Ripley

Edited: just ignore this post These are their photo imaging requirements: Camera requirements Four million pixels or above. Calibration: Images should ideally be colour profiled/corrected using a correctly calibrated monitor and utilising Adobe RGB 98 colour space. Adjusting your image: Digital adjustments are only acceptable if limited to minor cleaning work, levels, curves, colour, saturation and contrast work. The faithful representation of a natural form, behaviour or phenomenon must be maintained. Compositing and multiple exposures are not allowed. Sharpening is allowed. Manipulation Sandwich shots, double exposures, photographs which consist in any way of more than one separate image and images that have been digitally manipulated outside of rule 4 are not eligible. Cropping is allowed.

Helen put up one and I've just seen this one. The prize is a $15,000 trip so get cracking! Details here: http://www.peregrineadventures.com/imageso...rld/default.asp I've sent it to my work colleague who took wonderful shots from her trip to Tibet of the people and landscapes. She has been doing photography since high school. Anyone out there with great travel shots should enter this comp. That doesn't include me atm, but maybe it will when I get this new lens and take another trip, who knows? ** 2008 PHOTOGRAPHIC COMPETITION One of the great things about travel is the way it can take you out of the everyday, where simple experiences can become rich moments of happiness and clarity to treasure in your memory. Really good travel photos can transport anyone to that moment in time. A great travel photo is a moment in time and in place. This year, we are asking again for your best Images of the World. We are looking for those special shots that are not only technically great, but they also tell us a story, transport us to that place, and let us understand the moment. It's a great chance to share your best travel photo with the world, and to win a fantastic prize. As with last year, there are five categories to enter: Wildlife, Active Adventures, Culture & People, the Environment and Family Adventures & Fun. This year, Peregrine has teamed up with Nikon, GORE-TEX ® and Australian Geographic to offer the following great prizes for the 2008 competition: Overall winner: • Peregrine Adventures holiday to the value of $15,000 including international flights • Nikon camera equipment to the value of $5000 • GORE-TEX ® Pro Shell Jacket valued at $700 • Two-year subscription to Australian Geographic Category winners • Peregrine Adventures travel voucher to the value of $1000 • Nikon camera equipment to the value of $1500 • GORE-TEX ® Paclite ® Shell jacket valued at $449 • One-year subscription to Australian Geographic Category runners up • Peregrine Adventures travel voucher to the value of $250 • Nikon camera equipment to the value of $500 • One-year subscription to Australian Geographic Vote and WIN Everyone can get involved in the judging. Vote for your favourite images and go into the draw to win the monthly prize - a GORE-TEX ® Paclite ® Shell jacket worth $449! Plus the photographer of the winning monthly shot will get a one-year subscription to Australian Geographic.

LOL. I don't mind that shot seeing I had no idea what I was doing - just aimed and clicked. Getting down low and steadying the lens on my knee helped, I think. It was in the Carmargue region of France, NOT Africa.

So do I. I love travelling more though and taking photos. That's the only reason I wanted to learn about my camera and get better lenses, so I can improve on travel shots.

Jpeg image taken when I had only had my DSLR a month and didn't know how to use manual settings. Taken with kit lens which I no longer have to put up with now I have my sigma 2 shots taken in jpeg from an overseas trip, late 2006. This was taken on Landscape mode. Levels slightly adjusted in PS, that's it. No polariser as I didn't know anything about them back when I did this trip.

As I didn't use a tripod, kja, I'm a bit worried about the sunset shots I took with the film camera to be honest. No grad filter used eihter. Yikes. I didn't take many as it was too much of a pain to cart around 2 cameras on a hike and we hiked up hills sometimes. I should add that I don't like the sunset filter effect of one image above used as an example. Using only a 2 stop ND grad filter affixed gives the scene an 'as I saw it' look. When you look at a landscape, you don't see a washed out sky, you see the land and the sky with your eyes that are perfectly exposed. But if you take a shot of that scene, you will get either a washed out sky or a dark foreground as the digital camera won't expose them both perfectly. So by using a grad and exposing for the foreground, you get an image that is "how you saw it".

Personally I think that using filters takes more practise and as you do it in the field, you can see the effects first hand on the back of your camera. I also think it's more about being creative with your camera at the time, not putting gradients and selections on a computer afterwards.

Tomorrow I pick up the first attempt I've had using slide film and ruthless' mid 1990s model Canon EOS camera . I didn't know the settings on that camera and what if they are crap? Velvia 50 is supposed to be THE film that landscape photographers use if they aren't using digital. I buy Outdoor Photography, which is a UK mag for film and digital and some of the images in that using Velvia slide film, a good lens and a grad filter are beautiful. Velvia 50 is known for its increased colour saturation. I didn't put Velvia 50 in the camera I borrowed off ruthless, I used Ektochrome 100 as the bloke at the shop said it was pretty good too. I didn't use a tripod so I'm wondering what these photos are going to be like, I did it merely out of curiosity.

