PeterN <>
    >>>> said:
    >>>>
    >>>>> On 4/27/2013 9:34 PM, Savageduck wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> <snip>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> So if you take one of my shots from that day:
    >>>>>> < http://db.tt/TtJ20HXK >
    >>>>>> and paste that URL into "Jeffery's EXIF Viewer" you should get
    >>>>>> this result.
    >>>>>> < http://regex.info/exif.cgi?imgurl=http://db.tt/TtJ20HXK >
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> OT Good abstraction.
    >>>>> i really like that capture. It has a nice ethereal, feel about it,
    >>>>> with
    >>>>> strong contrasts. The highlights are not blown, nor are the dark areas
    >>>>> too muddy. I see strong lines and even a self portrait of the
    >>>>> photographer. Did you do any tone mapping?
    >>>>
    >>>> It is a 5 exposure HDR: -2, -1, 0, +1, +2, processed with NIK HDR
    >>>> Efex Pro.
    >>>
    >>> Hand held? ... or did you use a tripod?

    >>
    >> Hand held.

    >
    > Here is a non-HDR version.
    > < https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/FileChute/DNC4143-Ew.jpg >
    >


    I prefer the tone mapped version

    --
    PeterN
     
    PeterN, May 1, 2013
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. PeterN

    PeterN Guest

    On 5/1/2013 5:15 AM, Eric Stevens wrote:
    > On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 18:57:43 -0700, Savageduck
    > <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
    >
    >> On 2013-04-30 18:40:19 -0700, Eric Stevens <> said:
    >>
    >>> On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 05:24:52 -0700, Savageduck
    >>> <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> On 2013-04-30 05:00:27 -0700, PeterN <> said:
    >>>>
    >>>>> On 4/27/2013 9:34 PM, Savageduck wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> <snip>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> So if you take one of my shots from that day:
    >>>>>> < http://db.tt/TtJ20HXK >
    >>>>>> and paste that URL into "Jeffery's EXIF Viewer" you should get this result.
    >>>>>> < http://regex.info/exif.cgi?imgurl=http://db.tt/TtJ20HXK >
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> OT Good abstraction.
    >>>>> i really like that capture. It has a nice ethereal, feel about it, with
    >>>>> strong contrasts. The highlights are not blown, nor are the dark areas
    >>>>> too muddy. I see strong lines and even a self portrait of the
    >>>>> photographer. Did you do any tone mapping?
    >>>>
    >>>> It is a 5 exposure HDR: -2, -1, 0, +1, +2, processed with NIK HDR Efex Pro.
    >>>
    >>> Hand held? ... or did you use a tripod?

    >>
    >> Hand held.

    >
    > Al I can say is that that is very good. It's a first rate example of
    > what HDR can do for poor lighting conditions with no (obvious) fancy
    > effects.


    As with any new tool, there is a tendency to overuse. The Harry Potter
    effect that you seem to dislike is one example.



    --
    PeterN
     
    PeterN, May 1, 2013
    #3
  4. PeterN

    PeterN Guest

    On 5/1/2013 6:02 AM, Savageduck wrote:
    > On 2013-05-01 02:15:57 -0700, Eric Stevens <> said:
    >
    >> On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 18:57:43 -0700, Savageduck
    >> <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
    >>
    >>> On 2013-04-30 18:40:19 -0700, Eric Stevens <>
    >>> said:
    >>>
    >>>> On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 05:24:52 -0700, Savageduck
    >>>> <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> On 2013-04-30 05:00:27 -0700, PeterN <>
    >>>>> said:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> On 4/27/2013 9:34 PM, Savageduck wrote:
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> <snip>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>> So if you take one of my shots from that day:
    >>>>>>> < http://db.tt/TtJ20HXK >
    >>>>>>> and paste that URL into "Jeffery's EXIF Viewer" you should get
    >>>>>>> this result.
    >>>>>>> < http://regex.info/exif.cgi?imgurl=http://db.tt/TtJ20HXK >
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> OT Good abstraction.
    >>>>>> i really like that capture. It has a nice ethereal, feel about it,
    >>>>>> with
    >>>>>> strong contrasts. The highlights are not blown, nor are the dark
    >>>>>> areas
    >>>>>> too muddy. I see strong lines and even a self portrait of the
    >>>>>> photographer. Did you do any tone mapping?
    >>>>>
    >>>>> It is a 5 exposure HDR: -2, -1, 0, +1, +2, processed with NIK HDR
    >>>>> Efex Pro.
    >>>>
    >>>> Hand held? ... or did you use a tripod?
    >>>
    >>> Hand held.

