NordicMan

Two photos of the same temple - Ta Keo, in Angkor, Cambodia

Taken in the middle of the day, about half an hour apart... clouds were changing fast during this time.

Nikon D80, Tokina12-24mm (first photo at 15mm, second at 20mm). Both at F/11, iso100, using my camera bag as support

The mist gives an etheral air to the photo.

I like it.

I would only argue about the title.

As it stands I would call in Lake in the Mist.

If you want to call it Wooden Bridge then I think you need to crop some of the foreground

to make the bridge more prominent.

I like this photo a lot but I think the bridge, the misty air and the colour has even more potential than what is captured here.

The bridge is a bit small, not prominent enough. But even if you crop the foreground, I still feel the bridge is not sufficient. Perhaps a slightly different vantage point would be better, adding interesting objects/shapes to the foreground? Perhaps standing more to the right, removing the tree in the left edge? Or, standing in front of the left side tree, if there are any objects of interest at the left end of the bridge?

Alternatively, move more to the right, closer to the right side of the bridge, so the buildings at right end of bridge would be slightly less misty?

I wish I was there myself, I would love moving around and trying different angles - not that I think I could do it better, just that it's the type of scene I cherish

cheers

nm

Example that jpg can be more than sufficient for professional photojournalists: http://www.karlgrobl.com/index.htm

I shoot everything in raw myself, but I'm not professional, I don't shoot a lot of images, and I have time to play around with the raw file

Interested to know something about these pics, both very similar.

....

Both these were taken on exact same settings, so why does the grass and skyline show up so different, other pics I have taken with more or less sky do the same.

I bet that they were taken on some kind of automatic exposure. In simple terms, your camera evaluates the scene and attempts to expose it for an overall medium level of darkness (ok, it's more complicated than this).

If you point the camera upward and include more sky, there will be more bright items in the picture. Your camera will darken the overall photo to achieve the average medium greyness.

If you point the camera down, incuding more grass, there are more dark items in the picture and your camera brightens the overall photo.

What to do?

(Assuming you use digital camera)

Simple way:

For landscape photography, you have plenty of time to fiddle with the camera controls. Compose the photo as you like. Check the picture on the LCD screen, preferrably looking at the histogram also. If you want it brighter or darker, use the exposure adjustments (+/-) and take a new photo.

Depending on what kind of camera you have and what technique you prefer, there are lots of ways to adjust the exposure. Hope the above provides some clues.

cheers

nm

Interested to know something about these pics, both very similar.

.........

How do I take it with the rich vivid green grass and the skyline showing what is actually there.

Why is it so....

The reason is that there is a huge difference in the brightness of the sky and the ground. The camera, regardless of digital or film, can only record a small portion of this range. You choose what range you want to record, using f-stop, ISO and shutter speed. This can of course be done automatically by the camera (ok, ignoring certain manual cameras). Whatever is brighter than the max brightness in your selected range will turn out completely white. Whatever is darker will turn out completely black. If you look at shadow parts in a variety of photos, you will see that some parts of the shadow areas often are completely black. But in reality, they were not black, there were some details there.

So, the problem here is that the sky is very bright compared to the grass. Based on the above explanation, this means that if you select an exposre for the green grass, the sky becomes totally white and have no details. If you expose for the clouds, the grass gets very dark.

What can you do?

1. Use a polarising filter on your camera, as suggested by Serendipidist. This darkens the sky, thus reducing the contrast, allowing you to expose for both sky and ground.

2. Use a Neutral Density filter. This is a transparent grey filter that darkens half your photo (the top half, where the sky is), again reducing difference in brightness between sky and ground.

3. Take two photos, one darker (capturing the cky) and one brighter (capturing the ground). Merge the two photos together using for example photoshop

4. Use a HDR tool (high dynamic range) such as Photomatix. Take 3 exposures, one dark, one medium and one bright. Run them through Photomatix. This is actually very easy to do.

5. Expose for the middle, so there are some details in the sky and the ground is not overly dark. Use Photoshop or similar tool to select the sky and darken it. Select the ground and brighten it. Adjust colour saturation. (this is the easiest way but will result in the lowest picture quality)

cheers

nm

The harsh contrast of the original works very well in the context of documenting poverty.

A bit of shadows/highlights in Photoshop brings out more details in the dirt floor.

I think whether a D3 is currently the ultimate digital photographic tool depends on what you are shooting. Certainly if you are into sports or many forms of news photography.