I've found a couple of 'without grad' and with grad' photos in a google search. You can get different colours, sunset one used here, but the most popular is probably grey. This is the effect of using one and not using one. Shot on the left is using a grey one and the shot on the right looks like they have used a sunset grad filter. ETA: Shot on the right has a ND grad filter + warming filter. Gosh, you'd have to line both up precisely!

Helen, I paid just under $80 for the Cokin filter and holder + postage from that place in Perth mentioned here - delivery was speedy - received it in 2 days. You need to be careful with it not to drop it if you are walking about as if it slides out and drops, it will break. You have to get the positioning right too and I found with a wide angle lens, it causes vinegetting on the corners if the lens is at its widest setting. It's fantastic for darkening skies and that way you can take a photo on a boring bland day and still have some colour in the sky.

With landscapes, I think filters are a blessing. Different for portraiture, of course. I have a polariser and a 2 stop ND soft grad filter. Polarisers are great for cutting down glare on water and reflections and as someone said, emphasising blue skies. With the graduated filter you affix it to the camera lens with a holder. Then you can expose for the land and the sky won't be washed out and you don't need to fiddle around trying to put a gradient on it or select it and feather it in PS - using those methods makes the image appear kind of fake unless you are a PS whiz, and I'm definitely not. There are ways to cheat in PS to get a perfectly exposed landscape image, of course, but it's fiddly and I won't be trying it. You take 2 exposures of the same image, expose one for the sky and one for the land. Then you merge them together using HDR in PS CS3 or other software. You can also convert 2 separate RAW images, process one for the sky, one for the land and copy and paste them together, then use a mask to erase back the image. Phew! Hard work - I'd rather use a filter. I used a ND Grad filter for a blerky grey sky whilst on hols and was happy with the image as the sky came out darker and not that white wash out you sometimes get on overast days. But I know bugger all about taking portraits. ETA: Here is a Grad filter that looks like mine - I have a Cokin one. I got some strange looks when I was taking photos with it attached on some bland overcast day. I had no choice, we were only at the spot for an hour and I wanted a few photos. I have the paler one - you can get them in different colours too. ETA: Um, just remember to take a meter reading BEFORE you affix it. I learned that one after using it the first time and viewing my shots.

Those shots look like they have dodge and burn going on. Some sort of plug in filter applied too perhaps - maybe Alien skin? I've seen a few shots with that plug in. I am organising some travel shots now that I took in January. I shot a lot of them in RAW so I'm just processing them in RAW and totally leaving photoshop alone. I prefer to shoot landscape images as I hike a fair bit when we travel, so in RAW I can just adjust everything there. I should get Lightroom but want to buy this Canon Lens and can't afford both. If I look at my histogram and it's spaced evenly along, I know I've got exposure good already, so I don't need to tweak it. Especially if the light was good at the time. If I were to adjust jpegs shots, curves and colour balance is all I use - sometimes unsharp mask but if I've shot in jpeg, the camera usually sharpens the shot and using a tripod and a good lens. it doesn't need it. RAW images need a little bit of sharpening, I've noticed. Just think I've finally got my head around this whole RAW processing thing as I found a fantastic "converting your RAW images" 4 page spread in a UK camera mag I have. That is always near my computer when I'm editing so I can refer to it - it's helped me so much. My RAW version shows clipping warnings when I turn a button on too so you can see how you are going.

Bumping this. Helen, I agree. I paid $115 for this lens just before Christmas but have only had a chance to try it out now. It's a pretty sharp lens, so much better than the kit one. Here is a photo I took the other day of my parrot with my 350D and the Canon 1.8 50mm attached, hand holding, natural light, no image editing. It's a sharp lens - you can see 3 scratches on his beak from beak sparring with his brother. ;) I should cut the vase out as it spoils the shot(I had the blinds open which are reflected in the vase) , but I was only mucking around to test it and my Alexandrine does love to sit by the window and hide behind the vase. I love this lens. I should use it more but it's fixed so I don't tend to use it that much. ETA: My dog won't sit still enough for me to post up a shot. My parrot, however, is a perfect model. He's vain!

IS is great in compacts. My Panasonic has one which was much needed when I took this shot from the ferris wheel car as it went around and around (don't ask what I was doing at Luna Park - oh ok, it was a work function). Delivers punchy colours too. I am disappointed I didn't get it out on the wild mouse.

No I haven't because we had to buy some new furniture and now with this lens, I really don't know if we can afford to troop off to Scotland this year We'll see. We are fairly spontaneous so if we decide we can afford it, we will arrange to go within a month. Going in October will be cold but we can get a seat on a plane and accom and car hire is nothing to worry about. We had no probs in early Sept when we went last time. I have a month left of LSL. I had the same problem when choosing dive gear after I got into that back in 2001. :rolleyes: How I love my split fins! Makes me feel like a seal.

