Agree with everything you wrote. For this forum, I will stop working on, and posting, and using photos where I don’t have enough pixels to create a decent image. I don’t like the idea of accepting defeat, but that’s what it is. And simultaneously I will drop any idea of buying a lens so long and heavy that I won’t be able to use it. Waste of money. I give up.
E.O.F. (End Of File)
Perhaps the time I “wasted” trying to shoot microscopic-sized birds wasn’t completely wasted. If nothing else, my body can now support the 300mm lens reasonably easily.
Those car/boats returned yesterday, and this time I was able to get photos I liked, that looked “natural” but for the bizarre idea of what I was seeing - race cars don’t belong on the water.
Anyway, I saw the following scene developing, and took just one image, at the time I felt it all came together, with the “paddle boat” in the water. Editing was last night, and I thought I was done, left it alone, and went to sleep. I woke up this morning with “Creative Vignetting” on my mind. Went back to the computer to try it, and sure enough, I think it was perfect for this image.
My question - when I view this image, with the vignetting, it looks completely natural to me UNLESS I switch back and forth to before/after adding the vignetting. Now I find myself wondering if the effect will look “strange” to others. I used to use creative vignetting a lot, but haven’t for well over a year. This image seemed to be a perfect candidate for doing so. @Joanna, I’ve seen some of your images, where I thought it would bring the viewer’s eye to the middle of the image, but I have never seen an image where I thought you used vignetting. My thoughts - for this image, it is perfect, and I am pleased that PhotoLab gives me full control over it.
780_3082 | 2024-03-31.nef (30.3 MB)
780_3082 | 2024-03-31.nef.dop (13.6 KB)
Try telling that to the folks who take the humble Citroën 2CV and turn it into mean racing boat/car, which they then race around the lake at Huelgoat, which is about an hour south of where we live…
Or not.
Why take a perfectly framed image and then restrict what the viewer can see?
My effort, where you can actually see the woman in the boat…
Gosh… I do know of the Citroën 2CV, but had you not posted this video, I’d never have believed this. I watched it to the end, where one boat capsized. How in the world did you find this video - and where??? Thank you very much for posting. Maybe I’ll forward the link to the shop that sells these newer …“car-oats”??? here in Miami.
Obviously you don’t like the vignetting. I kept adjusting the setting until found what I thought was a good compromise, but I didn’t think darkening the corners would hurt.
My eyes were on the boat - both the woman and the water were “props” to me. Now that I have them side by side, I do prefer your version, Yes, everything was set up, and the image is as “perfect” as I know how to do so… I left it on the screen for an hour or two while I made dinner, and when I came back, I thought of the vignetting. Like I wrote, now, hours later, I like your version the most. The boat is still the most prominent, but yes, the woman looks better now that can see her better.
Well, I took out almost all the vignetting. To me, it adds something to the overall effect, but I agree with your reasoning…
I very much liked what you did to lighten up the woman - I kept trying more or less, and ended up with a new version, similar to yours, but a hair lighter:
I trust your thoughts on this more than mine.
Oh, and after watching your fascinating video, I finally got a photo I like of the two car/boats running with each other yesterday:
780_3103 | 2024-03-31.nef (30.1 MB)
George, Is that picture for real??? I think the blue car at the left is an Amphicar. The rest I have no idea. An old girlfriend of mine had an Amphicar, a lifetime ago.
Very, very strange, especially the race Joanna posted. I’m surprised the one that capsized still floated.
Back to your photo - Venice??
Someone was reasonably talented with their camera.
Nope. That’s Amsterdam Des voitures amphibies naviguent sur les canaux d'Amsterdam sur Orange Vidéos
Where did you get that video from? You found it faster as I found my pictures 
George
You took that photo!!!???
No wonder it looks so good.
You found the perfect place to shoot from.
I’ve been to Amsterdam, two or three times, from back when I was working for a company whose products were made in Heemsteede (???), but they went out of business, and I’ll never get back there again.
I’d like to say how wonderful a place it was for photography, but from me, it’s probably a case of “the grass is always greener on the other side of the fence”. 
Because of the focus on the front truck/car, I assume it was taken with a real camera, not a phone. What was the occasion?
D750. The one you sold.
I don’t know the occasion. But I wouldn’t be surprised if the video of @Joanna is dealing with the same occasion. I can’t find a date in that video.
George
Er, I had two D750 cameras, and sold them both to people in India, came home, and used the money to buy the D780. Wonderful camera, and the built-in flash was VERY useful.
