|
|
The new 100-400mm seems to work.
Today in the wind North of San Simeon.
https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-4HpnjD4/0/9f7b73b9/O/i-4HpnjD4.jpg https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-DptDNMM/0/d66445c3/O/i-DptDNMM.jpg -- Regards, Savageduck |
The new 100-400mm seems to work.
On 7/7/18 PDT 6:33 PM, Savageduck wrote:
Today in the wind North of San Simeon. https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-4HpnjD4/0/9f7b73b9/O/i-4HpnjD4.jpg https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-DptDNMM/0/d66445c3/O/i-DptDNMM.jpg Oh, yes, indeed! |
The new 100-400mm seems to work.
On Jul 7, 2018, John McWilliams wrote
(in article ): On 7/7/18 PDT 6:33 PM, Savageduck wrote: Today in the wind North of San Simeon. https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-4HpnjD4/0/9f7b73b9/O/i-4HpnjD4.jpg https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-DptDNMM/0/d66445c3/O/i-DptDNMM.jpg Oh, yes, indeed! Thanks. Here are two mo https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-KDb6FXK/0/e0a99e61/O/i-KDb6FXK.jpg https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-VHS3kWL/0/e44ea180/O/i-VHS3kWL.jpg -- Regards, Savageduck |
The new 100-400mm seems to work.
On Sun, 08 Jul 2018 00:17:15 -0700, Savageduck
wrote: On Jul 7, 2018, John McWilliams wrote (in article ): On 7/7/18 PDT 6:33 PM, Savageduck wrote: Today in the wind North of San Simeon. https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-4HpnjD4/0/9f7b73b9/O/i-4HpnjD4.jpg https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-DptDNMM/0/d66445c3/O/i-DptDNMM.jpg Oh, yes, indeed! Thanks. Here are two mo https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-KDb6FXK/0/e0a99e61/O/i-KDb6FXK.jpg https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-VHS3kWL/0/e44ea180/O/i-VHS3kWL.jpg I'd say that lens was a good investment. |
The new 100-400mm seems to work.
On Jul 8, 2018, Bill W wrote
(in ): On Sun, 08 Jul 2018 00:17:15 -0700, Savageduck wrote: On Jul 7, 2018, John McWilliams wrote (in article ): On 7/7/18 PDT 6:33 PM, Savageduck wrote: Today in the wind North of San Simeon. https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-4HpnjD4/0/9f7b73b9/O/i-4HpnjD4.jpg https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-DptDNMM/0/d66445c3/O/i-DptDNMM.jpg Oh, yes, indeed! Thanks. Here are two mo https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-KDb6FXK/0/e0a99e61/O/i-KDb6FXK.jpg https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-VHS3kWL/0/e44ea180/O/i-VHS3kWL.jpg I'd say that lens was a good investment. So far I am happy with it. I will probably buy the 1.4TC though the reach I get now is just fine. Next I will have to track down an airshow. ;-) For now here is another of the windsurfer shots: https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-cs5phDS/0/ce74ad5f/O/i-cs5phDS.jpg -- Regards, Savageduck |
The new 100-400mm seems to work.
On Sun, 08 Jul 2018 00:17:15 -0700, Savageduck
wrote: On Jul 7, 2018, John McWilliams wrote (in article ): On 7/7/18 PDT 6:33 PM, Savageduck wrote: Today in the wind North of San Simeon. https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-4HpnjD4/0/9f7b73b9/O/i-4HpnjD4.jpg https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-DptDNMM/0/d66445c3/O/i-DptDNMM.jpg Oh, yes, indeed! Thanks. Here are two mo https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-KDb6FXK/0/e0a99e61/O/i-KDb6FXK.jpg https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-VHS3kWL/0/e44ea180/O/i-VHS3kWL.jpg I don't want to seem difficult - but I guess I am. There was a time when, if I had submitted those images, as interesting as they were to me, you would have said harsh words to me about the fuzziness of the image. It wouldn't have been a personal attack but a strong criticism. I am particularly thinking of those first photographs of the Mosquito about which your comments were perfectly justified. What I would really like to know is a little more about the processing, particularly about the extent to which the images were cropped and what else if anything was done in their processing. I suspect from their general lack of sharpness and their apparent noise or graininess that they have been heavily cropped. I noted from the EXIF that you were using f/8 at 1/500 with a 200 ASA. Have you tried shots at a higher speed with a lesser f number? -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
The new 100-400mm seems to work.
