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 |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
20D GETS CLOSE !
"Annika1980" wrote: On Jul 5, 12:24 pm, "Matalog" wrote: Beautiful Photos, amazing. What flash did you use? Canon 430EX with a Lumiquest Softbox. Hey, guy. Good work there! (Since I forgot to say it earlier.) David J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
20D GETS CLOSE !
Allen wrote:
Mark² wrote: BaumBadier wrote: On Wed, 04 Jul 2007 20:27:21 -0700, Annika1980 wrote: If they were dead then I wouldn't have needed the flash. Without flash you are talking about long exposure times. Not such a good idea when shooting handheld and your subject is on a leaf. That's what photography talent is for. Try it sometime. Gee, what a shock! Doug has a new screen name... Mark, the only times I see BB's arrogant and idiotic posts is when someone copies them in a reply. Some things don't deserve to be read. I subscribe to several classical music ngs and I tghought they had a hign percentage of trolls and flakes. This ng, though, holds my personal record. I want to say that you are one of the good guys, as is Annika. Allen Thank you (for that last part). He's now in my kill-file... I've never seen his screen name before...so perhaps he's from the aus.photo only? -- Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at: www.pbase.com/markuson |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
20D GETS CLOSE !
On Wed, 04 Jul 2007 13:39:26 -0700, Annika1980
wrote: One old adage about photography suggests that you should always try to "get closer." One way to do that is to use a long lens. Another way is to actually get close to your subject. So with that in mind I took these pics this morning. http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/81673036/original http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/81673031 http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/81673033 http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/81673034 http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/81673035 http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/81673254 -Annika ----- loves having the whole day off !!! I always like your photos; thanks! -- THIS IS A SIG LINE; NOT TO BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY! Bill Clinton flew to Iowa Monday to make speeches with Hillary Clinton before Iowa voters. Iowans are always sorry to see the Clintons go home. Whenever Bill and Hillary leave Iowa, the farmers have to go back to fertilizing the crops themselves. |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
20D GETS CLOSE !
On Jul 5, 10:33 pm, Annika1980 wrote:
Ooops sorry: you can't... Nearly forgot Canon's in-camera processing smears up fine detail it finds away from edges, thinking it's noise... Wrong again, Buttdrip! I can pull as much detail as I need from the RAW file. Maybe even a little too much:http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/81712964/original Once again, you prove unable to understand basic English. I said: "Canon's in-camera processing". WTF has that got to do with your raw file post-processing is a mistery to anyone. But it's good to see you're keeping the raw stuff: at least you can do something decent with it later on, instead of the typical smeared feathers in most of your shots. Do you keep the raw files in plastic sleeves as well? :-) |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
20D GETS CLOSE !
On Jul 6, 7:37 am, "Saguenay" wrote:
http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/81673036/original Sorry, I see **all** feathers details under the eye. I stress: ALL details. Seems you use a monitor as much subtle than your appreciation. Your imagination is really fertile. There is nothing wrong with my monitor and a lot wrong with your eyes. For proof, see Bret's second image from the raw file: it's night and day from the other crap in the jpg file in which you imagine detail. |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
20D GETS CLOSE !
On Jul 6, 7:37 am, "Saguenay" wrote:
http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/81673036/original finally! Something with a reasonable size for a good evaluation! Thought you were stuck in the 600x400 itty bity time warp... so, what happened to the feather detail under the eye, at the base of the beak? Can you rescan so they look as detailed as the other feathers at the edge of the background? you know, the ones that look "in focus" and detailed even though the whole bird is in focus? Ooops sorry: you can't... Nearly forgot Canon's in-camera processing smears up fine detail it finds away from edges, thinking it's noise... ;-) Sorry, I see **all** feathers details under the eye. I stress: ALL details. Seems you use a monitor as much subtle than your appreciation. When I mess the calibration, YES, I see a white mess under the eye. I bet you do. I think I will sit on the fence, leaning slightly towards Noon's comments, minus the language.. But there *is* detail (hidden?) in that area in the original jpg - if you doubt that, just play with the gamma (way down) and contrast in an image editor and you'll see almost everything that is in his raw version, is also hiding in the jpg. But to claim you can *see* that detail clearly on a 'well-calibrated screen'??? Here's what that 'detail' looks like, at ridiculously magnified levels (pixels outlined to help (or hinder?): http://www.marktphoto.com/annika_zoomed.jpg To me that is just a fairly flat area of off-white, with just some waftings of slight shade variations (pardon my prose).... If you check the levels, there is very little under 235 or over 250 in any channel, and within each channel there is even less variation... "Detail"? hmm. If I messed with my screen enough to make that 'clear detail', it would be nothing like what I could (or would want to) print. So saguenay, what sort of monitor do you have, what gamma is it set to, what sort of printer do you have, and what sort of colour calibration/print matching process do you use? I'm intrigued!! What do others think? Annika - do you see clear detail in that area of the jpg? Maybe I/we just have a differing opinion of what being clearly visible means... |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
20D GETS CLOSE !