I’ve spent two days now walking around with my 20 year old D2x that I got from the service manager at Nikon two decades ago. After buying a D2h from the very first shipment of them to B&H Photo, and going through 3 or 4 bodies, every one of which malfunctioned, the service manager at Nikon apologized, and asked “what would you like us to do for you?”. My response, send me a D2x that Nikon was using, in-house, and knew that it worked. Even that one had an issue - if I left it sitting around with a battery inside, it got warm, and the battery ran out too soon. My solution - don’t push the battery in all the way until I was ready to start shooting. Anyway, that issue seems to be gone; it also has a 12 meg sensor like my D3, but DX, not FX. It works surprisingly well for an antique.
D2X_0004 | 2024-03-31.nef (19.3 MB)
When I pick up my D780, it’s like a breath of fresh air.
I’ll probably get to try out a Z8 this Wednesday, but I just read an article that refreshes the main reason I do NOT want a mirrorless camera:
Why I do NOT want to switch to mirrorless.
@Joanna, isn’t that what I do every time I take an image? I’m always framing the image in my mind, how much to include, what to exclude. A possibly bad habit I have developed is to always leave a little extra image, in case I need to crop later. It’s like a “safety net”. Maybe someone as talented as you has no need for that… I may never get that good, as every time I think I’m there, I get burned when I edit the image later. I know I’m supposed to use the camera tools to make sure the camera is vertical, but if I don’t have time, I make mistakes…
Ah, yes, kitchen appliances took all the fun of cooking on an open fire while being sniffed by a sabertooth.
I’ve bought a MILC a while ago and enjoy actually seeing the subjects I take in low light with the camera up to my eye. IBIS does a good job too and the only thing that can be a problem is that using the EVF can create some motion discomfort at times.
In the mid-70s, I thought of getting a Leica III (not M3) and found its viewfinder so terrible that I passed, in spite of the cam being low cost and small. A few years later, I got a M645 instead and have used it all over the world. I’d have to replace the light seals, but overall, it is in better shape than current politics…which are no real reference and wayyy off topic.
For some reason you seem to always take images where the sun is directly overhead or behind the subject backlighting them. Plus many of your shots are from the overhead position from your balcony which looks unnatural. There are many articles and videos on line about understanding the direction of a light source when taking photos. Adjusting the time of day and where you position yourself should improve your keeper rate.
I wanted to find out what you were referring to:
I used to dream of having a Hasselblad, but from when I was hatched up until now, I have lived in a 24x36 world.
Motion discomfort? The first time I tried out the small Z-series camera, I thought I would get seasick. Maybe Wednesday I’ll find out if/how they have improved.
I know I’m not being “fair”. I guess I’m too opinionated, based on my own experiences, or lack of, but the article I linked to does a pretty good job of explaining how I feel. 99% of the time, I’d rather see with my own eyes, than watch a television monitor of what I’m about to photograph. I do know the mirrorless does some things better, and I might eventually own one, but not now.
I guess I have a “dual photographic personality”. As an artist, or that part of me that hopes to be an artist, I agree with you. As a “photojournalist”, for better or worse, the bigger part of me, I take photos wherever I find them. I like to say “do the best you can with what you’ve got”. Maybe I should add “wherever you happen to be”.
Sadly, photos find me, much more often than I find them. When I go to take photos of places in India, I usually can select where I want to be, to get the best photos. But most of my life, I’ve been taking photos of interesting things from wherever I happen to be at the time.
I don’t have any “keeper rate”. If I really enjoy two photos out of 50, I am pleased, but I rarely consider the things you mention - capturing an interesting moment at the perfect time, correctly exposed, sharp, and illustrating what was going on (which caused me to take the photo) is of a lot more concern to me. If the reason why I took the photo in the first place comes through, I guess that is my goal.
I’m grudgingly learning not to do the impossible, at least not for posting here. My recent bird photos from much too far away pleased me, because of what I actually did capture - but I now accept that those pixelated crops are really just that - pixelated crops. My plan to fix this - go to where the birds are, and shoot from there.
I am also much too stubborn to not take a photo even after I realize nothing good will come of it. People in this forum might think it’s just wasted, but the people, both in USA and in India, who get to see them think they’re great. To me, a not so great image still beats no image, even if I’ll never post it here in the future. Again, it’s “do the best I can” but I can’t afford a 2,000mm lens, and if I had one, I couldn’t hold it. Hopefully this coming Wednesday I’ll be at a place where the birds hang out, close enough to capture a good image. I hope.
Let’s assume you are correct, which I don’t agree with, but anyway, I don’t have many options. I don’t have a boat, and don’t want a boat, and don’t have a friend with a boat, so my Biscayne Bay photos are all I’ve got access to. I can also go down to the walkway along Biscayne Bay for low angle shots, but I rarely see anything interesting from that viewpoint. I can get photos of the cruise ships from the city park opposite where the boats come and go, so that’s where I do go.
Do you have a website with your photos, and if so, can you post a link to it? Mine is m.smugmug.com which has photos from all over the world, so you can see how well, or poorly, I do in other locations.
Which image editor do you use, and why?
