A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

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.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Digital Photography » Digital Photography
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

20D GETS CLOSE !



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31  
Old July 5th 07, 06:04 PM posted to rec.photo.digital,aus.photo
David J. Littleboy
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,618
Default 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  
Old July 5th 07, 06:44 PM posted to rec.photo.digital,aus.photo
Mark²
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,185
Default 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  
Old July 5th 07, 08:43 PM posted to rec.photo.digital,aus.photo
Bill Funk
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,500
Default 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.
  #34  
Old July 5th 07, 10:37 PM posted to rec.photo.digital,aus.photo
Saguenay
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 70
Default 20D GETS CLOSE !


"Noons" a écrit dans le message de news:
...
On Jul 5, 6:39 am, Annika1980 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.

Cheers, Annika, I always watch for your "20 D likes...", and this time it
was a long waiting time!

mb
http://baron.phpnet.us/


  #35  
Old July 6th 07, 10:05 AM posted to rec.photo.digital,aus.photo
Noons
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,245
Default 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  
Old July 6th 07, 10:08 AM posted to rec.photo.digital,aus.photo
Noons
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,245
Default 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  
Old July 6th 07, 11:08 AM posted to rec.photo.digital,aus.photo
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,311
Default 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  
Old July 6th 07, 12:08 PM posted to rec.photo.digital,aus.photo
Noons
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,245
Default 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  
Old July 6th 07, 02:05 PM posted to rec.photo.digital,aus.photo
Rob
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 143
Default 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  
Old July 6th 07, 02:08 PM posted to rec.photo.digital,aus.photo
Annika1980
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,898
Default 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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:40 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.