    >>
    >> Al I can say is that that is very good. It's a first rate example of
    >> what HDR can do for poor lighting conditions with no (obvious) fancy
    >> effects.

    >
    > There is a time and place for everything. HDR when used with restraint
    > can be a useful tool, as in this normal exposure vs 5 exposure HDR
    > comparison.
    > < http://db.tt/y5or9tBF >
    >


    I see what you are trying to do. To my eye, the calm ocean in the
    non-HDR version is more peaceful. I would have combined them.

    --
    PeterN
     
    PeterN, May 1, 2013
    #4
  5. PeterN

    PeterN Guest

    On 5/1/2013 5:31 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
    > On Wed, 01 May 2013 11:28:17 -0400, PeterN
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >> On 5/1/2013 5:15 AM, Eric Stevens wrote:
    >>> On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 18:57:43 -0700, Savageduck
    >>> <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> On 2013-04-30 18:40:19 -0700, Eric Stevens <> said:
    >>>>
    >>>>> On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 05:24:52 -0700, Savageduck
    >>>>> <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> On 2013-04-30 05:00:27 -0700, PeterN <> said:
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>> On 4/27/2013 9:34 PM, Savageduck wrote:
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> <snip>
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> So if you take one of my shots from that day:
    >>>>>>>> < http://db.tt/TtJ20HXK >
    >>>>>>>> and paste that URL into "Jeffery's EXIF Viewer" you should get this result.
    >>>>>>>> < http://regex.info/exif.cgi?imgurl=http://db.tt/TtJ20HXK >
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> OT Good abstraction.
    >>>>>>> i really like that capture. It has a nice ethereal, feel about it, with
    >>>>>>> strong contrasts. The highlights are not blown, nor are the dark areas
    >>>>>>> too muddy. I see strong lines and even a self portrait of the
    >>>>>>> photographer. Did you do any tone mapping?
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> It is a 5 exposure HDR: -2, -1, 0, +1, +2, processed with NIK HDR Efex Pro.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Hand held? ... or did you use a tripod?
    >>>>
    >>>> Hand held.
    >>>
    >>> Al I can say is that that is very good. It's a first rate example of
    >>> what HDR can do for poor lighting conditions with no (obvious) fancy
    >>> effects.

    >>
    >> As with any new tool, there is a tendency to overuse. The Harry Potter
    >> effect that you seem to dislike is one example.

    >
    > Harry Potter effect ... ?
    >
    > That I seem to dislike ... ?
    >
    > I'm sorry: I'm not with you.
    >


    i thought it was you who talked about not liking overdone HDR.
    Here is some discussion of the Harry Potter effect.
    <http://www.retouchpro.com/forums/photo-retouching/36336-harry-potter-posters-hdr.html>

    For more, you can Google HDR "harry potter"



    --
    PeterN
     
    PeterN, May 2, 2013
    #5
  6. PeterN

    PeterN Guest

    On 5/2/2013 1:08 AM, Eric Stevens wrote:
    > On Wed, 01 May 2013 23:56:52 -0400, PeterN
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >> On 5/1/2013 5:31 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
    >>> On Wed, 01 May 2013 11:28:17 -0400, PeterN
    >>> <> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> On 5/1/2013 5:15 AM, Eric Stevens wrote:
    >>>>> On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 18:57:43 -0700, Savageduck
    >>>>> <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> On 2013-04-30 18:40:19 -0700, Eric Stevens <> said:
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>> On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 05:24:52 -0700, Savageduck
    >>>>>>> <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> On 2013-04-30 05:00:27 -0700, PeterN <> said:
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>> On 4/27/2013 9:34 PM, Savageduck wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>> <snip>
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>> So if you take one of my shots from that day:
    >>>>>>>>>> < http://db.tt/TtJ20HXK >
    >>>>>>>>>> and paste that URL into "Jeffery's EXIF Viewer" you should get this result.
    >>>>>>>>>> < http://regex.info/exif.cgi?imgurl=http://db.tt/TtJ20HXK >
    >>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>> OT Good abstraction.
    >>>>>>>>> i really like that capture. It has a nice ethereal, feel about it, with
    >>>>>>>>> strong contrasts. The highlights are not blown, nor are the dark areas
    >>>>>>>>> too muddy. I see strong lines and even a self portrait of the
    >>>>>>>>> photographer. Did you do any tone mapping?
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> It is a 5 exposure HDR: -2, -1, 0, +1, +2, processed with NIK HDR Efex Pro.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> Hand held? ... or did you use a tripod?
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Hand held.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Al I can say is that that is very good. It's a first rate example of
    >>>>> what HDR can do for poor lighting conditions with no (obvious) fancy
    >>>>> effects.
    >>>>
    >>>> As with any new tool, there is a tendency to overuse. The Harry Potter
    >>>> effect that you seem to dislike is one example.
    >>>
    >>> Harry Potter effect ... ?
    >>>
    >>> That I seem to dislike ... ?
    >>>
    >>> I'm sorry: I'm not with you.
    >>>