In article , Eric Stevens
says... On Sun, 08 Jul 2018 00:17:15 -0700, Savageduck wrote: On Jul 7, 2018, John McWilliams wrote (in article ): On 7/7/18 PDT 6:33 PM, Savageduck wrote: Today in the wind North of San Simeon. https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-4HpnjD4/0/9f7b73b9/O/i-4HpnjD4.jpg https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-DptDNMM/0/d66445c3/O/i-DptDNMM.jpg Oh, yes, indeed! Thanks. Here are two mo https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-KDb6FXK/0/e0a99e61/O/i-KDb6FXK.jpg https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-VHS3kWL/0/e44ea180/O/i-VHS3kWL.jpg I don't want to seem difficult - but I guess I am. There was a time when, if I had submitted those images, as interesting as they were to me, you would have said harsh words to me about the fuzziness of the image. It wouldn't have been a personal attack but a strong criticism. I am particularly thinking of those first photographs of the Mosquito about which your comments were perfectly justified. What I would really like to know is a little more about the processing, particularly about the extent to which the images were cropped and what else if anything was done in their processing. I suspect from their general lack of sharpness and their apparent noise or graininess that they have been heavily cropped. I noted from the EXIF that you were using f/8 at 1/500 with a 200 ASA. Have you tried shots at a higher speed with a lesser f number? I was about to ask the same thing, because indeed not all images are tack sharp. I also shot windsurfers with the OLympus 75-300 at 300mm (same field of view as 400mm on APS-C). This is the budget tele lens of Olympus (inexpensive and relatively lightweight). Of the images I got many were blurred (perhaps motion blur), a few were quite sharp. In both cases (Fuji and Olympus) the lack of sharpness could be due to motion blur and/or imprecise AF (camera not being able to focus precisely fast enough) - just guessing. -- Alfred Molon Olympus E-series DSLRs and micro 4/3 forum at https://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/ https://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site |
The new 100-400mm seems to work.
On Jul 8, 2018, Eric Stevens wrote
(in ): On Sun, 08 Jul 2018 00:17:15 -0700, Savageduck wrote: On Jul 7, 2018, John McWilliams wrote (in article ): On 7/7/18 PDT 6:33 PM, Savageduck wrote: Today in the wind North of San Simeon. https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-4HpnjD4/0/9f7b73b9/O/i-4HpnjD4.jpg Processed in LR CCC; original 6000x4000 aspect ratio to 16:10 cropped to 5771x3607; local sharpening limited to subject. ISO200; 1/1400 @ f/5.0 https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-DptDNMM/0/d66445c3/O/i-DptDNMM.jpg Processed in LR CCC; original 6000x4000 aspect ratio to 16:9 cropped to 5726x3221; local sharpening limited to subject. ISO200; 1/1500 @ f/5.4 Oh, yes, indeed! Thanks. Here are two mo https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-KDb6FXK/0/e0a99e61/O/i-KDb6FXK.jpg Processed in LR CCC; original 6000x4000 aspect ratio to 16:9 cropped to 5243x2949; local sharpening limited to subject. ISO200; 1/500 @ f/8.0 https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-VHS3kWL/0/e44ea180/O/i-VHS3kWL.jpg Processed in LR CCC: 6000x4000, no crop. Local sharpening limited to subject. ISO200; 1/500 @ f/8.0 I don't want to seem difficult - but I guess I am. There was a time when, if I had submitted those images, as interesting as they were to me, you would have said harsh words to me about the fuzziness of the image. It wouldn't have been a personal attack but a strong criticism. I am particularly thinking of those first photographs of the Mosquito about which your comments were perfectly justified. What I would really like to know is a little more about the processing, particularly about the extent to which the images were cropped and what else if anything was done in their processing. I suspect from their general lack of sharpness and their apparent noise or graininess that they have been heavily cropped. There is no heavy cropping. Some stuff might have been subject to Smugmug resizing for sharing. All processing was done in LR CCC, sharpening was localized to the subject. I did not need razor sharp wind blown wavetops. I have added notes below each URL. However, I guess you are seeing whatever it is you are seeing, no offense taken. I noted from the EXIF that you were using f/8 at 1/500 with a 200 ASA. Have you tried shots at a higher speed with a lesser f number? Not all of them. I had Auto ISO set with base at ISO 200, MAX ISO @ 1600, min speed set to Auto. See notes above. Pick one, I would be more than happy to send you the RAW RAF to play with. -- Regards, Savageduck |
The new 100-400mm seems to work.