On Jul 6, 8:08 pm, wrote:
What do others think? Annika - do you see clear detail in that area of the jpg? Maybe I/we just have a differing opinion of what being clearly visible means... Of course there is no detail - in the jpg! Of course there is detail if we go back to the raw file, like Bret did. The problem has nothing to do with monitor settings. And all to do with Canon's in-camera processing. Here is another example, also from Bret: http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/74548755/original note exactly the same area under the beak and inside the "S" curve in the neck. Totally devoid of detail, even though other areas of the image in the same focus plane are very pleasing. Not to disparage the image, by any means: it's a great shot, of a great moment. This is a problem with most d-slr image processors, not just Canon's. Although theirs and Panasonic's are notable for creating images that just don't "make sense" when looked at with a reasonable resolution. There is an example in Ken Rockwell's of the "6000 ISO" 1dsMKiii that nearly had me falling off the chair laughing! But everyone else seems to think those are "clean" images, so what can I say. Of course at 600x400 no one can notice anything! And of course if one re-processes from the raw file, it will look a lot better. Both of these are examples of why I don't like in-camera image processing, from just about ANY manufacturer using small 1.5x sensors. The only one that is slightly acceptable is Sigma's SD14 jpg processing: there are some stunning detail example jpgs in its section in pbase, clearly the result of a far superior sensor that doesn't require the large amounts of noise smearing used by almost everyone else. But unfortunately it has a 1.7 crop factor, otherwise it would definitely be my first d-slr! |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
20D GETS CLOSE !
Noons wrote:
On Jul 5, 10:33 pm, Annika1980 wrote: Ooops sorry: you can't... Nearly forgot Canon's in-camera processing smears up fine detail it finds away from edges, thinking it's noise... Wrong again, Buttdrip! I can pull as much detail as I need from the RAW file. Maybe even a little too much:http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/81712964/original Once again, you prove unable to understand basic English. I said: "Canon's in-camera processing". WTF has that got to do with your raw file post-processing is a mistery to anyone. What's a mistery? or should be a mystery???? But it's good to see you're keeping the raw stuff: at least you can do something decent with it later on, instead of the typical smeared feathers in most of your shots. Do you keep the raw files in plastic sleeves as well? :-) |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
20D GETS CLOSE !
On Jul 6, 5:05 am, Noons wrote:
Once again, you prove unable to understand basic English. I said: "Canon's in-camera processing". WTF has that got to do with your raw file post-processing is a mistery to anyone. I don't understand what you mean by in-camera processing. Both images I posted were made from the same RAW file. So obviously there is detail in that file. Any differences between them occured well after the image was out of the camera. So your gripe seems to be more about the choices I made during post-processing the RAW file rather than something that happened in-camera. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Canon 70-200 and close-ups | Gordon MacPherson | Digital Photography | 3 | December 21st 06 08:46 PM |
Close-up lens help | Alan | Digital Photography | 11 | January 29th 06 03:40 PM |
close-up photos | Chisa | Digital Photography | 11 | November 15th 05 09:36 PM |
close one | [email protected] | Digital Photography | 0 | February 25th 05 08:27 PM |
HUMMERS LIKE IT UP CLOSE !!! | Annika1980 | Digital Photography | 8 | July 28th 04 11:34 PM |