If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
YOU CAN'T HIDE FROM THE 20D !!!
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Annika1980 wrote:
http://www.pbase.com/image/34534269 EXIF? Face it Bret ... we want the details. -- "There is no such thing as inaccuracy in a photograph. All photographs are accurate. None of them is the truth." -Richard Avedon -- rec.photo.equipment.35mm user resource: -- http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.-- |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Does anyone else think there are sharpening artefacts in this picture? I
looks like a wide-radius unsharp mask has been applied which seems to make the leaves look like they are stuck to the sky. Question: Was this done in photoshop, or in the camera? I'm guessing this was quite a crop from the noise levels and resolution? It's a lovely picture, though - I do like the colours. Duncan. "Alan Browne" wrote in message .. . Annika1980 wrote: http://www.pbase.com/image/34534269 EXIF? Face it Bret ... we want the details. -- "There is no such thing as inaccuracy in a photograph. All photographs are accurate. None of them is the truth." -Richard Avedon -- rec.photo.equipment.35mm user resource: -- http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.-- |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
From: "Duncan J Murray"
Question: Was this done in photoshop, or in the camera? PS. I always turn sharpening off in camera. I'm guessing this was quite a crop from the noise levels and resolution? Yes. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
On Sun, 03 Oct 2004 01:44:33 +0000, Annika1980 had this to say:
From: "Duncan J Murray" Question: Was this done in photoshop, or in the camera? PS. I always turn sharpening off in camera. Why? Do you not think that Canon are capable of providing a correct level of sharpening in their cameras, or do you just like to screw around for hours in Photoshop? I was guilty of this too, but since I switched to Nikon I just leave the sharpening setting in the camera at max. It seems to do a pretty good job which saves me a lot of time afterwards. -- DD™ "And that's all I got to say about that" ~ FG |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Annika1980 wrote:
From: Alan Browne http://www.pbase.com/image/34534269 EXIF? Face it Bret ... we want the details. Next time, I'll just post the EXIF info and not the pic. It's just that the birdie pic looks noisy, not to mention highly cropped. Hard to appreciate the performance (or lack thereof) of your new toy if we can't see the parameters. Here's one I took today: Date/Time: 2004:10:02 11:40:09 Shutter speed: 1/1000 sec Apertu 5.6 Exposure mode: Av Flash: Off Metering mode: Partial Drive mode: Continuous ISO: 100 Lens: 70 to 200mm Focal length: 125mm AF mode: AI Servo AF Image quality: Raw White balance: Preset That really sucks. You have to put more feeling into it. -- "There is no such thing as inaccuracy in a photograph. All photographs are accurate. None of them is the truth." -Richard Avedon -- rec.photo.equipment.35mm user resource: -- http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.-- |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Dallas wrote:
On Sun, 03 Oct 2004 01:44:33 +0000, Annika1980 had this to say: From: "Duncan J Murray" Question: Was this done in photoshop, or in the camera? PS. I always turn sharpening off in camera. Why? Do you not think that Canon are capable of providing a correct level of sharpening in their cameras, or do you just like to screw around for hours in Photoshop? I was guilty of this too, but since I switched to Nikon I just leave the sharpening setting in the camera at max. It seems to do a pretty good job which saves me a lot of time afterwards. That is really underemploying your camera. Sharpening is output size specific so better to capture unsharpened RAW and then produce output size specific sharpening using USM than to use a general sharpening algorithm of any kind (whether in-camera or the generic "Sharpen" in PS, avoid, avoid, avoid). Cheers, Alan -- "There is no such thing as inaccuracy in a photograph. All photographs are accurate. None of them is the truth." -Richard Avedon -- rec.photo.equipment.35mm user resource: -- http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.-- |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
On Sun, 03 Oct 2004 11:57:04 -0400, Alan Browne had this to say:
Why? Do you not think that Canon are capable of providing a correct level of sharpening in their cameras, or do you just like to screw around for hours in Photoshop? I was guilty of this too, but since I switched to Nikon I just leave the sharpening setting in the camera at max. It seems to do a pretty good job which saves me a lot of time afterwards. That is really underemploying your camera. Sharpening is output size specific so better to capture unsharpened RAW and then produce output size specific sharpening using USM than to use a general sharpening algorithm of any kind (whether in-camera or the generic "Sharpen" in PS, avoid, avoid, avoid). Alan, there is nothing wrong with using the software in the camera to do you sharpening for you. This notion that you should only do it in PS after the fact is horse pucky. When you are working professionally, editing and individually sharpening hundreds of shots in Photoshop is not a feasible means of workflow. The more work the camera can do and the less work you have to do after the shoot, the better. -- DD™ "And that's all I got to say about that" ~ FG |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Dallas wrote:
Alan, there is nothing wrong with using the software in the camera to do you sharpening for you. This notion that you should only do it in PS after the fact is horse pucky. I suggest you get intimately aquainted with USM and try it on subjects with a lot of fine detail v. subjects with lower detail. The differences in settings for the USM are very, very different in both cases; and again very different for different ouput sizes (whether screen, thumbnail, small prints, large prints...) The very variability of this suggests that letting an algorithm do it in camera is taking risks with the image quality... and once artifacts from sharpenning are introduced, they cannot be undone. If there was a single auto-sharpenning algorithm that could be used on any given image, then PS would have it. The one they do have is useless, hence USM. When you are working professionally, editing and individually sharpening hundreds of shots in Photoshop is not a feasible means of workflow. Professionals will make USM adjustments on the output work at the work size. If they don't the graphics staff certainly will. The more work the camera can do and the less work you have to do after the shoot, the better. Not if the work in the camera reduces the ultimate usability of the image. Cheers, Alan. -- -- rec.photo.equipment.35mm user resource: -- http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.-- |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
YOU CAN'T HIDE FROM THE 20D !!! | Annika1980 | Digital Photography | 34 | October 9th 04 01:27 PM |