[slackline]

A new kind of cloud

Pretty sure this is what I saw when up in the Lakes a few weeks back.  Have some better pics, but haven't sorted them, so this panoramic will have to do (best viewed large to see the clouds in detail)...

[Johnny Brown]

Nice. I've always called those duvet clouds. I think you're overdoing the grads a bit though. The rule of thumb is that for a natural result the sky should always remain brighter than the land. Even on reflections which is where most seem to slip up (0.45 is ideal, 0.6 a little too much). I only use more than a 0.6 shooting into the light.

[slackline]

Nice. I've always called those duvet clouds. I think you're overdoing the grads a bit though. The rule of thumb is that for a natural result the sky should always remain brighter than the land. Even on reflections which is where most seem to slip up (0.45 is ideal, 0.6 a little too much). I only use more than a 0.6 shooting into the light.

Still learning to use the grads, felt I'd over-done it a bit on these when I looked at them on the computer as I didn't like the tops of the hills being so dark, but not much I could do about it (too lazy to do anything much in the GIMP).  Cheers for the pointers though, will bear this in mind in the future.

[Johnny Brown]

The other option if the contrast isn't too high (as in your cloud shot above) is to expose carefully in RAW, metering with the histogram etc, then use the grad, recovery and fill tools in Lightroom.

[tomtom]

The other option if the contrast isn't too high (as in your cloud shot above) is to expose carefully in RAW, metering with the histogram etc, then use the grad, recovery and fill tools in Lightroom.

OK, I dont really know anything about dig photography etc.. but used (when a yoof) take alot of piccies - develop, use filters etc.. Anyway heres the daft question.. I was wondering whether you can get a similar/same result post processing the raw image file as you can putting a filter on the lens??

[slackline]

The other option if the contrast isn't too high (as in your cloud shot above) is to expose carefully in RAW, metering with the histogram etc, then use the grad, recovery and fill tools in Lightroom.

Ahh, the catch is I'm a Linux evangelist user and prefer free open source software (and make donations every now and again).  I'm also exceptionally lazy with post-processing about the only thing I can be arsed doing is stitching pics together (which the software mainly takes care of itself, although I tweak things here and there).  I've taken a few RAW shots here and there, and tried playing (see below), but I've not even got round to simply converting some RAWs I took in the Lakes a month ago to simple JPG's (which probably do have decent cloud shots as the below was taken on the way to Wasdale head, and the clouds looked great from there)!!

OK, I dont really know anything about dig photography etc.. but used (when a yoof) take alot of piccies - develop, use filters etc.. Anyway heres the daft question.. I was wondering whether you can get a similar/same result post processing the raw image file as you can putting a filter on the lens??

Whilst I don't do it myself, I've seen some impressive effects (before/after) shots and with RAW you can do shit loads, so I'd imagine you can do a lot more.

Here's two treatments of one shot I took ages ago when I was playing around (not a great example really but gives you an idea, unfortunately I can't even remember what I did!!!).  First one is more natural, although possibly tilting towards purple, second one is clearly greener/yellower (and either cropped or at a longer focal length). Done using UFraw

[Johnny Brown]

OK, I dont really know anything about dig photography etc.. but used (when a yoof) take alot of piccies - develop, use filters etc.. Anyway heres the daft question.. I was wondering whether you can get a similar/same result post processing the raw image file as you can putting a filter on the lens??

As ever, the answer is 'it depends'. Colur balance filters, yes, defintely. Polarisers, no, not at all. Grads, if you can capture all the contrast range of the scene into one exposure, then yes. If you can't, then a range of exposures can be digitally combined. A lot of pro landscapers have ditched the grads completely in favour of combining exposures (nb not the same as HDR), personally I still use them though perhaps less strong than with film. I do use the grads in Lightroom a lot.

Ahh, the catch is I'm a Linux evangelist user and prefer free open source software

Obviously I was fishing for that... its not too strong to say that if it wasn't for Lightroom I would view shooting digital as a massive pain in the arse. With it, its a pleasure. The first software I've ever paid for, and willingly.

[slackline]

Right back on topic...

How to spite your dad in Egypt 

Playing God

Boyle Tsar 

[slackline]

Ahh, the catch is I'm a Linux evangelist user and prefer free open source software

Obviously I was fishing for that... its not too strong to say that if it wasn't for Lightroom I would view shooting digital as a massive pain in the arse. With it, its a pleasure. The first software I've ever paid for, and willingly.

Hmm,

I have actually been considering Nikons software for this after chatting extensively with a knowledgeable user.  Aside from the fact he shoots with a full-frame D700 so has a better quality body (and lenses to accompany it) he really rates the work flow and the fact that because its Nikon they know exactly what the hardware is doing so write the software to match it.  One draw back is I can't find whether anyone has acutally got it working under an emulator and I'm not about to fork out for an XP license to run it under a virtual machine for one piece of software.

 

For the time being I'll work on getting the shot right in camera (lots of room for improvement there!)

