… what YOU still have to prove, while you keep debating endlessly.
.
After a lot of searching, I found this Nikon tele-converter. I will be calling B&H and also Nikon to find out if it is compatible with my Nikon 70-300 “P” lens:
Nikon Tele-Converter
You have NOT read/understood what you linked to … while B&H didn’t list it.
→ The rear glass obstructs the use of Nikon’s Teleconverters.
AF-P NIKKOR 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6E ED VR
Not sure why I have to “prove” anything? I have already accepted that several of you are better photographers than me, and you certainly have a better grasp of DxO PhotoLab than I do. I don’t always agree with all of you, but while I may “improve”, I don’t think I will ever “catch up”. Nothing wrong with that, and while I may not be up to “your standards”, I am usually happy with what I end up with. My editors were happy. Eventually I get “better” at many things discussed here (excluding things I have no interest in).
Until now, I was not aware of that - which is almost irrelevant when the tech support person at B&H simply told me that there are no tele-converters suitable for my 300 lens. Nice to finally understand the reason though - thank you for posting.
I don’t have the money to spend/waste on a 600mm lens. I’ve wasted far too much money on other things that I thought I would find useful. The best single thing I did was buying my D780, and my 70-300 is fine for me, even if there may sometimes be better choices, such as what @Joanna suggests. My 24-120 is almost perfect for me, but it is too dang heavy.
At least when it comes to cameras, as I see things, the D780 is far and away the best camera for me, bringing me the best of DSLR as well as the best of Mirrorless, not to mention that it captures 4K video, despite “only” having 24 megs from its sensor.
What you wrote “what YOU have to prove” bothers me. There is nothing I have to prove, and I have no desire or need to prove anything anyway. Some of you want to print huge enlargements, which doesn’t apply to me. What does matter to me, is I learn A LOT from all of you, even if that isn’t obvious from the way I write.
And I VERY MUCH appreciate all the feedback and information I learn in this forum. Maybe I don’t say that often enough. I don’t always agree, but so what?
There is gear and there is ability.
While it is easy to throw money at hardware and software, most people don’t bother to hone their skills in their ability e.g. for composition, light and dark, colour harmonies etc. The need for getting such skills is not obvious either, specially if we’re focused on sharpness and true to life reproduction, but even here, we could add some easthetic/artistic value.
Using what one has is certainly more sensible than buying more stuff. More stuff wants to be learnt, less stuff leaves more room for developing skills beyond what dials to turn and sliders to push. Just another opinion.
The way I think of what you wrote, it’s simple. The more things one has to think about, or worry about, or be concerned about, this decreases that person’s ability to do “the basics”.
Eventually, all those new “tools” and “ability” will be learned, and the person will do them naturally, freeing up more “thought time” to be concerned with what I might call “the basics”.
New tools require time to learn them. Or, crudely put, if I’m putting all my concentration into holding the camera/lens still, that detracts from my time/ability to optimize the best image to capture. Or, more specifically, if I am putting all my effort to keep a bird within the image frame, I’m doing a lesser job of capturing the best instant (which I resolve now by holding in the shutter button, hoping some of the images I’m capturing will be something I like).
I like tools that do a better job of automatically doing more of what I’m supposed to do, such as better/more accurate focusing. Those tools amplify my ability to get a good image. But were I to buy a 600 or 800mm lens, making the subject bigger (a good thing) there is a very good chance I won’t even get the subject completely captured).
Or, a silly comparison, if I have 100 units of ability to capture a good image, I want to use as much/many as possible on the most important things. As much as possible, I’d like to “automate”, so I don’t need to waste time thinking about it, and instead use that time trying to get a good (interesting, composed, sharp, colorful) image.
Also, right now I’m going outside trying to capture images of any birds that get near me. This coming weekend, or the next, I will go to one of the bird watching sites near me, where I ought to have hundreds of opportunities to capture something good (if I do my part correctly).
I’m guessing I only need one piece of new hardware, a good monopod.
@wolfgang and @Joanna have pointed out that I’m getting blurry images because I am not capturing scenes with enough pixels. Of course they are right, but it’s a bigger problem that I wasn’t “freezing” the image. So, for my next opportunity, I need to work on both concerns.
I’m not sure how to respond to this. I think it depends a lot on how good a person’s “stuff” is. I guess that depends on what is being photographed. That’s a dangerous thought though, as I suspect many of us can’t afford the camera gear they wish they had.
This of course leads back to the question of “what is it a person want’s to photograph”.
…along with “how good a photograph does the person want to take?”
How many of us are capable of taking this photo that @Joanna posted, let alone knowing the “trick” she used to be able to capture it?
One last thing - I was very happy with my Pelican photo, but got to read here:
It’s not an answer, but my thoughts are “do the best you can with what you’ve got”. …along with knowing how the photo will be used, which in my case is often simply “e-mail”. But I won’t stop until I get photos like this that @Joanna doesn’t complain about. 
https://forum.dxo.com/uploads/default/original/3X/1/c/1cfb52fb9295ac6471e1ac810f6fba1cfbf46b29.jpeg
I guess I didn’t pay enough attention to this image - only when I went back to see it again, I found that there was a second bird hidden in the photo!
Nice!!!
There are times when I get annoyed with some of the quirks and foibles of PL.
But then there are times when I jump for sheer joy…
Finely found a use for the Luminosity Mask to bring out the cloud detail, just for the sky area, with no fringing.
