ChrisLumix

I'm not entirely sure what you're asking here : If it's only 'half a face' for example, you could select what you have, copy, create a new layer, flip horizontal, and nudge into position; you could then tweak it to your heart's content However, if you are talking about creating some 'skin' to use elsewhere, you could use the 'Pattern Maker' to create a pattern from a good area of skin, then use that pattern to gradually reconstruct other parts Or if you mean use the clone tool - uncheck 'Aligned'; then, every time you let go after dragging/cloning, the source will automatically revert to your original source point rather than moving relatively to the cursor position. Sorry if all that sounds confusing - it's much easier to show than tell.

You're NOT a civil servant then?

PAPIST

Apologies if these have already been posted before, but they are well worth seeing a second time. These are quite incredible colour photos taken 100 years ago, using a special technique which allowed them to be viewed in colour after processing and recombination. You really wouldn't think these were pre-WW1, they're so vivid with realistic colours. http://imgur.com/a/cxMZT#5

GREEN

WRIGGLE

Astonishing. And such high quality film too (for YouTube).

Great shot - and great processing too. And you're so right BP, it matters not what a picture is taken on, even an old 126 Instamatic (in the right hands) could produce a stunning shot. Well done Korky, that's a korker

They spam other hobbyist forums too. It all seems very dodgy.

SPINACH

Is there a "thumbnail database" you can rebuild?

HISTORY

This is my own take on how you'd do it these days (in this wunnerful digital era!): 1. Select 'spot metering', assuming your camera supports it 2. Centre the 'spot' on one of the owls and lock the exposure (usually a half depression of the shutter) 3. Re-compose the shot while keeping the exposure locked, and take the picture Later, in post-processing: The owls will be correctly exposed but the rest of the picture will be heavily under-exposed. The best way around this, IMO, is to use the Shadows slider (e.g. in Elements it's in the Quick menu) to bring out the detail in the under-exposed area, and if necessary increase Saturation too if desired. ----------------- Another way to do it, is to 'guesstimate' the exposure compensation needed (in this case by dialling it down a stop or two) or, if the camera is supported e.g. on a tripod, by taking a 'burst' of bracketed shots in quick succession. In either case you would still need to post-process to bring the rest of the shot up to scratch. If you've taken a range of bracketed shots at different exposures, there is now a way to merge them in Photoshop or Elements.

Possibly because Elements 7 is quite old now, and if the 60D is newer, then Elements doesn't recognise the camera?

BOLD

They want you to go to Northampton instead, and take pictures there (It's ironic, is it not, that the ill-fated Ricoh Arena is named after a brand of camera?)

HEIFER

I've always liked this shot of a pair of owls in their enclosure - the colour of the plants and the mossy wall seem to be quite harmonious. Unfortunately, although the picture is well enough exposed, the main subject (the white owls) is massively over-exposed. It was taken on a Minolta XD7 with a Tamron 28-80mm lens. This camera, while very well specified - the world's first multi-mode camera, and the first to feature any kind of programmed mode - had the tried and tested 'centre-weighted' metering system. The ONLY way to expose the owls properly for this composition would be to use spot metering, and under expose the rest of it. This would have resulted in a lot of fuss in the processing - masking off the owls and dodging the rest to bring out shadow details. Now of course, it's easy - just use the Shadows slider in an image editor, after taking the shot using spot metering on the owls, i.e. expose for the owls, under-expose the rest and then bring out the shadow details. (Please note - this is a scan of a 6x4" print, so its technical quality is low!)

Yes this seems the biggest irony. Everyone has a smartphone these days and can take unlimited snaps with them and upload them to their hundreds of "friends" on Facebook. Yet who gives a sh*t about that? It now seems that a 'proper' camera is regarded as 'serious and professional, so what are you doing matey?'. It's all wrong. Amateur photographers need some kind of protection against the Ass Law.

I sometimes think that TIPF is almost a specialist forum for macro photographers, especially if it's bugs and insects! I agree with the advice of the others here : take what you enjoy and don't worry about how narrow or wide the scope is. All I will say is, though, if you have 3 kids, snap away, and don't worry about how good the pictures are as photographic portraits. You and they will treasure the archive of moments in their lives that cannot be recaptured. (But I'm sure you knew that anyway).

I'm not sure it's a copyright issue? Even photos taken covertly at a rock concert against the wishes of the promoters and band, are not breaches of copyright AFAIK. But certainly the track owners and/or promoters could insist that no photographs be taken (or not without permission). But if it's just your mate saying you need to, I'd check it out in more detail!

I vaguely remembered an old discussion on a website I saw, a couple of years ago. This was it (sadly the main image isn't loading, I hope it's still there?): http://photographernotaterrorist.org/bust-card/ There are so many ways to film in a concealed underhand covert way, these people should not be concerned about hobbyists who openly wear their equipment round their necks.

RED

DRIVER

One thing to add to that otherwise really helpful link Phil - most of our picture are in the resolution range 150 - 300 ppi (pixels per inch). As your average (non-Retina) computer display is only 72 ppi, that's the setting we should use when uploading, which reduces the file size considerably.