Відео

Moose....... Lost some respect after this vedio........ He has his own marketed CPL's. Moose Peterson "warming# CPL. HMMMMMM. BUT dont crop.

Great clinic on eye editing. Would never have thought of doing multiple zones on the eye catchlight areas. Really works well on Kingfishers!

Interesting and well put. Thank you.

Great conversation i have been photographing for years kadacrome 64 slide so i know what im taking about .the main thing about photography is you must tell the truth however you took the photo or manipulayed it just tell the truth.

I don't see a teleconverter the same as cropping. Cropping cuts the pixel count of the photo and a teleconverter is just a cheat to make the image bigger on the sensor. I try not to crop if possible but that doesn't mean I don't crop. I edit to how ever I feel, sometimes I want things to pop so I might push the saturation up. Sometimes I want things gloomy and I'll pull the saturation down and bump up the contrast. I create images from multiple layers as well, it's an art, creativity being released to make the image you want or need. I don't get too carried away on wildlife photos although I like vibrant colors and may make them pop a little too much sometimes. It's ok though I like my photos and others do too so it is what it is. Do what you want just don't AI an entire shot because that is cheating.

Found your video searching for reviews of Photolab 8. Your opinions are much the same as mine. The killer for me is the masking - DXO seem immovable on this but are now one of the few (if not only) RAW editor choosing not to incorporate AI to make this task easier. Were it not for that, I’d definitely buy a copy.

What is reality anyway? Is it just what your eyes can see? Your eyes can see a very limited amount of the full spectrum. Is infrared photography cheating or is it presenting an other facet of reality? What about black and white photography? It’s not reality! What about colorblind people? The reality for them is very different… What about astrophotography with very long exposure to see objects in the deep sky ? Your eyes are not able to see it but these celestial objects are there! What about macro? Your eyes cannot see these details … And what about white balance? The real colours under underneath an incandescent light, a neon light or a tungsten light are all different but your brain adjusts what you see and everything appears ok but it’s not real… the scenes under those lights are green or yellow in reality. Nobody says anything when someone uses white balance. Furthermore, your eyes are seeing a lot more of dynamic range that your camera cannot capture. So your camera is NOT capturing reality anyway. I think it’s ok to edit the scene to make it look like you’re BRAIN saw it. And if you go beyond that, it’s ok too, but just inform your audience, especially if there’s AI involved.

Your microphone is too big! Nothing wrong with cropping. I wish all my shots didn't need to be cropped... Moose sucks! Who cares what he thinks about cropping! AI sucks and will get worse. Tony Northrup and what he thinks is totally irrelevant to me. (Glad he keeps Chelsea in his videos) or he'd be working a real job long ago!! LOL...People use to throw the red flag on calling something "photoshopped" Well AI will make "photoshopped" look harmless! Crop on photographers and be successful!

Great!

IMO when the photo is presented as being a true depiction of the scene, but it isn't, you are on a slippery slope. For me it's fine to tweak the brightness/contrast levels a bit so it looks like it did to you at the time and a basic crop for a more pleasing composition is okay. But cloning things in or out is going a bit too far IMO. Being artistic is fine, but you have to acknowledge that on the image.

If we are saying cheating is acting dishonestly to gain an advantage, then what qualifies as cheating becomes very clear.

There are so many ways to "cheat" with photography, however when you use that word, it makes it sound like you're doing something wrong. A photograph, no matter how good, will never be reality and will never truly represent what we see when we are there. Just using differing shutter speeds changes the scene - do we use a long shutter speed to blur the motion or super fast to freeze it? Only the photographer can say what is right for the image they are making. Fun topic.

yawn

Good topic. Personally, I strive for minimal edits to what I saw but consider cropping perfectly acceptable. I see too many bird photos that are overly manipulated to achieve images presented as “fine art”. Plus, my wife immediately lets me know if something looks phoney!

My personal limit for changing a photograph - and it's not "cheating" but retouch to reach a pleasant result - would be to add something to the image that I didn't photograph. Removing an ice cream add in front of an old castle is perfectly ok with me. Such a respectful photograph of mine was refuted by a potential customer due to my tampering with "authenticity". Ridiculous! The same goes for minor distracting details, I remove them when "minor" means: irrelevant for the expression of the photo. I would not replace a sky - or use generative A. I use AI for noise reduction because it makes the product pleasant to look at without changing the content. I agree AI-"photos" are not photography. It's a kind of graphic art, at least in the more successful cases. Claming an AI generated image to be your own photo is cheating - like in fraud. I don't agree with Chelsea that lighting up a window is ok if the image is used commercially and claimed to be authentical.

Let me add that running your video about photography with an image that doesn't change - except for some stock-flashes - is boring, even when the theme is interesting. It would be much more worth my time to watch your content, if you demonstrated what you are talking about using ..... photographs! - and why not your own?

Why are your face partly covered by your mic? I am distracted from not knowing the answer.

