ChrisLumix

You're so right - "Xtra MP sell cameras". Yet it's the law of diminishing returns : it was true for the first years of digicams, but it's become progressively less so for the reasons you cited.

Pro-level DSLRs need to forget the MP equation altogether. After all, you can now shoot at resolutions that produce poster sized prints unthinkable in the days of 35mm, when the ability to create 10x8 prints without loss of quality was the yardstick. WE DON'T NEED MORE RESOLUTION!!

On the other hand, it still needs someone to convince the 'general public'. If one of the major brands brought out a camera with REDUCED MP but of such a quality that made the results unarguably stunning, and then that camera sold like hot cakes, it would convert the masses at a stroke and the MP argument would be over. 

Larger aperture f2.2 lens - larger sensor (same pixels so larger pixels) - dual tone flash - 10 frames per second continuous shooting  - 120fps slow motion 720 video - image stabiliser ---- I'd be tempted to try for an early upgrade simply for the camera but a friend is getting one on launch day so I'll give it a proper test before I part with cash.

There are STILL people out there who think the more MP the better! It's like going to buy a bookcase and the assistant tells you "Oh, you should buy THIS one - it's got 7 shelves"; without knowing the width, height and depth of the shelves, it's pretty meaningless.

 Here's one attempt to prove the point (the difficulty is to find a full face portrait that's fairly evenly lit both sides - after extensive search I've had to make do with this CD cover):

The original is on the left. Despite feathering and some work with Levels, the join is pretty obvious in #2, much less so in #3. But even with this symmetrical face, the difference is subtly clear I think - #2 and #3 look more like twins than like exactly the same person.

The only trouble with flipping half a face is you finish with a different person. Hardly anybody's face is symmetrical and that is part of our characteristic look. As an example take a photograph of a face, split in half and flip each half in post processing software to make two full faces and you will get  apparently different people, now add the original photo and you will have a third who looks more like you know them. Flipping halves of faces is OK as long as it's not for people you recognise.

 

http://www.make-digital.com/make/vol16/?pg=103#pg104

 

There is also the mirror effect when viewing photo's. We usually see ourselves in the mirror, which in effect flips our whole face. That would not matter if we were symmetrical, but means we get used to seeing ourselves the opposite hand to in a photograph and why photographs of us look wrong to us but right to everybody else.

 

http://io9.com/5929667/why-do-we-hate-seeing-photos-of-ourselves

 

In fact it has scientifically been proved the people we find the most beautiful are in fact actually the most average and symmetrical in all their features. Meaning they have eyes, noses, mouths, bodies and faces that are the average in size and both sides of the face are virtually identical if flipped.

Absolutely right - that's why I said that after doing that, Korky could "tweak to his heart's content". I also assumed - but was probably confusing this project with Fuji's antique plate collection - that it was an old photograph (antique). 

However, you're quite right - a half face flipped to give a whole face would, by itself with no further changes, look rather unnatural.

I'm not entirely sure what you're asking here :

1. 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
2. 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 
3. 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.

oooh  my iphone must like what I have to say

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

I came across this whilst goggling for something and this came up in the search.  

Are they off there heads or what

 

http://www.photoforum.com/forum/past-photo-contests/79459-buy-high-quality-fake-registered-passport-driver-license-ids-many-more.html

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

SPINACH

Despite clearing the thumbnail cache, a few minutes later I am back to where I started.

 

 

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.

As an aside since I got the 60 D I have not been able to open RAW file in Elements 7. The 450D files were not a problem. As I use DPP for the RAW files its not a problem but curious as to why they will not open.

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!)

Dave......I know all that, but there are other good reasons or me to feel so aggrieved......there are no signs or notices up banning photography......every Tom Dick and Harry including children carry and use cameras to take still pictures and videos everywhere and anywhere.......the security Guards picked on me solely because, my tiny micro four thirds camera had an obvious lens fitted.

 

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).

last time I went watching the racing I thought to myself the next time I go I may print off some cards with my redbubble address on in hope some of the drivers may want to buy prints of their own cars being raced.

 

one of the guys I went with said I'd need permission from  the track owners is this right??

 

if so when I go watching Rally in a forest surely I don't have to contact the Forestry commission or utilities companies who own them for the same thing?

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!