I’ve viewed your Smugmug page as well as your YouTube channel. You have a great variety of quality images posted. I think you take your best images when you are out walking around and capturing things you find interesting. If you still want to take images from your balcony at least change the time you do so. The middle of the day is no where as good as the early mornings or evenings when you have the light in your favor. As far as software I use Photoshop and Capture One. Each has their own advantages. Topaz for any noise reduction.
I think you missed my point - I don’t base when I go out on my balcony by the time of day, I walk out the door to the balcony when something interesting is happening. Of course, I try to go shopping, or to the doctors, or dentist, or whatever, in the morning when traffic is most reasonable, and I’m more likely to be home in the afternoon when traffic here is starting to build up.
For editors, I’ve had more than I can count. I’ve had Photoshop for the longest of any of them, and still have Adobe’s plan for Photoshop and Lightroom. I used Lightroom “forever”, and thought I was happy with it. Then I read about PhotoLab 3, and decided to try it.
Results were mixed - at first, I was lost, so I joined this Forum before dumping it, and going back to Lightroom. Then, I met many people here, who showed me that the problems in my photos were MY fault, not the software. User @Joanna here basically I should pack up and go home, or get my monitor calibrated, which I didn’t understand back then. There are a lot of people in this forum, who seem to agree I need to get what I am doing corrected, before even thinking about the software - and regarding the software, to say I was lost would be an understatement. I “grudgingly” went along, thinking they didn’t understand… …until it came to me that >>>I<<< was the one who did not understand.
I’m not perfect, but thanks to the advice in this forum, I am a heck of a lot better about any of this than I used to be.
I still had my Lightroom, but there were two things that killed my interest in Lightroom. The first, is that all of my work, everything I’ve done, for decades, is in one file - the catalog. Lose the catalog and everything is gone. So I tried making copies, and backups. Anyway, if you edit something in PhotoLab, in a raw file, and your image is “photoxx.raw”, you end up with your original image “photoxx.raw” AND another file “photoxx.dop”. which is a summary of everything you did to the image. Backup those files, and even if an alligator swallows your computer, all your work is safe in a backup drive.
Another thing that I like and hate, is that PhotoLab knows anything and everything about my hardware, along with my images. As I recall, Lightroom just edited my image, and didn’t care if it knew what camera I took it from. Maybe they’ve learned - but PhotoLab knows and understands my equipment, such that if I use my 24-120 Nikon lens, which is loaded with distortions, PhotoLab fixes all those when it opens the image.
I loved that, and hated that - as while most of the time it is wonderful, if I take photos with my Leica M8.2, DxO doesn’t know what a Leica M8.2 is, so it won’t even open the image file. (I cheat, and edit the EXIF data for the image, and change the camera to a Leica M9 or M10 which DxO is happy with. Probably not technically perfect, but good enough for me.
I love and hate PhotoShop. It can do a trillion things the PhotoLab can’t, but when it comes to processing a dozen or so images, I used to use LightRoom, not Photoshop - and from what I’ve seen, PhotoLab now is the better choice.
I could go on, but no reason to, or not to. I’m sold on PhotoLab, and prefer it. What others use is up to them. What really counts the most is the finished images. But PhotoLab includes tools that are not yet available in Lightroom. You probably know of the Internet “teacher” PhotoJoseph. He has videos on how to do things in all the popular editors. His was the final “seal on the door” for me sticking with PhotoLab. (But I have the Adobe Photography Plan, so all the Adobe stuff keeps updating for when/if I want to use it.)
I still have the free version of Capture One that came with my Fuji camera. I used to use it overseas. I’ve got the latest PhotoShop, and it can do things the PhotoLab can not. If you want to remove a person, or a car, or a tree, from a photo, it does that automatically. But that’s not what PhotoLab was made for. Seems to me that you really need Adobe Lightroom, not PhotoShop?
Oh well, thanks for writing. Everyone is different, and has different desires and ideas. The group of people in this specific topic seem brilliant to me, and are way ahead of me. It’s a great place to learn. I hope you stick around, regardless of what editor you use.
You asked what software I used that’s why I provided that to you. Adobe Camera Raw is a part of Photoshop and that is what I use as my raw editor. It has the same processing engine as Lightroom and the results are the same. Final processing is made in Photoshop which does a lot more than just removing objects. Capture One is my go to for processing Fuji Raf files.
I know what you mean on both points - Photoshop is far, far more than an image editor. It is an incredible program, but for me, I did a lot of special things with it, mostly creating images, long ago. Now 99.9% of what I need to do is just to edit my images.
I too got Capture One for my Fuji Raf files, from my X100 cameras. That stopped with DxO added the Raf file support to PhotoLab. The free version was a basic editor, but it didn’t seem very powerful. I tried to teach a friend of his how to use it with his X100s, but we didn’t get very far.
If/when you have time, can you upload one of your images here?