But if your style is mostly studio and landscapes, a medium format digital camera will produce much better results. They are more expensive and bulkier though. PhaseOne and Hasselblad backs has been priced in the realms of professionals and lotto millionaires only, but with Mamiya's recent ZD backs and ZD camera, it is finally within reach of amateurs with cash to spare.

E.g. Mamiya zd camera finally available at less than £5000 / $10,000, ZD back at £3500/$7000, zd AFD-II kit (camera, back, lens) also at £5,000

And prices will of course drop...

I like the first photo a lot. The circular opening frames the interior of the shot very well. The gray tones are smooth, and the interior interesting. Standing outside the opening and looking in like this, without being able to see straight down the alley, it feels like taking a peek into another world. What would the photo have looked like if you had stood a bit more to the left?

I want one of these... except my wife would kill me if I spent that kind of money

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/NEW-Mamiya-ZD-22-Meg...1QQcmdZViewItem

Your recent submissions and the excellent effects you applied intrigued me.

I have targeted two areas on the attached image which are challenging my ability to correct. As can be seen they are "fuzzy" and out of synch.

I achieved the image via Lightroom. De-saturating the colour, boosting the contrast, adjusting the red and blue channels and further adjusting the tonal curves.

Image shot in B+W with red filter applied - RAW - Canon 5D

What did I do wrong?

Hi Vulcan, I think most of what can be said has already been said in this thread. The "right" treatment depends on your personal preferences. One aspect is the amount of contrast and details in the clouds, when darkening the clouds they normally lose the darker details as well. Canuckamuck's version seems to keep more details than my attempts.

The two areas you point out have quite high contrast but I do not fully understand what you mean is the problem. I have tried two versions,b&w and colour.

Your photo is only 900x600pixel, it would normally be preferrable to have a larger file size, especially for printing - I assume you work on the raw file, just use this smaller file while discussing/posting on the internet? Could you please try to post the raw file, it seems max file size is 25MB. The raw file, with higher bit depth, will be much preferrable to work on for this kind of high-contrast scenes.

How can you have shot the image in B/W, when the file you posted is colour ?

(I use Nikon myself, but I believe my Adobe Camera Raw will read canon as well)

cheers

nm

Are you sure the second shot is also from digital camera? Looks to me like it was shot with infra red film, with red filter and printed on high contrast paper. Nice shot.

hehe, yes, unless someone swapped my Nikon D80 for another camera while I didn't notice.

The cloudy sky was masked in photoshop and I simply used levels to expand the tonal range (from about 100% black to 20% black), and set a gamma for a suitable overall darkness. The statue was masked similarly, and used levels again

I have the 34mb Photoshop file if you would like to take a look...

rgds

nm

taken of a lovely (read: cheeky) old woman in an akha village out of chiang rai. i actually took this years ago on a canon EOS but scanned the pic after that camera was stolen and i moved to digital.

Hi Donna,

This is of course a lovely photo, but it suffers from the same technical problem as your other photo posted here. The image compression is set to much too high. Open your image and look at it full size - you can easily see the blockiness in the black areas. Not only will you easily see the blocks if you print it out, but you lose a lot of details in the image (such as the fine lines in the face) and tonality.

I suggest you try to find out how this happened and rectify it

cheers

nm

thanks for the tips. i take most of my pics in full resolution. when i put them on here, i downsize as much as i can. id say thats my problem.

some of my pics are over 4mb in size so i cant put full size on here. (am i thinking along the same lines as you or completely way off mark?)

Hi Donna,

Yes, you're on the right track. There are two ways to reduce the file size, and you need to employ both.

One is to reduce the size of the photo - make the photo smaller, with fewer pixels.

If you use a 4mp camera, your photo will be around 2300x1700 pixels... ? For posting to the web, you can make a copy at perhaps 800 pixel wide. People will usually not need your full size photo anyway (on the web)

The other is to use a sensible level of compression. With higher compression, the same photo size will take less file size. The problem with too much compression is that the pictures turn poor quality - you get square blocks, you lose sharpness, you lose tonality (those fine nuances of colours and brightness).

The JPG compression is usually set on a scale from 1-10, 1-12 (photoshop), 1%-100%, fine-medium-basic or something like that. You currently use too much compression. Whichever program you use - look around for the options and choose a compression in the medium range for posting to the web.

You will find that if you resize to around 800pixel wide, you can use medium-high compression and still get a file size of less than 100k

brgds

NM

taken of a lovely (read: cheeky) old woman in an akha village out of chiang rai. i actually took this years ago on a canon EOS but scanned the pic after that camera was stolen and i moved to digital.

