One Click Chicks Forum - Ranger Adventure

One Click Chicks Forum (https://forum.oneclickchicks.com/index.php)

- Upskirt & Downblouse (https://forum.oneclickchicks.com/forumdisplay.php?f=6)

- - Ranger Adventure (https://forum.oneclickchicks.com/showthread.php?t=194268)

Quote:

Originally Posted by AndyR (Post 2639053)

I know I've covered this topic before on these very forums, but ok, lets cover it again. You can NEVER, EVER, EVER put back detail into a photo, once it has been lost. It does not matter how it was lost. Once it is lost, you can't get it back. We can brighten the image (as I have done), but that is it. The texture of skin & fabric is forever lost to digital noise, and digital nose reduction (if enabled). Add a bit of camera shake, which blurs the image a bit, and things get really hopeless.

In this case, the problem stems from using a <brand & model name redacted> "pocket camera" which usually do "auto everything", and even if you had the flash on (the EXIF says you did), it's anemic output would require you to be within say, 6 to a maximum of 9 feet from the model, meanwhile the EXIF says that you were at maximum zoom, so you were in fact a good long distance from her.

Ok, I know I've said use flash. But I also said use a DSLR and a big off-board flash. The size of the flash dictates it's power, which in turns dictates it's maximum usable distance. If you look at the specs for your camera, you will see that they indicate that 9ft 2in is the maximum usable distance for your built in flash. Compare this to something like a Canon 580EX-MK2, which has a maximum specified range of 98ft, and I'm sure you can see why things didn't work out so well in this picture.

I also suspect that this picture is even darker than it really was in real life at the time you took it, and here's why: When you tell the camera "hey, lets use the flash" by popping open the built in flash, the camera adjusts it's settings accordingly (in automatic modes), and it expects that you've read the manual, and know that you need to be within 9ft 2in of the subject. If those conditions are not met, then there will not be enough light, and the picture will end up being way darker than it actually was in real life at that moment.

Thanks as always. As far as this opera house intermission condition concerns, it is impossible to use big flash or get close to the ladies within 9ft. It is very risky. I thought that there might have been a trick or two to fix this problem.

Quote:

Originally Posted by txpaulranger (Post 2639411)

No, absolutely you would **not** want to get within 9 ft of a subject and fire the flash, unless of course you know the subject - lol.

My point is that a lot of people appear to think that a camera is a camera is a camera. Nothing could be further from the truth, and knowing the specs of the device you are using will tell you what you can expect from the camera in question. There is no magic here, and no "CSI Miami" technological fixes. You have to go out there with "the right tool for the job" just the same as any plumber or carpenter should, otherwise expect mediocre to poor results. And you do have to know how to use the tool. Just because a camera has "auto everything" does not mean you can get good results without knowing it's abilities and limitations.

Also, unfortunately, sometimes there is no right tool for the job. The noisy confusion on the steps of a major tourist attraction allows you to do things that clearly are not possible on the hushed steps of an opera house. You might try the "Jeff Jones" approach... he was a guy who shot ups and candid stockings at the British Ascot horse racing track in the early 2000's. He used a Canon Digital Elf (pocket camera), and turned off all the beeps and blips that these little cameras tend to make as they acquire focus and shoot a picture, as well as the automatic image review that pops the last pic you took on the screen. His technique was simple - get close, shoot from the hip. He never looked through the viewfinder, just kept pressing the shutter button while turning the camera ever so slightly to try to ensure that he got at least one usable photo. This technique worked out well for him, although the technology of the day was quite limiting, with a mere 2 megapixels, and a leisurely shooting rate of under 1 frame a second, and tiny 64MB & 128MB flash cards.

In your particular situation, I'd probably go with a 4K video. A frame from a 4K video is the equivalent of an 8 megapixel camera, and with video, you are shooting at least 30 frames a second. Something should turn out, as long as you keep it slow & steady!! Folks might not have noticed, but a lot of CrotchPap's work is frame captures from video, so clearly the technique works.

And no matter what technique you are going to use, PRACTICE. You should have already shot 1000's of frames of animals, pillows, logs, benches, and random people in the street, ***practicing your technique*** long before you ever hit the steps or grass of the place where you are actually going to try to take your UPS pics. If you don't practice on worthless shots, you can be absolutely sure you will fail when that big opportunity comes along.

Quote:

Originally Posted by AndyR (Post 2639453)

Thanks for a good suggestion. I will try next time with video shot.
I thought the technology of today have been almighty Gods given gift for all. I had overestimated it.

more from the park

old pics, I have forgotten to post.

Thank you for this good pictures....nice nice

Opera is the ultimate stage art; I do believe for sure.

I have finished seeing entire Ring that night. It was very interesting experience. I highly recommend to see the entire Ring series from start to finish.

learning curb, I would say........

Quote:

Originally Posted by txpaulranger (Post 2661790)

learning curb, I would say........

Nice to have you back Mr. ranger.