To try to understand what you are doing, I did a search and found two videos that might explain this to me:
and…
@Joanna, can you please also post a “before” image, so the comparison can show what you’ve achieved?
I’m not sure if the links I just watched (and posted) relate to what you have done - I’m guessing you are adjusting the masks to only include the cloud detail, and not the lamp. The videos I linked to describe functions that are not included in PhotoLab. Do I need to update my other DxO software for this to work?
(It was also fascinating how the creator of those videos did the editing, changing his mind based on the results.)
First of all, totally ignore the first video. Even he doesn’t know what he is doing and he definitely doesn’t use the best image to demonstrate the Luminosity Mask. In fact, he doesn’t even need to use it.
The second video is about using FilmPack standalone, which you simply don’t need since everything about the Luminosity Mask is differently laid out in PhotoLab.
First, here’s the basic image with no adjustments…
The next thing I did was to apply my favourite Fuji Acros 100 film emulation and make a couple of slight global adjustments to the tonality and contrast…
Notice that the sky is very low contrast, so the next step is to apply a red filter to darken the blue…
… but it is still lacking in. detail and contrast to bring out the clouds, so this is where the Luminosity Mask comes in.
Find the tool and drop the pipette onto the sky…
Notice the default setting selects a lot more than we want, so then we need to adjust the shape of the wedge thingy until only the sky is selected…
You can see that there are still some areas that should not be masked and you will need to choose the eraser tool to remove them and the brush tool to add anything that should be selected.
This should be the result, with the sky visible through the lamp glass and, if you look carefully at the right palettes, you will see the adjustments I made to further separate out the clouds from the blue of the sky.
Wow. I think the process is way over my head, but I am confused by the end result.
In the final step, in the colored image, the sky (looking through the lamp glass) seems similar to the sky outside the lamp, but a little lighter. Should the color be the same?
…and then, going back to your original image, the sky (looking through the lamp) is much lighter than the sky outside the lamp.
I’m also confused by the many curved lines in what I think is the front of the lamp, but if so, shouldn’t there be curved lines shown behind these, from the “back” of the lamp? …my brain prefers the color image, as the lamp looks “more real”. The B&W image is fascinating, as. I try to understand what I am looking at.
Easy to do, I wondered if he understood what he was doing, but I enjoyed his explanation as he went along, sort of like “thinking out loud”. Your explanations make sense from beginning to end. His explanation was a commentary on what he was doing, but I was losing track of what he was trying to do. It was still enjoyable to watch.
last question - when I look at your “basic image with no adjustments”, the sky “inside” the lamp framework is lighter than the sky “outside the lamp”. Is this because I was seeing through pieces of glass, or ??? …and all those “wrap-around wires” or whatever they are look very strange to me; they don’t seem to follow the curve the top of the lamp. …and if they are “wrap around”, why don’t I see those same “wires” from the inside of the lamp, behind the ones on the front side of the lamp?
Enough questions - instead of trying to understand the light, I should be trying to understand the tool. Speaking of which, is it included in PhotoLab 6 ?
Luminosity mask is included in PhotoLab, but it is deactivated (greyed out a.k.a. almost invisible) if you have not entered a FilmPack 7 license code.
BUT you can’t use FP7 with PL6.
If I remember correctly, I didn’t see anything I needed to justify spending $200 to $300 more.
Upgrading to PL6 was a no-brainer, as it got me Control Lines.
I now have licenses for PL3, 4, 5, and 6.
I didn’t (don’t) know any compelling reason to update to 7.
I bought DxO Nik Collection, but I already had the freely distributed Google Nik Collection.
Turns out I never use either one.
My next expense is likely to be for the Apple display, the same one you have, but without the $500 extra special screen. If I want to buy more things, I need to start selling some of my existing things.
Curious - what do you do with PL7 that you didn’t already do in PL6 ?
I don’t think I have used Film Pack since I bought FP6. As I recall, a lot of fun things to work with, but I never saw a need for it.
Gee, so if I want to use the luminosity mask, I need to buy both PL7 and FP7.
From what you wrote, perhaps it should have been included with PL7 ?
Maybe the next time Black Friday comes along…
By which time, PL8 will be launched.
DxO offers/offered bundles in the US, in which I got the licenses of FP7 and PL7 for the price of PL7 alone. Maybe the bundle is still available or will return …
On not upgrading from PL6 to PL7:
On the other hand:
Too inconsistent for a human.
Not to mention Leica price in other buying/selling threads.
Sir, I will not dare. Just check it.
Guilty as charged, on all counts.
I haven’t been looking, so maybe I missed it. Even so, why do I need either? I think I may have bought every product from DxO; the only one I really need/use is PhotoLab.
So, maybe I’m not human?
I don’t have a “wish list” of anything else I need to buy for photography, although I was thinking about a 600mm lens. From feedback here, there are LOTS of thing I need to learn how to do better, before I seriously consider buying a 600. For that matter, I have doubts about the quality of my 300 P lens, compared to a Sigma/Tamron 600, when both are later cropped to show the same size image, and compared side-by-side. The 600 would devote more pixels to my subject, but would the final image be “better” than my Nikon P lens? I’m not sure.
Then there’s this from @Joanna, regarding my not upgrading my DxO software:
Maybe the new tools make it easier to do something, but I suspect @Joanna would get just as nice of a result, using the tools available in PL6, but maybe it would take longer?
