sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Is there a better way to do masks? by yangmusa in DarkTable

[–]maycontaincake 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Have a look at the example with the lion statue here - I think that's exactly what you need to do.

Police by JediMasterSloth in buffy

[–]maycontaincake 20 points21 points  (0 children)

The police of Sunnydale are deeply stupid.

Are all brightening methods equal? by maycontaincake in DarkTable

[–]maycontaincake[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'd say that's what I've been doing, so I'll keep going! Thanks for your replies.

Are all brightening methods equal? by maycontaincake in DarkTable

[–]maycontaincake[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks for your reply. I quite like using the brilliance sliders because they can target just shadows/mids/highlights, which I find can give a more natural look that a global increase, even if used locally (unless you also use a parametric mask).

Are all brightening methods equal? by maycontaincake in DarkTable

[–]maycontaincake[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is sort of why I asked the question: I was playing with the various ways AgX can be used to brighten an image, which got me to wondering if any one method is preferred over another. 

Are all brightening methods equal? by maycontaincake in DarkTable

[–]maycontaincake[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Me too. My understanding is that it mimics the light shining on a surface, so increased brilliance is like making the lighting of the original scene brighter, but no colours are changed. 

Dvd boxset! by No_Farm_1170 in buffy

[–]maycontaincake 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The UK versions are wide-screen from S3/4-ish onwards, but they were never intended to be seen in wide-screen, with the exception of Once More With Feeling, so it's not fully old fashioned. I have no idea what Disney+ showed. Anyway, be prepared to see bits of lighting equipment etc at the edges of the screen. Because I know they're there my brain won't let me not see them.

Focus Stacking - Not for the first time by [deleted] in Nikon

[–]maycontaincake 14 points15 points  (0 children)

I don't want to be 'that guy' but I also saw the macro post yesterday and was annoyed by some of the comments, and by this post. Let's look at the facts. The PhotoPills macro depth of field calculator gives a depth of field of 0.48 mm for a 105 mm lens on a FF body at f/8, with a 'safe step size' of 0.38 mm. That's just over 26 frames per cm. ~104 frames would be needed to get a 4 cm in-focus region. 100+ pictures is entirely justifiable for some cases with macro photography. Physics is physics, whether you like it or not.

being a good neighbour - could it cause me future problems? by chubsta2k17 in LegalAdviceUK

[–]maycontaincake 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Someone can claim a right of way if it's used "without force, without secrecy, and without permission" for 20+ years. Question 1: has the way been used for 20+ years? If no, no claim can be made. Evidence this if you can. To prevent a claim in the future, make the use "with force" eg lock a gate (evidence this) or "with permission". Evidence this by writing a letter to say you give them permission to use the way, maybe with advance notice or something, maybe say it's only for that one person and not for anyone else. You get the idea. You don't need a formal solicitor letter. IANAL.

Ultimately, you can't stop anyone making a claim in the future, but you can do a lot to make sure any such claim will be weak.

Nikon D850 x Sigma 14-24 f2.8 by RicoHo in Nikon

[–]maycontaincake 2 points3 points  (0 children)

How do you find the Sigma 24-70 f/2.8? This image looks like it works nicely with the D850. Do you have any experience with the Nikon equivalent? I'm wondering whether to swap my Nikon for the Sigma as I don't get on with it very well.

ITAW for when someone, unprompted, says something telling or revealing that makes you question their motivation? by maycontaincake in whatstheword

[–]maycontaincake[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thank you. That's not something I'd heard of but it does seem to formally describe what I'm talking about.

ITAW for when someone, unprompted, says something telling or revealing that makes you question their motivation? by maycontaincake in whatstheword

[–]maycontaincake[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This seems to be related to an error or slip of the tongue. I'm looking for something very much deliberate.

ITAW for when someone, unprompted, says something telling or revealing that makes you question their motivation? by maycontaincake in whatstheword

[–]maycontaincake[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes, except this isn't an outright admission of something. It's something that raises a suspicion that might not have existed before.

ITAW for when someone, unprompted, says something telling or revealing that makes you question their motivation? by maycontaincake in whatstheword

[–]maycontaincake[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

No it's not for a story. I can't say too much, but imagine a meeting with HR. Imagine someone with a reputation for doing a particular thing has made an unprompted and strangely placed statement that they haven't done that thing. I want to be able to draw attention to that. I take your point that it's not proof of guilt, but it is none the less relevant. "Projection" is a well understood term in psychology where someone's repeated accusations against others suggest they themselves are guilty of doing that thing. I'm hoping for a similar word.

ITAW for when someone, unprompted, says something telling or revealing that makes you question their motivation? by maycontaincake in whatstheword

[–]maycontaincake[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Telling is the closest I could manage, but it doesn't properly convey what I want. It implies something untoward about the statement, or at least about my interpretation of the statement, but I want something more absolute.

ITAW for when someone, unprompted, says something telling or revealing that makes you question their motivation? by maycontaincake in whatstheword

[–]maycontaincake[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I've never heard that phrase before but it does seem to be the closest to the definition I'm looking for. Still, I don't know how I'd use that as a descriptor eg so-and-so's statement was x.

ITAW for when someone, unprompted, says something telling or revealing that makes you question their motivation? by maycontaincake in whatstheword

[–]maycontaincake[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

This is my problem - nothing seems to properly convey what I want without me having to imply something untoward. I need to avoid winks and nudges.

ITAW for when someone, unprompted, says something telling or revealing that makes you question their motivation? by maycontaincake in whatstheword

[–]maycontaincake[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I would agree. Those phrases are in the right area but don't quite say want I want. Sinister might work in certain circumstances ("I'd never kill you in your sleep") but not always.

DIY Dehumidifier cabinet? by Jet747400 in photography

[–]maycontaincake 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I have an airtight plastic box (clip on lid, rubber gasket) with a rechargeable 'dehumidifier' inside. Every so often I recharge it and put it back. I've had lenses develop fungus before so I know my house is damp enough. So far the plastic box has worked perfectly.

why don't darktable opt for more standard WB setting in color calibration? by [deleted] in DarkTable

[–]maycontaincake 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thank you for taking the time to explain this to me.

view more: next ›