On Jul 8, 2018, Alfred Molon wrote
(in . com): In , Eric Stevens says... On Sun, 08 Jul 2018 00:17:15 -0700, Savageduck wrote: On Jul 7, 2018, John McWilliams wrote (in article ): On 7/7/18 PDT 6:33 PM, Savageduck wrote: Today in the wind North of San Simeon. https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-4HpnjD4/0/9f7b73b9/O/i-4HpnjD4.jpg https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-DptDNMM/0/d66445c3/O/i-DptDNMM.jpg Oh, yes, indeed! Thanks. Here are two mo https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-KDb6FXK/0/e0a99e61/O/i-KDb6FXK.jpg https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-VHS3kWL/0/e44ea180/O/i-VHS3kWL.jpg I don't want to seem difficult - but I guess I am. There was a time when, if I had submitted those images, as interesting as they were to me, you would have said harsh words to me about the fuzziness of the image. It wouldn't have been a personal attack but a strong criticism. I am particularly thinking of those first photographs of the Mosquito about which your comments were perfectly justified. What I would really like to know is a little more about the processing, particularly about the extent to which the images were cropped and what else if anything was done in their processing. I suspect from their general lack of sharpness and their apparent noise or graininess that they have been heavily cropped. I noted from the EXIF that you were using f/8 at 1/500 with a 200 ASA. Have you tried shots at a higher speed with a lesser f number? I was about to ask the same thing, because indeed not all images are tack sharp. I also shot windsurfers with the OLympus 75-300 at 300mm (same field of view as 400mm on APS-C). This is the budget tele lens of Olympus (inexpensive and relatively lightweight). Of the images I got many were blurred (perhaps motion blur), a few were quite sharp. In both cases (Fuji and Olympus) the lack of sharpness could be due to motion blur and/or imprecise AF (camera not being able to focus precisely fast enough) - just guessing. The only thing I can think of was the very strong wind factor, and the possibility that the OIS was just not able to keep up. -- Regards, Savageduck |
The new 100-400mm seems to work.
On Jul 8, 2018, Savageduck wrote
(in iganews.com): On Jul 8, 2018, Eric Stevens wrote (in ): On Sun, 08 Jul 2018 00:17:15 -0700, Savageduck wrote: On Jul 7, 2018, John McWilliams wrote (in article ): On 7/7/18 PDT 6:33 PM, Savageduck wrote: Today in the wind North of San Simeon. https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-4HpnjD4/0/9f7b73b9/O/i-4HpnjD4.jpg Processed in LR CCC; original 6000x4000 aspect ratio to 16:10 cropped to 5771x3607; local sharpening limited to subject. ISO200; 1/1400 @ f/5.0 https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-DptDNMM/0/d66445c3/O/i-DptDNMM.jpg Processed in LR CCC; original 6000x4000 aspect ratio to 16:9 cropped to 5726x3221; local sharpening limited to subject. ISO200; 1/1500 @ f/5.4 Oh, yes, indeed! Thanks. Here are two mo https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-KDb6FXK/0/e0a99e61/O/i-KDb6FXK.jpg Processed in LR CCC; original 6000x4000 aspect ratio to 16:9 cropped to 5243x2949; local sharpening limited to subject. ISO200; 1/500 @ f/8.0 https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-VHS3kWL/0/e44ea180/O/i-VHS3kWL.jpg Processed in LR CCC: 6000x4000, no crop. Local sharpening limited to subject. ISO200; 1/500 @ f/8.0 I don't want to seem difficult - but I guess I am. There was a time when, if I had submitted those images, as interesting as they were to me, you would have said harsh words to me about the fuzziness of the image. It wouldn't have been a personal attack but a strong criticism. I am particularly thinking of those first photographs of the Mosquito about which your comments were perfectly justified. What I would really like to know is a little more about the processing, particularly about the extent to which the images were cropped and what else if anything was done in their processing. I suspect from their general lack of sharpness and their apparent noise or graininess that they have been heavily cropped. There is no heavy cropping. Some stuff might have been subject to Smugmug resizing for sharing. All processing was done in LR CCC, sharpening was localized to the subject. I did not need razor sharp wind blown wavetops. I have added notes below each URL. However, I guess you are seeing whatever it is you are seeing, no offense taken. I noted from the EXIF that you were using f/8 at 1/500 with a 200 ASA. Have you tried shots at a higher speed with a lesser f number? Not all of them. I had Auto ISO set with base at ISO 200, MAX ISO @ 1600, min speed set to Auto. See notes above. Pick one, I would be more than happy to send you the RAW RAF to play with. BTW: This one I processed with Alien Skin Exposure X3. ISO 200, 1/1100 @ f/5.6: Sharpening was still localized to the subject, and is sharp enough that the reinforcing pattern in the Kevlar sail is quite clear. Aspect ratio changed to 16:9 from original 6000x4000 to 5532x3112. https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-cs5phDS/0/ce74ad5f/O/i-cs5phDS.jpg -- Regards, Savageduck |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:28 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
PhotoBanter.com