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 |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
20D GETS CLOSE !
On Jul 6, 5:08 am, Noons wrote:
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. Hey slick, they are both JPG files made from the same RAW image. I don't shoot JPG files in-camera so Canon's in-camera processing has nothing to do with it as you claim. |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
20D GETS CLOSE !
On Jul 6, 11:05 pm, Rob wrote:
What's a mistery? or should be a mystery???? spelling nazi... |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
20D GETS CLOSE !
On Jul 6, 11:08 pm, Annika1980 wrote:
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. fair enough. ALL your jpgs are off camera? |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
20D GETS CLOSE !
On Jul 6, 11:11 pm, Annika1980 wrote:
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. Hey slick, they are both JPG files made from the same RAW image. I don't shoot JPG files in-camera so Canon's in-camera processing has nothing to do with it as you claim. don't try to change the subject here. This was someone claiming to see what is not there. What I claim here is that the detail he "sees" is simply not there, in your original jpg. That is the claim here, in my reply to this poster. You're trying to twist it into another reply, to one of your posts. In which I claim most in-camera dslr processing is crap. It is: go to pbase and check the many examples there. And please: don't bother showing me examples off the 5d or 1dsm2, those are completely out of context. One can shoot both raw and jpg in-camera, you know that of course. If these are your jpgs off-camera, from raws, you really need to take your 20d-goggles off for a moment and look at the process again: something is definitely wrong in how you are zapping the raw stuff. Having multiple fuzzy and non-fuzzy areas in the same focus plane is a definite no-no. Most of the butt-kissers here won't even blink at that, but I and others will notice when you show a large enough image. As for the 600X400 stuff, quite frankly it's too small to be worth any comments. As such, I don't comment. You can continue to take the kissing and just not improve whatever the heck is wrong. Your choice, of course. I thought I was talking to someone who prides himself on quality. Maybe I was wrong? Note: I'm not the only one noticing it. |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
20D GETS CLOSE !
On Jul 6, 11:20 pm, Rob wrote:
"Information about monitors: Please note that all monitors are different and may not represent the original print. These web files have been optimized for mac monitor viewing. If you are viewing on a PC monitor, images will render darker and more saturated than intended. " What a wacko! holy cow! 500+ pounds for a 40cmX40cm print? what's it printed on, gold plate? |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
20D GETS CLOSE !
On Jul 6, 10:11 am, Noons wrote:
Hey slick, they are both JPG files made from the same RAW image. I don't shoot JPG files in-camera so Canon's in-camera processing has nothing to do with it as you claim. don't try to change the subject here. I'm not changing the subject. You claimed my pic lacked detail due to Canon's in-camera processing. I called bull**** and proved that you were talking out your ass. I shoot exclusively in RAW mode, but I would gladly set my 20D to RAW +JPG to do some testing to disprove your claims. |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
20D GETS CLOSE !
Noons wrote:
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. But to be totally fair you did say that Bret would not be able to go back and rescan for more detail, indicating that the detail was lost forever. But in fact since it was taken as a raw image Bret was able to go back and get more detail, very much like re-scanning film. You did not simply say that the jpeg that Bret originally posted lack detail, in a fair small area I might add, but you went on to say that he could not get it back. Of course if he were shoot with slide film, like many film buffs seem to like to shoot, well then the detail would have be really lost. Scott |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
20D GETS CLOSE !
Noons wrote:
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. That's just because it's blown out at that point. Nothing to do with Canon, beyond over-exposure in that portion of the image. This is understandable when you note how dark the shadows were under the wing...which means this was shot under harsh sun. -- Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by MarkČ at: www.pbase.com/markuson |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
20D GETS CLOSE !
Rob wrote:
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???? It's a mistery why you care how he spells mystery on use-net... -- Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by MarkČ at: www.pbase.com/markuson |
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 07:46 PM |
Close-up lens help | Alan | Digital Photography | 11 | January 29th 06 02:40 PM |
close-up photos | Chisa | Digital Photography | 11 | November 15th 05 08:36 PM |
close one | [email protected] | Digital Photography | 0 | February 25th 05 07:27 PM |
HUMMERS LIKE IT UP CLOSE !!! | Annika1980 | Digital Photography | 8 | July 28th 04 11:34 PM |