    >>
    >> i thought it was you who talked about not liking overdone HDR.
    >> Here is some discussion of the Harry Potter effect.
    >> <http://www.retouchpro.com/forums/photo-retouching/36336-harry-potter-posters-hdr.html>
    >>
    >> For more, you can Google HDR "harry potter"

    >
    > It wasn't me complaining as far as I am aware, although I don't like
    > overdone HDR effects. I never use them when I use HDR. Nevertheless
    > the images can be spectacular when you get them right. They often look
    > wrong for the very simple reason they are not what the experienced
    > viewer expects a photo to look like. e.g.
    > https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/31088803/_DSC5447_8_9_50_51_Detail.jpg
    >


    That is one nice image. I consider it an example of one presented for
    its artistic impact, as opposed to one presented simply because it can
    be done.


    --
    PeterN
     
    PeterN, May 2, 2013
    #6
  7. PeterN

    PeterN Guest

    On 5/2/2013 12:31 AM, Savageduck wrote:
    > On 2013-05-01 20:56:52 -0700, PeterN <> said:
    >
    >> On 5/1/2013 5:31 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
    >>> On Wed, 01 May 2013 11:28:17 -0400, PeterN
    >>> <> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> On 5/1/2013 5:15 AM, Eric Stevens wrote:
    >>>>> On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 18:57:43 -0700, Savageduck
    >>>>> <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> On 2013-04-30 18:40:19 -0700, Eric Stevens
    >>>>>> <> said:
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>> On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 05:24:52 -0700, Savageduck
    >>>>>>> <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> On 2013-04-30 05:00:27 -0700, PeterN
    >>>>>>>> <> said:
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>> On 4/27/2013 9:34 PM, Savageduck wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>> <snip>
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>> So if you take one of my shots from that day:
    >>>>>>>>>> < http://db.tt/TtJ20HXK >
    >>>>>>>>>> and paste that URL into "Jeffery's EXIF Viewer" you should get
    >>>>>>>>>> this result.
    >>>>>>>>>> <
    >>>>>>>>>> http://regex.info/exif.cgi?imgurl=http://db.tt/TtJ20HXK >
    >>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>> OT Good abstraction.
    >>>>>>>>> i really like that capture. It has a nice ethereal, feel about
    >>>>>>>>> it, with
    >>>>>>>>> strong contrasts. The highlights are not blown, nor are the
    >>>>>>>>> dark areas
    >>>>>>>>> too muddy. I see strong lines and even a self portrait of the
    >>>>>>>>> photographer. Did you do any tone mapping?
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> It is a 5 exposure HDR: -2, -1, 0, +1, +2, processed with NIK
    >>>>>>>> HDR Efex Pro.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> Hand held? ... or did you use a tripod?
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Hand held.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Al I can say is that that is very good. It's a first rate example of
    >>>>> what HDR can do for poor lighting conditions with no (obvious) fancy
    >>>>> effects.
    >>>>
    >>>> As with any new tool, there is a tendency to overuse. The Harry Potter
    >>>> effect that you seem to dislike is one example.
    >>>
    >>> Harry Potter effect ... ?
    >>>
    >>> That I seem to dislike ... ?
    >>>
    >>> I'm sorry: I'm not with you.
    >>>

    >>
    >> i thought it was you who talked about not liking overdone HDR.
    >> Here is some discussion of the Harry Potter effect.
    >> <http://www.retouchpro.com/forums/photo-retouching/36336-harry-potter-posters-hdr.html>
    >>

    >
    > For
    >>
    >> more, you can Google HDR "harry potter"

    >
    > Worse than any "Harry Potter effect" would be the "Kinkade glow".
    >
    >


    On velvet.