It is worthless to upgrade from A-1 to A-1ii nothing mind blowing.. i am happy with the auto focus already at hand in A-1 it is more than enough for my needs… one thing i always wonder is that there were the times when people use to shoot with dslrs like nikon d850 or d500 and still manage to take breath taking pics there was no hue and cry at that times to constantly upgrade auto focus unlike today where every year auto focus is the only hot cake selling.. Incompetent people hide behind gears… i think the person behind camera matters the most.

I agree with you about the limitations of DxO when it comes to masking abilities. Once they get up to the LR level I will seriously consider to move to DxO.

Precapture takes more internal high speed memory than the A1 most likely doesn't have. As far as canon and nikon giving out free upgrades, they had to get their cameras to market before they were completed because they were losing a ton of money to sony.

Sorry but this giant microphone is more than disturbing. It is covering like 25% of ur face. Put it a bit on the side and don't record upfront ... or idk do something else but this looks really weird. Video Content is good tho!

Very helpful video! Nice that you took the time to explain the various choices in Topaz AI. I only have 1 day of experience with the program. First as a standalone version, and later in Photoshop. What I discovered was that Topaz does not necessarily always give the desired result, so I will use layers in Photoshop to highlight or hide parts of the image. In any case, my first impression is exclusively positive. Must add that I have used Topaz Denoise and Topaz Sharpen previously, but that Topaz Photo AI is significantly better and much more practical not to deal with two programs. Hope you continue to make such useful videos about wildlife, photography equipment (although I prefer Nikon ;), and using different software.

Yes, pre-capture continually captures images as soon as you half-depress the shutter button, if you have it depressed for longer than the pre-capture time, it simply overwrites those files in the cache so once you actually depress the button all the way, you get photo for the amount of time you specified. Theoretically you could hold the shutter button halfway down for ten seconds waiting for a bird to take off, then once it does, you immediately press the shutter and you get photos starting 0.2 or 1 secnd or whatever. Takes all the guesswork out of it really.

Precapture captures the bird before it flew. When you see it go, press the shutter button fully and you got the bird, .3 to 1 sec., before it took off. No anticipation required.

I’m sticking with my A1 and will be purchasing a used one to replace my A9 classic.

Have the wind at your back photographing birds taking off or landing. The opposite for mammals that would smell the photographer...with mammals, have the wind in your face.

EXCELLENT! Another example of behavior, is ducks preening and dunking their heads will soon flap their wings...be ready for wing flapping with a fast shutter speed. A bighorn ram will roll his head as he beds down...be ready! Excellent advise to re-visit favorite areas...learn where is optimal background, optimal lighting at sunrise or sunset. 1) be at eye- level or for reflection of waterfowl on water, shoot higher than the duck, 2) catch-light in subject's eye, 3) no distracting elements like a stick behind the bird's head, 4) use eye detection for perched birds, 5) do not use eye detection for birds in flight. 6) Avoid "bird on a stick" photos 7) Avoid bird in flight against the sky...try for incoming bird with a non-sky background. 8) For shorebirds or waterfowl, try using a hide and shooting with camera on the ground pad using the flip screen for boca background.

I am in my first week with PhotoLab 8. So far, very impressed, especially with Noise reduction and Lens correction tools.

Great review ... specifically you discussed the carry-on options in a great details which helped me and sure it will many others ...

The biggest problem in general with wildlife photography is to get close enough. Most of the satisfying photos we can watch on the internet are taken from hides with arranged bait. In the case of birds it's often a matter of paying for a day in a hide rather than betting on random luck in the free (at least in Scandinavia). Usually birds and other wildlife spot us long before we know their presence, and to shorten the natural escape distance without being observed even from a transportable hide takes a lot of patience, read: hours of waiting and aging. At least you know that you'r in the right place with wedding photography.

I quit Adobe for more than a year ago and replaced ACR/(Lightroom) with the free raw editor and file manager Darktable, which works directly on the OS filesystem. It's really good for photographers who learn to use it. I further use the cheap to buy Affinity Photo 2 for the pixel editing, and there's actually a pretty good raw editor in AP2 too. I too fell for the ease to use DxO's PhotoLab 6-7-8 - but ... when everything is perfect in PL, there are more tools left in Darktable to finetune the image with. About 98 percent of my images are finished in Darktable without touching AP2. Just one thing is missing in Darktable - an effective noise reduction tool for high ISO images. To solve that problem I bought DxO's PureRAW 3 (now 4) though DxO's formidable noise reduction already exists in PLn, but without the full screen preview. The output from PR4 is a DNG which is treated like a common RAW file in Darktable. When I finally decided to get Adobe out of my hair ;O) I found out how many files Adobe had placed on my computer, and it looked like an infection - or even an integration with ANS.