Hi Donna,

This is of course a lovely photo, but it suffers from the same technical problem as your other photo posted here. The image compression is set to much too high. Open your image and look at it full size - you can easily see the blockiness in the black areas. Not only will you easily see the blocks if you print it out, but you lose a lot of details in the image (such as the fine lines in the face) and tonality.

I suggest you try to find out how this happened and rectify it

cheers

nm

Two photos from Bayon, Angkor, Cambodia are attached. Your comments and feedback are most welcome

Please note that the photos are manipulated - they are intended as works of art, not scientific reproductions of exactly what my eyes recorded at that time.

These are reduced from 10mp originals, some sharpness and details have been lost.

cheers

NM

Interesting image. Disconcerting in a good way.

When I view it at 100% I find the color patches and artefacts distracting.

no artefacts, jimmy. the photograph was taken in a banana plantation by a waterfall.

Donna, the artifcatcs in your photo is very clearly visible when viewed at full size. This is caused by too high image compression. Your file size is very small compared to the number of pixels. The artifacts looks like squares and causes a lack of detail and tonal smoothness. If you print this out, it will be very visible.

Did you compress the photo or is this the way it came out of your camera? If it's straight from your camera, perhaps your quality setting is at small or something like that? i would change it to at least medium.

If you have opened it in a program on your computer and re-saved it, you need to cange the settings... look for JPG quality settings. There can be a number, usually 1-10 or 1-12, with high number being better. If possible, I suggest you revert to the original file from the camera.

I like the photo in itself very much, it's just the technical quality which is disturbing.

cheers

nm

Many thanks for replies, very helpful indeed. I will check with the Norwegian embassy regarding the policy towards dual citizenship by birth.

cheers

nm

My wife (finally) got pregnant and we started thinking about what citizenship the child will get.

I'm a Norwegian, living and working in UK. I am "settled" in the UK, with a residency permit. Wife is Thai, on a EEA family-permit (valid for 5 years). We have been here 3 years now.

It is possible that she will give birth in UK, but that depends on my work commitments (possible relocation coming up shortly), and whether it would be benefitial to give birth in Norway or Thailand instead.

The citizenship is a bit confusing to us...

UK:

If you were born in the United Kingdom on or after 1 January 1983, you are a British citizen if at the time of your birth one of your parents was:

a British citizen; or

legally settled in the United Kingdom.

http://www.bia.homeoffice.gov.uk/britishci.../?view=Standard

Norway:

Children born after August 31st 2006

According to the current law, a child with a Norwegian mother or father acquires Norwegian citizenship by birth. This applies no matter if the child is born in Norway or abroad, and no matter if the parents were married or not.

http://www.udi.no/templates/Tema.aspx?id=8706

Thailand:

BY DESCENT: Child born in wedlock, either of whose parents is a citizen of Thailand, regardless of the child's country of birth.

http://emigrateblog.blogspot.com/2007/11/t...itizenship.html (not an official source of information but I can't find anything better)

As I see it, the kid will automatically become both British and Norwegian if born in UK, but what about the Thai?

Is it even possible to have 3 citizenships? I assume not, as I have never heard of it. Assume we need to consider what are the two most practical citizenships?

many thanks for any advice

nm

It might be that I have to spend some time in Singapore in the New Year and I might not be able to fly back each Friday and return Monday morning as I anticipated. So running an hotel for 7 days a week could get a little pricey and as I know from before when I near lived out of hotels, you start to miss the homely things you just don't get even in the best of hotels.

So I am considering the other options. Renting a condo would seem the most logical but I come across lots of stumbling blocks like getting ripped off in government condos being rented out illegally, having to pay the agents fee (or part thereof) though you are the renter (unless over SGD2500 per month) which is barking mad and the general high cost.

Not sure exactly where I would be based but likely in the CBD so easy transport in all seasons essential. No 15 minute walks to stations and that malarky. On an easy cab route would be good.

Please help as I have very little knowledge about Singapore outside 5* hotels and I cannot go live in one of those on my budget !

How long period are you talking about? A fortnight here and there, or rent it for a whole year and just leave it empty while you're not around?

What kind of budget do you have in mind? there are flats available in a huge price range. Should be easy to find something liveable for 2000-3000 per month. -unless you mean that you want to pay substantially less than 2500.

The proof of debt is a good idea. The trouble is this, yes it gets worse, she lives in Koh Samui and he has gone back to the UK and is not back for a couple of months. Yes I know what you are going to say, what a *****. His is a classic tale and he knows it, but is STILL considering sending the money

So getting the info is not as easy as it seems. I live in Pattaya and am not sure I would want to go into that bar again anyway!