[Johnny Brown]

A proper digital workflow doesn't involve getting it 'right' in camera though, its about getting the best info in camera, then processing it right. 

I don't think the Nikon software is much of a workflow solution, just a RAW processing tool. It did have advantages with colours until Adobe brought out the lastest set of Profiles (Adobe standard is my favourite for Nikon files). Lightroom is a DAM suite, RAW processor and more rolled into one - basically the entire workflow. If there's one program worth running under a seperate OS its that.

[matthew]

Jellyfish from outerspace

[slackline]

Jellyfish from outerspace

 

Not seen many crop circles in the flesh, although I do remember driving home up the M1 and there being a rather large "Mistubishi" crop circle on the hill on the left not far south of Sheffield.  I figured some people had been out on a bender and were paying homage to their dealer 

[tomtom]

NOW this is what I call f*cking good news 



Never mind Gordons impending doom, bring on the cuzza 

[slackline]

NOW this is what I call f*cking good news  

[GCW]

No shit Sherlock

[slackline]

No shit Sherlock

Why are women more likely to want flexible working?  I'd be quite happy to be flexible in my working if offered the chance to go part-time and I could afford to.

[Ru]

No shit Sherlock

Why are women more likely to want flexible working?  I'd be quite happy to be flexible in my working if offered the chance to go part-time and I could afford to.

Cos they are more likely to want to look after children? By "want" I assume they mean actually request and/or accept, rather than just a vague whimsical desire to work less.

[GCW]

It's been known for years that women in medicine have a higher rate of taking time out/ part time working (families).  
For a while there was a much higher drop out rate in female medical students too.  Things may change but not overnight.  

It just seems a very non-story to me.  It's common sense that if you increase the proportion of your workforce that are likely to take a year out, you may need more people.

[tomtom]

My job (academic) has significantly fewer women than men - despite there being similar numbers at the Postgrad level (and to a degree at postdoc). This (I think) is because academia is especially cruel if you take time out for birth/bringing up children... Our careers are built around research and publication - and a 1-2 year break from this can be really hard to come back from - it punches a whopping great hole in your publication record. Its even worse in the States with tenure track....
Sure, we can get flexible working hours - but at the end of the day it really is publish or perish...

[slackline]

Cos they are more likely to want to look after children? By "want" I assume they mean actually request and/or accept, rather than just a vague whimsical desire to work less.

Yeah, I was just being facetious/obtuse about the poor journalistic write-up.

My job (academic) has significantly fewer women than men - despite there being similar numbers at the Postgrad level (and to a degree at postdoc). This (I think) is because academia is especially cruel if you take time out for birth/bringing up children... Our careers are built around research and publication - and a 1-2 year break from this can be really hard to come back from - it punches a whopping great hole in your publication record. Its even worse in the States with tenure track....
Sure, we can get flexible working hours - but at the end of the day it really is publish or perish...

Conversely the area of academia from which I hail (statistical genetics) has quite a high proportion of females.  Quite why I couldn't say (and its not like there are tons of honeyz either), but most likely due to one of the early big-wigs, a guy called Robert Elston who was more than happy to have female Phd students and post-docs.  I remember seeing an "academic family tree" at a conference and there were easily as many females as males, and many of his early female students were still highly active at quite a high level in the field, no doubt thanks to his support.

[Plattsy]

Gay penguins

Particularly enjoyed this bit. "The zoo flew in four females in a bid to get the endangered birds to reproduce - but quickly abandoned the scheme after causing outrage among gay rights activists, who accused it of interfering in the animals' behaviour."

Survival of a species vs rights of gay penguins. 

[SA Chris]

Yeah, I was just being facetious/obtuse about the poor journalistic write-up.

You should insert a smiley when you do that, otherwise it confuses people.

[slackline]

Gay penguins

Particularly enjoyed this bit. "The zoo flew in four females in a bid to get the endangered birds to reproduce - but quickly abandoned the scheme after causing outrage among gay rights activists, who accused it of interfering in the animals' behaviour."

Survival of a species vs rights of gay penguins.  

I wonder if they like fish-sticks?  Do they put them in each others mouths?

[Jaspersharpe]

The lazy, slack, inaccurate reporting on Radio 1 really pisses me off. They're running an item on the news today about how 1 in 10 drivers are giving up nights out in order to be able to afford to fill their cars with fuel "because the price of petrol has risen to over £1 per litre again".

So they were ok when it was 95p or so per litre as it has been for a while then? Seeing as filling up an average tank will be costing about £2.50 (or FUCK ALL) extra these people must have been managing some pretty cheap nights out to suddenly be unable to afford them.

Or the story could be total fucking nonsense. I wonder.

[tomtom]

The lazy, slack, inaccurate reporting on Radio 1 really pisses me off. They're running an item on the news today about how 1 in 10 drivers are giving up nights out in order to be able to afford to fill their cars with fuel "because the price of petrol has risen to over £1 per litre again".

Its ALL theatre darling...  just make some controversy to get the punters listening...