Photography Thread
Comments
-
That gives a great sense of depth with the valley being highlighted and drawing your eye to follow it.0
-
I snapped this visitor yesterday evening, and didn't realise how pretty its carapace was until I looked at the photo just now.
1 -
Re Google Photos sharing, it does seem the workaround I'm using (right click image, click 'copy link to image, then add .jpg to the extremely long link) is fallible. Any more reliable ones? I remember this cropping up before in this thread...0
-
I ended up using Flickr.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
pblakeney said:
I ended up using Flickr.
That's not the workaround I was looking for, given I've just (at last) paid some actual $s to Google to increase storage. (I'd been using Wordpress on free plans for ages, but they charge an arm and a leg to increase storage on a single blog.)0 -
Showed up fine for me. Suspect it is a Windows limitation on filename length.briantrumpet said:Re Google Photos sharing, it does seem the workaround I'm using (right click image, click 'copy link to image, then add .jpg to the extremely long link) is fallible. Any more reliable ones? I remember this cropping up before in this thread...
1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Basic Flickr at 1000 photos is free. I'll just start deleting once I get close as it's not my primary library, I just upload to share.briantrumpet said:pblakeney said:I ended up using Flickr.
That's not the workaround I was looking for, given I've just (at last) paid some actual $s to Google to increase storage. (I'd been using Wordpress on free plans for ages, but they charge an arm and a leg to increase storage on a single blog.)The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
...1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Anything worth having costs money. Google works well for automatically backing up everything you take, which is what I need for work. 1000 photos would barely last me a month and shunting between accounts is a PITA.pblakeney said:
Basic Flickr at 1000 photos is free. I'll just start deleting once I get close as it's not my primary library, I just upload to share.briantrumpet said:pblakeney said:I ended up using Flickr.
That's not the workaround I was looking for, given I've just (at last) paid some actual $s to Google to increase storage. (I'd been using Wordpress on free plans for ages, but they charge an arm and a leg to increase storage on a single blog.)1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
rjsterry said:
Pffft.pblakeney said:
Basic Flickr at 1000 photos is free. I'll just start deleting once I get close as it's not my primary library, I just upload to share.briantrumpet said:pblakeney said:I ended up using Flickr.
That's not the workaround I was looking for, given I've just (at last) paid some actual $s to Google to increase storage. (I'd been using Wordpress on free plans for ages, but they charge an arm and a leg to increase storage on a single blog.)
Quite. I've got about 6000 on my Wordpress blog that's just run out of space, and though I can (and have deleted) a few dozen to make space for the text etc (linking photos from Google from now on), and am sure I can delete more, it's actually an aide memoire searchable resource for me going back several years, and useful for those who don't Facebook.
FWIW, Wordpress used to give 3gb of free storage, with no limit on how many separate blogs you started each with that storage, but now they've limited new ones to 1gb.
Expanding my Google storage to 100gb makes a lot of sense anyway, not just for photos, and it was only a couple of £s a month. I've managed to keep it at about11gb for years, but it's taken careful management.0 -
Obviously. I only use Flickr for temporarily sharing stuff.rjsterry said:
Anything worth having costs money. Google works well for automatically backing up everything you take, which is what I need for work. 1000 photos would barely last me a month and shunting between accounts is a PITA.pblakeney said:
Basic Flickr at 1000 photos is free. I'll just start deleting once I get close as it's not my primary library, I just upload to share.briantrumpet said:pblakeney said:I ended up using Flickr.
That's not the workaround I was looking for, given I've just (at last) paid some actual $s to Google to increase storage. (I'd been using Wordpress on free plans for ages, but they charge an arm and a leg to increase storage on a single blog.)
My proper library currently has 44,409 photos. And those are just my "keepers".The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.1 -
-
View of the Sugar Loaf (I think) from Bredon Hill, about 44 miles away.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition2 -
Yep, looks like it0
-
All the fun of the fair, trying a bit of long exposure motion blur but not easy doing it hand held so the background is a bit blurred too. Would also be more effective in the dark.
1 -
Idiot's question - when you do a long exposure in daylight, how do you stop it being wildly over-exposed. Trying it yesterday on a stream on my Sony with shutter-speed priority (trying a few seconds), it just bleached out. I'm obviously missing something *really* obvious...0
-
ISO down low, make the shutter as small as possible and if it is still blown out start using an ND filter. Not sure how many of those your compact allows but that photo above was done on my phone (it was pouring with rain and sun so bright I was squinting which summed up today’s weather here!).briantrumpet said:Idiot's question - when you do a long exposure in daylight, how do you stop it being wildly over-exposed. Trying it yesterday on a stream on my Sony with shutter-speed priority (trying a few seconds), it just bleached out. I'm obviously missing something *really* obvious...
Edit - on this one I just pointed and pressed using an app called Slow Shutter using the motion blur option. It was only a half second exposure so not very long.0 -
Thanks. I'll try the ISO thing next, as I see it's set on auto. I tried turning the exposure adjustment down to -2 (turning it up to +2 for the Milky Way shots made a big difference), but that didn't work. At least there will be plenty of water around to try it on next week... the drought has definitely broken here.Pross said:
ISO down low, make the shutter as small as possible and if it is still blown out start using an ND filter. Not sure how many of those your compact allows but that photo above was done on my phone (it was pouring with rain and sun so bright I was squinting which summed up today’s weather here!).briantrumpet said:Idiot's question - when you do a long exposure in daylight, how do you stop it being wildly over-exposed. Trying it yesterday on a stream on my Sony with shutter-speed priority (trying a few seconds), it just bleached out. I'm obviously missing something *really* obvious...
