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 » Photo Equipment » 35mm Photo Equipment
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

YOU CAN'T HIDE FROM THE 20D !!!



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old October 2nd 04, 10:18 PM
Annika1980
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default YOU CAN'T HIDE FROM THE 20D !!!

http://www.pbase.com/image/34534269


  #2  
Old October 2nd 04, 10:33 PM
Alan Browne
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old October 3rd 04, 02:25 AM
Duncan J Murray
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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.--



  #4  
Old October 3rd 04, 02:41 AM
Annika1980
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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.

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


  #5  
Old October 3rd 04, 02:44 AM
Annika1980
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old October 3rd 04, 10:31 AM
Dallas
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old October 3rd 04, 04:31 PM
Alan Browne
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old October 3rd 04, 04:57 PM
Alan Browne
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old October 4th 04, 05:38 AM
Dallas
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old October 4th 04, 03:35 PM
Alan Browne
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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

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
YOU CAN'T HIDE FROM THE 20D !!! Annika1980 Digital Photography 34 October 9th 04 01:27 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:29 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.