Sorry bro but apparently Sony a1m2 will be the same price so the obvious choice will be sony a1m2

Thanks for the video! I'm a hobbyist who's used Luminar Neo for edits and am currently trialing DXO Photolab 8. I'm actually considering purchasing in part BECAUSE of its masking, not in spite of it. The reason is twofold: Photolab's control point masks often give better results than AI masks, and they usually don't take more time. One example of Photolab's control points giving better results is when I was trying to create a silhouette of a figure against a setting sun. AI masking got my subject, but had no feathering, making the result a bit artificial-looking, unless I manually feathered the mask. However, because Photolab's control points are luma and chroma sensitive (making them far more than just radial masks!), my resulting silhouette in Photolab had the light nicely wrapping around their figure. Also, AI masks are often far from perfect, and need a lot of manual retouching. In my limited experience, DXO's control points and control lines require just as much, if not a bit less retouching to look right. And the tools in Photolab (luma and chroma sliders and negative control points) make mask retouching way easier than in Luminar Neo (but maybe not Lightroom, whose mask intersection abilities are more sophisticated than Neo's). AI masking can be better at times. For example, I can see Lightroom's ability to select specific human features (hair, eyes, etc.) make local adjustments way easier for professional portrait photographers than DXO's tools. And when you have a strong subject against a relatively clean background, AI selection again makes things easier. But for my use cases (street, cityscape, travel), DXO's tools do a great job, and I'm not missing AI masking so far. Andy Hutchinson has a good UA-cam video explaining why DXO's "dumb" masking tools often (but not always) meet or exceed AI masks in a video entitled "Wait! Are A.I. Masks Actually a Bad Idea?" .

For me it's a matter of if my financial situation changes or if I live in an area where I cannot always be connected to the Internet to use a subscription service. In reality the price is good from Adobe if you can guarantee an Internet connection.

Timely advice for me. I’m about 6 months into bird photography as a new passion and have many excellent shots both on perches and in flight. But want to get into more dramatic shots with some interesting behavior and lighting. Your backlit shots of the spoonbill and egret are killer. Tough to get those where the entire bird is not just a silhouette and light actually filters through their feathers. And you can also see their faces. Guess that’s why we have burst mode!

Good tips. Nice to hear advice about wildlife photography that isn't focused on gear and settings ... and when you did talk about gear and settings it was to encourage people to think outside the box a bit.

Tamron also has a lower cost telephoto lens of 100-400mm VC which has had good reviews in the $800. range for my Nikon D780 DSLR. Most longer lenses of 150 to 500 or 600 are over $1K to $2K+ range. I am looking at the Tamron for occasional use and not as big or heavy. Mostly taking zoo photos and local wildlife/birds and small animals for fun and want to keep the budget low. Thanks for all the great tips. Maybe I will rent a 150-500 or 600mm to check it out first at my local camera store. But I may prefer the 100-400mm Tamron VC lens to get for next spring/summer.

Thank you!!!

Thanks a lot for taking the time to make this video. If any of your budget-minded viewers wants some specific suggestions, IMO, the two main thresholds would be: - Budget of $1500: a well used semi-pro full frame DSLR (e.g. $700 for a canon 5d IV), and a good basic 150-600mm lens (e.g. $800 for a sigma 150-600mm C). - Budget of $2500: a 5 years old full frame mirrorless body and a much better lens (e.g. sony a7 III + sony 200-600mm or Nikon equivalent). I doubt that APS-C or micro four thirds could offer a reasonable wildlife setting under $1500. Micro four third would be limited to 20 megapixels and very slow lenses. In any case, I would stay away from using a full frame lens on an APS-C body because more than half the light will be lost on every single shot.

AI is the next revolution of work, and will likely be of the same magnitude as the Internet. AI image generation I can see as very problematic for the photography profession, although honestly I see AI as a great tool for photo editing and as an alternative to having to learn all the in’s and out’s of photo editing software. I love wildlife photography and enjoy it as a hobby, but photo editing is a chore that I don’t enjoy. I like the streamlining that modern software tech provides. Again, great video and perspective. I look forward to your next installment!

thank you for the video. Good job.

Thank you for taking the time to do this wonderful video about DXO Photolab 8. I really appreciate it 💝💖💗💖💝

Nice bag. Does the yellow make you more visible to the birds?

This is actually the best beginner introduction to Photo AI that I've seen here on the tubes, and I've seen a lot of them. Good job!

I own the SONY A6700 Camera and the AI is excellent, especially for birds. I was considering the A7R V (without a stacked sensor) but both cameras have blackout, and trying to pan and track BIF it’s almost like being blindfolded, so I will wait for the SONY A1 ll and hope it has the flippy screen. Thank you for your great review.

Great informative videos. Thank you!

Great point about returning to favorite sites. I hang out at W. Ashley Greenway and often see the same birds even in the same trees! But, occasionally I get a Bald Eagle or Reddish Egret that make it all worthwhile. In the meantime, i get lots of reps on egrets, grackles, herons, etc. whats your favorite spot in Chas?

I have the same bag, same color. Love it. Sometimes Shimoda has open box sales and you can save some money that way, that's how I got mine. Just a suggestion but maybe show how you pack the bag? What do you put in it?

I have the A1 and love it. I use it mainly for weddings cause of the silent shutter, the only thing I dislike about it is not having full articulated screen. I also have the A9 classic and still use it for weddings, but if the A1ii doesn’t have much of an upgrade I’ll just buy a used A1. Get video by the way 👍🏾