    --
    PeterN
     
    PeterN, May 2, 2013
    #7
  8. PeterN

    PeterN Guest

    On 5/2/2013 2:46 AM, Savageduck wrote:
    > On 2013-05-01 22:08:28 -0700, Eric Stevens <> said:
    >
    >> On Wed, 01 May 2013 23:56:52 -0400, PeterN
    >> <> wrote:
    >>
    >>> On 5/1/2013 5:31 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
    >>>> On Wed, 01 May 2013 11:28:17 -0400, PeterN
    >>>> <> wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> On 5/1/2013 5:15 AM, Eric Stevens wrote:
    >>>>>> On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 18:57:43 -0700, Savageduck
    >>>>>> <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>> On 2013-04-30 18:40:19 -0700, Eric Stevens
    >>>>>>> <> said:
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 05:24:52 -0700, Savageduck
    >>>>>>>> <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>> On 2013-04-30 05:00:27 -0700, PeterN
    >>>>>>>>> <> said:
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>> On 4/27/2013 9:34 PM, Savageduck wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>> <snip>
    >>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>> So if you take one of my shots from that day:
    >>>>>>>>>>> < http://db.tt/TtJ20HXK >
    >>>>>>>>>>> and paste that URL into "Jeffery's EXIF Viewer" you should
    >>>>>>>>>>> get this result.
    >>>>>>>>>>> <
    >>>>>>>>>>> http://regex.info/exif.cgi?imgurl=http://db.tt/TtJ20HXK
    >>>>>>>>>>> >
    >>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>> OT Good abstraction.
    >>>>>>>>>> i really like that capture. It has a nice ethereal, feel about
    >>>>>>>>>> it, with
    >>>>>>>>>> strong contrasts. The highlights are not blown, nor are the
    >>>>>>>>>> dark areas
    >>>>>>>>>> too muddy. I see strong lines and even a self portrait of the
    >>>>>>>>>> photographer. Did you do any tone mapping?
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>> It is a 5 exposure HDR: -2, -1, 0, +1, +2, processed with NIK
    >>>>>>>>> HDR Efex Pro.
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> Hand held? ... or did you use a tripod?
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> Hand held.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Al I can say is that that is very good. It's a first rate example of
    >>>>>> what HDR can do for poor lighting conditions with no (obvious) fancy
    >>>>>> effects.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> As with any new tool, there is a tendency to overuse. The Harry Potter
    >>>>> effect that you seem to dislike is one example.
    >>>>
    >>>> Harry Potter effect ... ?
    >>>>
    >>>> That I seem to dislike ... ?
    >>>>
    >>>> I'm sorry: I'm not with you.
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> i thought it was you who talked about not liking overdone HDR.
    >>> Here is some discussion of the Harry Potter effect.
    >>> <http://www.retouchpro.com/forums/photo-retouching/36336-harry-potter-posters-hdr.html>
    >>>

    >
    > For
    >>>
    >>> more, you can Google HDR "harry potter"

    >>
    >> It wasn't me complaining as far as I am aware, although I don't like
    >> overdone HDR effects. I never use them when I use HDR. Nevertheless
    >> the images can be spectacular when you get them right. They often look
    >> wrong for the very simple reason they are not what the experienced
    >> viewer expects a photo to look like. e.g.
    >> https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/31088803/_DSC5447_8_9_50_51_Detail.jpg
    >>

    >
    > Then there is always this type of thing:
    > < https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/FileChute/DNC_0348_HDR-Ew.jpg >
    >


    A prime example of how to ruin a potentially nice image.


    --
    PeterN
     
    PeterN, May 2, 2013
    #8
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Frisbee®
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    1,145
    J Figueredo
    Aug 19, 2006
  2. Amjad
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    551
    Amjad
    Jan 24, 2008
  3. Amjad

    GPS JP430 - A New Technology in GPS System

    Amjad, Jan 25, 2008, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    551
    Amjad
    Jan 25, 2008
  4. Amjad

    GPS JP430 - A New Technology in GPS System

    Amjad, Jan 26, 2008, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    509
    Amjad
    Jan 26, 2008
  5. Giuen
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,539
    Giuen
    Sep 12, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page