Edit - on this one I just pointed and pressed using an app called Slow Shutter using the motion blur option. It was only a half second exposure so not very long.
Here's the stream I was trying to do it on...
1 -
If you can leave it until dusk (or do it very early morning)0
-
Pross said:
If you can leave it until dusk (or do it very early morning)
Hmm, I guess part of the magic of this particular stream for me is the crytal-clear water (when we've not just had a storm) and the shimmering light, so maybe I'd lose more than I gain if it needs low light to do a long exposure. Interesting...0 -
Aside from cycling, another hobby dear to my heart is tropical fish keeping. This is a pic of my Red Shoulder Severum, a cichlid from South America.
I'd be very surprised if I was the only member on this forum keeping tropical fish.2 -
Maybe, long exposure will make it quite milky looking. Worth experimenting though.briantrumpet said:Pross said:If you can leave it until dusk (or do it very early morning)
Hmm, I guess part of the magic of this particular stream for me is the crytal-clear water (when we've not just had a storm) and the shimmering light, so maybe I'd lose more than I gain if it needs low light to do a long exposure. Interesting...
This was a dusk one in quite a heavily wooded valley
2 -
Pross said:
Maybe, long exposure will make it quite milky looking. Worth experimenting though.briantrumpet said:Pross said:If you can leave it until dusk (or do it very early morning)
Hmm, I guess part of the magic of this particular stream for me is the crytal-clear water (when we've not just had a storm) and the shimmering light, so maybe I'd lose more than I gain if it needs low light to do a long exposure. Interesting...
This was a dusk one in quite a heavily wooded valley
Nice.
I'll give it a go anyway, though I think the style might work better on somewhere like the Dart or Teign.
0 -
I want to go to Watersmeet in the autumn to do some. It’s my wife’s favourite place and I’d like to try to do one based on a painting we bought from a local artist on our first trip there after getting married. I think they really work best where there is cascading water and things like stones breaking up the flow.briantrumpet said:Pross said:
Maybe, long exposure will make it quite milky looking. Worth experimenting though.briantrumpet said:Pross said:If you can leave it until dusk (or do it very early morning)
Hmm, I guess part of the magic of this particular stream for me is the crytal-clear water (when we've not just had a storm) and the shimmering light, so maybe I'd lose more than I gain if it needs low light to do a long exposure. Interesting...
This was a dusk one in quite a heavily wooded valley
Nice.
I'll give it a go anyway, though I think the style might work better on somewhere like the Dart or Teign.
I’m only a novice though who has been trying this sort of stuff for a year or so. PB, Wheelspinner or Masjer can probably give much better advice.0 -
Had some for a while but found them hard work so didn’t replace them when they died.bonk_king said:Aside from cycling, another hobby dear to my heart is tropical fish keeping. This is a pic of my Red Shoulder Severum, a cichlid from South America.
I'd be very surprised if I was the only member on this forum keeping tropical fish.0 -
Cardiff Bay
2 -
My tuppence. Overcast days with soft light are better. Use a tripod, lowest ISO you can get, polariser filter, Manual mode, set the aperture to f16**, experiment with shutter speeds. If they are still over exposed then you also need an ND filter.Pross said:
...briantrumpet said:Pross said:
Maybe, long exposure will make it quite milky looking. Worth experimenting though.briantrumpet said:Pross said:If you can leave it until dusk (or do it very early morning)
Hmm, I guess part of the magic of this particular stream for me is the crytal-clear water (when we've not just had a storm) and the shimmering light, so maybe I'd lose more than I gain if it needs low light to do a long exposure. Interesting...
This was a dusk one in quite a heavily wooded valley
Nice.
I'll give it a go anyway, though I think the style might work better on somewhere like the Dart or Teign.
I’m only a novice though who has been trying this sort of stuff for a year or so. PB, Wheelspinner or Masjer can probably give much better advice.
If they are underexposed then change the aperture or ISO to achieve what you want.
*Edited for exposure comments.*
**Diffraction starts to introduce softness at higher numbers and the actual smallest usable aperture (highest number) will depend on the lens used.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.1 -
pblakeney said:
My tuppence. Overcast days with soft light are better. Use a tripod, lowest ISO you can get, polariser filter, Manual mode, set the aperture to f16*, experiment with shutter speeds. If that's not enough then you also need an ND filter.Pross said:
...briantrumpet said:Pross said:
Maybe, long exposure will make it quite milky looking. Worth experimenting though.briantrumpet said:Pross said:If you can leave it until dusk (or do it very early morning)
Hmm, I guess part of the magic of this particular stream for me is the crytal-clear water (when we've not just had a storm) and the shimmering light, so maybe I'd lose more than I gain if it needs low light to do a long exposure. Interesting...
This was a dusk one in quite a heavily wooded valley
Nice.
I'll give it a go anyway, though I think the style might work better on somewhere like the Dart or Teign.
I’m only a novice though who has been trying this sort of stuff for a year or so. PB, Wheelspinner or Masjer can probably give much better advice.
*Diffraction starts to introduce softness at higher numbers and the actual smallest usable aperture (highest number) will depend on the lens used.
Thanks PB. That does indeed suggest that my cheap compact won't easily achieve the sorts of results you get, but, like the night sky ones, I'll give it a go at some stage just to see what I can get.
Meant to say to Pross that half-decent phone cameras do often seem to be good at specific things like this, not least (I guess) as they use very clever software solutions in order to make up for the lack of fancy lenses and whatnot. I remember being with a friend who took a photo of a so-so sunset on his Google Pixel, and when I saw the result at the time, it was stunning, and nothing like what we were looking at.0 -
Portuguese cacti shots. Auto focus messed up the silhouette one, but I quite like the effect.3