I have contacted a private detective agency, do not know what good that will do. Thought we could at least check out the story of the shop and her background. She has several different stories about her parents and the fact she left her former boyfriend because she cannot have kids - then says she wants kids with my friend.

Maybe its time to get a new best mate - would be easier in the long term if he is going to get involved with this con artist!!!

On a practical note, can she restructure the 'loan' in any way - I am trying to get his so-called required monthly amount down from 30,000 baht to at least stop him sending 30000 baht a month if he does get sucked in!!!

Assuming for a moment that the debt story actually is true... no matter how you restructure it, it must still be paid off. 300k is a good chunk of money for UK standards too, something you don't want to throw out the window - but it will still be much easier for your mate to pay it off than for her. If you restructure it, reduce the interest rate and extend the payment duration... how is she going to pay it off if she stops working in a bar? There's not much leftover for debt payments if she gets a 5k-15k per month job.

It's pretty much impossible for a normal girl with not-so-good education and not much work experience to pay off any significant debt like that, especially without the help of men. If she really has acquired such a debt, she's scr*wed...Literally. That's why he should really find out if it's true or not, and if it really is true, he should consider paying it off...

Looking at it from another view... why on earth does she have a car if her credit card debts forces her unwillingly into working in bars? If she really hated the bar work, she would get rid of the car first. Or, she's just plain stupid.

Let us know how the story plays out

cheers

nm

A friend of mine has a new girlfriend who has some money problems. She says she had a clothing shop which went bust owing 300,000 baht on a credit card.

She says she needs 30000 baht a month to clear this debt off and wants my friend to pay.

The story gets worse. She says this is the reason she has to work in a bar (yes we can all smell a con here, but he is my best friend and I am trying to help him).

....

How could she run up 300k debt on a credit card while running her store? She means that she used the credit card to purchase the goods and pay for bills?

As someone else points out here, she wouldn't even get a 300k line of credit on her card, unless she was financially very well off in the first place.

Yes, you are right, it smells of a con

If it was me, I would ask the girl to document the details of this. I would want to see the credit card agreements, the transaction history etc. before I would believe it. If she couldn't be bothered to show me this - too much hassle, don't like to be interrogated - I wouldn't be bothered to pay it off either. If she expects me to part with my hard earned cash, I expect her to show me effort as well.

If she couldn't convince me to pay off her debt, I would dump her. That is, because I would not want a gf who I could not trust, or a gf in dire financial difficulties who did not have, or try to make, a plan to take care of it.

cheers

nm

Hi all !!

It seems to be impossible to find a nice apartment or condo for less than 8000 per month !?

We only need wireless internet access, BTS access and a nice, furnished room.

Your suggestions are appreciated

That completely depends on your definition of "nice appartment".

Have you ever visited a young Thai office-worker's rented one-room flat in Bangkok?

It's common to pay 3000-4500baht per month for such a flat (usually just called "my room"). As you state in your other post, you have no need for western luxuries, this might be perfect for you. If it's good enough for a large number of white-collar workers, you may also consider it "nice". An added benefit is that virtually 100% of your neighbours will be Thai.

cheers

nm

Hi all !!

I am visiting this forum very often, but now I decided to join your community because I really want to ask a question:

WHAT DO YOU THINK ... IS THERE A HIGH PROBABILITY TO FIND A JOB IN THAILAND WITHIN 6 MONTHS?

I am a 25-year-old German man, no university, but commercial education ...

And I am prepared to work for 20,000 Baht per month.

Looking forward to receiving your replies.

You won't be allowed to stay in Thailand on 20k per month. You would need to hide out somewhere as an illegal immigrant.

If you're looking to stay as a farmer in the countryside, perhaps you should try Cambodia instead? Much easier to stay without visa there.

Serious advice:

As your material requirements are low, why don't you work your butt off in Germany and live like a dog, save up as much cash as possible and go to Thailand for long holidays instead? You would end up working much less...

If you can't be bothered to sweat it in Germany, there is no way in h*ll that you will enjoy working (illegally) on a construction site or in a factory in Thailand.

Best of luck and let us know how it goes...

nm

My experience tells me that the vast majority of decent salary package jobs in Bangkok or Thailand are expat positions where your MNC has sent you here and thus you have a western salary with additional expat benefits. I would imagine trying to get an expat position here is almost impossible and working for near Thai wages would be impossible but for a very different reason.

Think about it from my perspective if I am your prospective employer. Why should I employ you ? What can you bring that I cannot get from a Thai with far more expereince who will cost far far less as you will be disenchanted with a low package ?