So many choices! I've read reviews on that sigma lens and it gets good ones. I think I have a review of the Sigma APO lens in a mag. They also make one with IS too I think. I'll do some googling when I get home. Can't wait. Then I'll have a good landscape lens - the sigma 17-70mm, a good portrait lens - the Canon 50mm 1.8 (it's cheap but I'm happy with it but have only taken one or two shots with it so far) and then a good zoom lens. I'll be all set for my next holiday. Now husband has his Olympus E-500 DSLR he inherited from his work for his sole use, we are set. No more fighting over who has the camera. :rolleyes:

I have decided that I'm going to buy this lens. Canon Zoom Telephoto EF 70-200mm f/4.0L USM My boss is off to NY in April so I will ask him if he can take a brisk walk to B&H and pick it up for me (he's not staying anywhere near B&H). The USD is now 94 cents so I reckon I should buy it as it's a good several hundred dollars cheaper there.

I don't have lightroom. I downloaded the new RAW converter for Elements 6 and it has things such as vibrancy, luminence, clarity - all new things. Fortunately I went and bought a UK camera mag that had a 3 pager on the new RAW upgrade for Elements 6 and just what those controls did and how to use them on a couple of differents shots. That was great as I wouldn't have had a clue what those controls did otherwise. I'd love lightroom but can't afford it atm and would rather put the few hundred bucks towards a lens I want and can't afford yet.

Thanks, that's is exactly what I was trying to say (I'm tired today, not much sleep ). I take photos in both RAW and jpeg but always prefer my RAW files. However, when I go to process them I can spend too much time changing thing like the white balance thinking "auto?" no, "daylight?" or deciding on the settings. Once it's a jpeg image I leave it alone. I will get used to it once I've converted some of my photos. I don't bother sharpening my shots if I've used a tripod as I found my new sigma lens gives sharp enough shots. You can also adjust the way the camera shoots jpeg shots too. For example, I find that the contrast setting is a little high in the default settings on the Canon 350D so I've put it down one notch for more realistic looking images, the green was just a little TOO green for my liking. I think it's because those cameras were designed with European light in mind, not the intensity of the the light in Australia. I take most of my shots in M mode now I know how to do it. However, if I'm photographing an animal in the wild I'll use AV as I don't have time to do it in M. I'm still guilty of using P mode sometimes though. :p

From my limited understanding of RAW files, when you shoot a jpeg file, your camera applies sharpening, contrast and colour itself. By shooting RAW you are taking that in camera editing away from the camera and into your own hands, hence why RAW files have to have a bit of tweaking before you can save them as jpegs. Cordelia, if you want to take a b/w photo now, you can do that with your Canon in camera and then tweak the colours to create a filter effect - red, orange, green, blue.

I love RAW as I can do a straight conversion of RAW in Elements 5 and then not have to do anything in photoshop (I'm not into PS-ing my photos, it's just a personal opinion and I know bugger all about photoshopping anyway). I just convert a RAW file straight to a jpeg file. I find if I've used the wrong white balance I can change the look of a photo by warming it up or cooling it down or removing ugly colour casts all in RAW. It's slightly forgiving on exposure, within reason when exposure is tricky.

Try and download an update for Paint shop Pro. I recently downloaded a RAW update for Elements 6 which is what I have and it's so much better. It was free too. I find I have to right click on my RAW image and select "Open with Elements" or it will default to the Canon software version which is nowhere near as good. Maybe version 8 doesn't support RAW. If you know how to use your software, just upgrade it to a new version - you can get Paint Shop Pro XI for between $100-$200 (I just googled it) at this Australian site. http://www.myshopping.com.au/PR--120454_Co...op_Pro_Photo_XI Cheaper if you buy from the States and the USD is at 91 cents now so a very good exchange rate!

Thanks. I found an old camera mag I have that had a CD with some free borders in it. They are jpeg files so I'll just google how to do that and try them out.

Is there any other way to put a border around a photo other than the Edit Stroke command? I want a more detailed border, with a grungy edge, but don't know how to do it. Googling has only brought up downloads that you pay for. Just wondering if PS has a different way to give a faded border or grunge border look. This is a result on my photo after applying the stroke command in PS, you get a plain,thin border and that's it. Any other way for a more creative look? Or will I have to download a few and pay for them (which I don't mind but I need to know how to then apply them).

I'm converting some RAW files from a roadtrip we took last month so need to sharpen them a bit after I convert them to jpeg. I've used this method: Create a duplicate layer and select the unsharp mask tool. Radius setting of 1 pixel, threshhold setting 1. Then I've cranked it up fairly high to around 70-80% and then, to fade the effect as it's too much, I change the duplicate layer's blending mode in the drop down menu on the layer palette to 'Luminosity' and reduced the strength of the effect to around 40%. I found this works best for landscapes, no idea how it goes on wildlife, I'm not up to those photos yet! I copied the above from a camera magazine I have and it gives a subtle sharpening effect. If I shoot in jpeg, I don't bother, but RAW files need some sharpening.