|
|
|
Andrea Harris
{K:2496} 3/30/2005
|
I totally agree Melisa! Dirck has given great help! Dan Lightner has given some great advice too! I'm always marking excellent on these people who share such wonderful details and helpful info!
As far as the antique chair goes...that was one of many "treasures" I found in the slaughter house. I will return this summer and will be taking many more photos - there is a gorgeous upright piano covered in webs and next to old coca-cola signs also in there but I didn't have enough light when I was going to take a photo of it and didn't want to ruin it with my flash. This time I'll be armed with a better camera too, I just ordered a D70 - thanks for your comments!
|
|
|
|
|
z z
{K:7231} 3/30/2005
|
Very interesting! I wonder what a nice (at least at one time)is doing at a slaughter house other than making for a nice bed for kitty. This is a great shot! p.s. We need to give Dirck Duflon an award for being so darn helpful.. he has helped me too.. what a nice guy!!
|
|
|
|
|
Dirck DuFlon
{K:35779} 3/24/2005
|
You're more than welcome! :) I use PSP, too - for this I just zoomed in, used the 'eye-dropper' to select the color that should have been where the purple was, then used the 'Change to Target' tool to replace the purple with the selected color - and Voilá (or is it Viola? :)
|
|
|
|
|
Dirck DuFlon
{K:35779} 3/24/2005
|
Andrea, I'm not sure what exactly the article you were reading was refering to, but true chromatic abberration is a product of the optics in the lens, not the CCD. 'Bloom' is specifically an electronic flaw. Chromatic abberration is usually most notable at the edges of pictures taken with some wide-angle lenses, and is a kind of prism effect where the light starts getting separated by less-than-perfect glass. I recently bought a D70 and am *very* pleased with it! I haven't had any problems at all with CA in either of the lenses I have (the 'kit' Nikkor and a Sigma zoom macro.) To my knowledge, neither the Nikon nor the Canon have any problems with 'bloom'.
|
|
|
|
|
Andrea Harris
{K:2496} 3/24/2005
|
Oh Wow! I was responding to your reply sent via email so I didn't see the attached photo - wonderful! Thank you so much!
|
|
|
|
|
Andrea Harris
{K:2496} 3/24/2005
|
Hi Dirck! I was just reading online about "chromatic abboration" - is this the same thing? It was saying on there is a purple/magenta fringe like you mentioned at peak points of light/darkness/sharpness contrast. I'm looking at Canon's EOS DSLR (for money reasons) and the Nikon D70 (for quality reasons) and was reading about that being a problem. Not sure which camera I want to go with, the D70 seems perfect in so many ways, but my budget is tight so that plays a factor too. Thanks for your explanation! I will check out what I can do in my PSP9 to fix this.
|
|
|
|
|
Dirck DuFlon
{K:35779} 3/24/2005
|
Hi Andrea - wonderful photo! We have a kitty just like this one, that adopted us (as they tend to do!)
I saw the question in your 'About', and the ensuing discussion, and I thought I'd add my 2 cents! :) I believe what you are seeing with the blue haloes is what is known as purple fringing or 'bloom'. If you notice, this happens almost exclusively where there is a hard transition between very bright and very dark. The technical explanation for this has to do with the digital's CCD (where the data is recorded,) and the way the pixels record brightness by accumulating electrical charges. The pixels in the very bright areas collect a strong electrical charge while those in dark areas end up with a weak charge - the problem comes when the strong charge in the bright pixels 'leaks' over into some of those with weak charges (due to insuficcient electrical insulation and other things) and 'brightens' them up. This is more of a problem with some cameras than with others, and more with older digitals than with newer.
Whew! Well, that's probably more than you wanted to know :) The good news is that it *can* be corrected with software after the fact!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bryan Miller
{K:3395} 3/23/2005
|
Andrea two very fine fotographers gave me some advice about 8 months ago.... put down the digital and fotograph with film. It is really not a question of quality -- both mediums will produce a lovely foto. It is more about taking your time and really thinking about a foto before you release the shutter. Learning what happens through careful consideration. I don't think I have picked up the D100 since that day.... need a good D100?? :)
Of course I have not learned a darn thing :) but I keep trying. I will say there is NO substitute for a good quality b/w film foto. crystal clear and beautiful tones.
Happy shopping!!
bryan
|
|
|
|
|
Andrea Harris
{K:2496} 3/23/2005
|
Thanks so much Bryan! You are RIGHT! lol! Does make me want a better camera :) I am looking at Nikon D70s right now. Researching some things too! Any tips are greatly appreciated! Thanks again!
|
|
|
|
|
Bryan Miller
{K:3395} 3/23/2005
|
Andrea you took this with a 2100, yes? I believe that camera has a color filter... meaning it only records one color per pixel instead of all three colors (RGB). In order to record the other two colors, the camera must estimate. This sometimes results in a camera making the wrong estimation (i.e. weird color) or digital artifact. You can also exaggerate this effect with saturation or sharpening. Of course everything I have listed here is completely wrong and I am not responsible for my own words :)) --- but it certainly makes you want to purchase a better camera doesn't it??
Just kidding. Remember art is oblivious to the medium in which it was captured. Now if i could just convince myself of this concept :))) It sure would save me a lot of money.
bryan
|
|
|
|
|
Andrea Harris
{K:2496} 3/23/2005
|
What are digital artifacts? Could that be a result from increasing the hue/saturation? Thanks so much for your comments. When I travel there again, I hope to have a better camera ;) and take some better shots!
|
|
|
|
|
Bryan Miller
{K:3395} 3/23/2005
|
yes I think this is an interesting fotograph. I would love to see one more version with a little more room on the right hand side. just curious as to how this would help or hurt the composition. The blue definitely looks like digital artifacts -- no doubt. great colors though!
bryan
|
|
|
|
Roberto Arcari Farinetti
{K:209486} 3/23/2005
|
thanks to you.. and soon my secret for the "female cat"..
hugs
roby
|
|
|
|
|
Bea Friedli
{K:10189} 3/22/2005
|
wow..cool capture !
|
|
|
|
|
Ann Texter
{K:10064} 3/22/2005
|
Nice shot, I like it! You have a nice portfolio also.
Thanks,
Ann
|
|
|
|
Trish McCoy
{K:15897} 3/22/2005
|
interesting shot. it's so old fashion looking even though it's in color. I really like the feel and look to this image. nicely done.
|
|
|
|
|
Andrea Harris
{K:2496} 3/22/2005
|
Thanks Roby! And, I believe you are right - the cat is female :) This was taken on a Kentucky farm last summer. I couldn't believe how thick the spider webs were, I should have gotten in closer to take a macro of them, but this was before I had learned anything about digitals. Thanks again.
|
|
|
|
|
Tiffany Hix
{K:5012} 3/22/2005
|
Excellent composition! I really like this shot Andrea, well done!
|
|
|
|
|
Roberto Arcari Farinetti
{K:209486} 3/22/2005
|
Dear Andrea.. I see a beautiful photography, personally I love the cats and maybe "of parts", are but I believe be very particular as composition and as colours!
Maybe the use of 2100 created a light pixel dispersion! seems the digital use of the zoom, but the effect is of big impact, I like it the air which is around created!
So magic atmosphere a sweet home..
(look.. the cats is a female, I have a secret to know it..)
hugs
roby
|
|
|
|
Timothy Schirmer
{K:7201} 3/22/2005
|
This is a wonderful shot, love the color and setting. Tim
|
|
0 