I'd try and make some contacts first and think carefully why you want to stop doing whatever it is you are doing (or do i read that you are unemployed ?) and come here ? Don't just do it for the sex.

Thanks for your reply. I am not unemployed at this time, but I will leave the US soon for visa reasons. Furthermore, I have been in Asia before and ever since want to return as I believe those markets are very dynamic and I like to learn more about business in Asia and its different cultures (believe me its not for the sex). I am looking also at other markets, but Thailand is one of the options.

I understand that I won't get an expat package there and surely can't make the move on local wage. However, I understand that some people have received packages which are somewhere inbetween local and expat. Some companies, especially foreign companies still like to have some of "their people" in the office to be a bridge between both countries.

So anybody has any experience on finding jobs in my situation and salaries that can be obtained?

Thanks,

H.

The packages you are talking about are called "Local Plus" - they are becoming increasingly popular here in Singapore (I am on one)

No housing or school fee's or flights back yearly but very good package compared to a local including re-location, health, salary etc

It all depends on the industry and the position of course - in Banking and Finance for example there are a lot of expat packages (O&G as well now in boom times) while others are moving to the local plus.

I have not heard about these in Thailand (market too immature?) but i am out of touch with the Thai job market now.

Have you only thought about Thailand - what about Singapore or HK who are crying out for foreign talen right now - earn your money with an excellent modern lifestyle and spend it on vists to Thailand

I can only echo Prakanong's advice here - set your sails for SG or HK instead. Of all the southeast Asian countries, why would you choose Thailand? There are many reasons, but few of them are related to career or money. This is from my undestanding that you are pursuing a career in marketing / "office jobs", not that you are interested in doing anything on the planet.

There are virtually no language barriers in SG, work permit is a breeze, job market is strong, they have a culture of hiring foreigners at local+ package, salary levels are high (at least in Southeast Asian terms). Your chances of landing a job in SG is astronomically much higher than in TH. As you are about to leave US anyway, you can do as I did (a decade ago)... get a one-way ticket to SG, take all your savings money, stay in the cheapest hotel you can find and apply for jobs every day. There are no issues with tourist visa, as you can just go to Msia and back again to renew your visa. -You can easily stay until your funds run out, or you get a job.

When you do have a job in SG, build your TH network. It costs next to nothing to fly SG-BKK, you can do that any weekend you like. Your chances of landing that job in TH is extremely much higher if you are already on the ground and working in SG, instead of emailing CVs from USA. Or, maybe after a while, you decide that career is more important, and decide to stay in SG instead, and just go to TH for holidays.

The above may also be true for HK, but I am not that familiar with it. Work permits and language are slightly more difficult there though.

edit: Oh, and I should add that, in case your real reason for choosing Thailand is indeed girls (but prefer not to say so publicly), they are available in SG as well, perhaps to a slightly less degree. Both those for rent and those that actually like you.

cheers and good luck

nm

I've been using Nikon and was more familiar with that than Canon. I bought a Nikon D80. My main concern was the initial lack of wide angle lenses for cropped sensors, but after Nikon released the 12-24mm, and 3rd party manufacturers released their version, this was no longer a showstopper for me.

No doubt full frame can produce better quality images... but medium format can produce even better images again. The crop sensor was a sensible balance between cost (including a selection of lenses), portability and image quality for me.

Even though the cost of full frame cameras may come down in the next few yeqars (e.g. Nikon D3), the full-frame lenses will continue to be significantly more expensive than DX/cropped frame.

If in the future I am to to ditch my cropped system, I will consider the jump up to medium format instead (cost being the key consideration).

I would find it surprising if the British government would provide a monopoly license to run accredited English language courses in every country on the planet to one specific company (crony of the government)

However, the points system in Australia is not used for spouse visa, rather for potential migrants who apply on their own behalf, on the basis of their potential contribution to Australia.

I may miss the point competely here, but wouldn't this system, if enacted in the UK, be mostly relevant for foreigners who would currently apply for work permit or HSMP? If find the Australian system to be fair, transparent, and in support of the needs of their country.

Is it expected that this points system, if enacted in UK, would be applicable to migrants seeking spouse-visas?

However, if we look at the Australia system, it is fully possible (though difficult) to apply for a work permit if one just wants to work there temporarily. The points system is for migrants seeking permanent residence.

As for speaking English before they arrive here... It could be argued that it is justifiable for migrants coming on their own, but I'm not sure that it is a fair requirement for spouses of British citizens.

rgds

NM