-= 7D2 owners unite! Discuss and post photos!

Pondrader wrote in post #18198621
maybe your right Guy

Considering what they did to your picture I think even one of mine would work. I can send one in and say its not great but you're gonna f--- it up anyway

Rod

RodS57 wrote in post #18198629
Considering what they did to your picture I think even one of mine would work. I can send one in and say its not great but you're gonna f--- it up anyway

Rod

LMAO too funny Rod

I think they want to look at the raw to be sure you did not alter the file. SOP for many sites. I could be mistaken. I love your smiling fox from a few pages back, never seen that before. One of a kind, imho.

mikeivan wrote in post #18198661
I think they want to look at the raw to be sure you did not alter the file. SOP for many sites. I could be mistaken. I love your smiling fox from a few pages back, never seen that before. One of a kind, imho.

Thanks Mike ,..maybe your right. Sometimes they really do look like there smiling.

Peter2516 wrote in post #18197625
So cute. Great shots Shooz.

Thanks Peter !

late afternoon yesterday, I got really close to this little wren, this is uncropped, really high ISO but I think it came out ok

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/png' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR

aladyforty wrote in post #18198802
late afternoon yesterday, I got really close to this little wren, this is uncropped, really high ISO but I think it came out ok

Wow. Great shot.

Pondrader wrote in post #18198231
Ya I hear ya Lester, I'm sure that they could have used about anything. Looking at a few covers and there super crop's like they did to some of my fav Images they used. So there's no need for a great deal of sharpening..more or less than what I do, I try not to over do it anyway. Its a darker image with a super reflection on the water. it'll probably end up 2 inches square lol ... in any case Im not worried either way. At some point I'm going to be asking way more questions as to there intent as i've not found them to present my image in the way I intended.

I mean they took this image and turned it into the bottom image in the magazine. While everyone likes to be chosen and recognized to there efforts, I find myself scratching my head. Don't get me wrong I enjoy being in the magazine who wouldn't.

Gallery photo (hosted):
posted by Pondrader originally in forum: Canon Digital Cameras

The Magazine

Gallery photo (hosted):
posted by Pondrader originally in forum: Canon Digital Cameras

I understand the pros try and get both orientations and put the subject in different parts of the frame to provide layout options to the picture editors.

But they can do all that with an unsharpend 16bit TIF, only thing Raw gives you is a clean way to tweak colour balance IMHO, colour space should be no issue as long as the TIF includes the ICC block.

Glad I just snap!

gschlact wrote in post #18198547
I think this photo you posted PROVES it is Neither the equipment nor photographer, it's the model. LOL

I would ask the magazine directly why he JPEG isn't adequate. Take it from there.

JPEG will not be acceptably as it is lossy compression and introduces artefacts, TIF should be ok though.

RodS57 wrote in post #18198629
Considering what they did to your picture I think even one of mine would work. I can send one in and say its not great but you're gonna f--- it up anyway

Rod

That might be account limiting

Another Wren (suprised me by poping out of shadows for a sec hence silly high shutter speed) and a King Fisher sitting on a most photogenic overflow on a local pond.

Wood Ducks from this morning.

A pair of ducks in flight

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/PHNp​Wt

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/NtaL​3A