boom, less lens-changing

4/27/2010 6:43:49 PM

Quote :

"i'm skeptical about taking a 300 prime just because i think it'll force me to change lenses in a situation where the conditions aren't favorable or don't have time to "

You'd really be surprised. I guarantee that after a shooting with it a bit, you'll want to shoot with the 300 whenever possible. You won't want to take it off your camera when you don't absolutely have to. When I first started shooting sports I would opt for the 70-200 over the 300 because I thought it was more versatile and easier/safer, but it wasn't long before I realized I got a much higher percantage of "keeper" shots with the 300. Now this isn't totally applicable since you'll also have the 70-200, but don't let the fixed length fool you into thinking you won't absolutely love it.

Plus, changing lenses isn't difficult. The 300 has its own shoulder strap so it is easy enough to twist off and drop to your side or in the bag next to you.

4/27/2010 6:52:49 PM

[Edited on April 27, 2010 at 7:11 PM. Reason : ]

4/27/2010 7:09:15 PM

^I envy the weather in the first picture; it's been nothing but rain here.

4/27/2010 7:20:46 PM

^^what software and which settings do you use to resize and compress?
Even when I resize with Photoshop and then upload to FB, I seem to always get a lot more artifacts than those pics have. I also noticed that facebook JAVA uploader fucks your pics up a lot more than the "simple uploader," even when the pictures do NOT have to be resized by the server.

4/29/2010 9:43:47 AM

I upload my pictures to flickr. It's free to open an account, using your Yahoo! ID. http://www.flickr.com

I also resize in PS and pull the medium size image to show here from flickr.

[Edited on April 29, 2010 at 9:48 AM. Reason : ]

4/29/2010 9:47:32 AM

i'm still debating a flickr pro account, though currently i just remove old pictures to make room for new ones...since the last time i asked (almost a year ago, actually), have any better (more space, specifically) free options sprung up aside from flickr?

i like the multiple sizes option of flickr, and the fact that hotlinking is so easy

4/29/2010 9:56:17 AM

^^Im thinking about starting a Flickr account once I get some more artistic pictures, but I would like to use FB if possible for ease of sharing. But yeah if the FB uploader will be FooBaring my pics like the last album I did, I will have to make a move on the Flickr

4/29/2010 10:03:53 AM

Eh, they don't have to be artistic...I don't think I've got any that are artistic. It just doesn't compress images like FB, though there is some artificial sharpening added at times, it seems.

I like the flickr pro account for the stats that come with it and not having to go through picking which shots I want to take off.

4/29/2010 10:07:00 AM

here is what my FB-uploaded pic looks like.. granted i didnt do much work to it before, only converted from RAW to JPEG with minor contrast/brightness ajustment, but it does not at all look impressive color- and dynamic-range- wise who wants to play with the RAW file and show me how it SHOULD look when processed, resized, and uploaded (and then tell me what exactly was corrected

4/29/2010 10:19:31 AM

My quick edit.

4/29/2010 9:35:10 PM

4/29/2010 9:44:44 PM

4/29/2010 9:52:49 PM

gunzz, yours looks a little too blue. actually, i think kiwi's edit is pretty good.

4/29/2010 10:10:37 PM

yeah .... its too blue
im stoned

4/29/2010 10:11:20 PM

well i'm drunk, so... yeah.

4/29/2010 10:12:14 PM

and i also forgot to use an unsharp mask

better?

[Edited on April 29, 2010 at 10:15 PM. Reason : god my other one is bad ... lol]

4/29/2010 10:15:00 PM

Her eyes are still closed

[Edited on April 29, 2010 at 10:17 PM. Reason : and she's still adjusting her dress]

4/29/2010 10:16:30 PM

all of those are good adjustments, exceot for the blue one that didn't come out. Kiwi's got the skin tones better but it's amost too much contrast, Gunnz's got everything pretty much dialed in except the skin looks a bit red at least on this monitor. I'll check it at work too (this one seems to oversaturate things slightly)

Good job overall, what did you end up adjusting and by how much? I am sure you would have done even better if you worked with the original RAW

I get the craptastic's point, I have some other one where i'm smiling, her eyes are a bit more open (that 4pm sun was BRIGHT, son), and there are no card in the background, et. I just didnt get to un-rawing and uploading those yet.

Did those pictures not look oversaturated on your computer, before they were uploaded?
If they were to be prinetd, would you print the color-corrected copy or the original copy?
Did the colors stay consistent whil uploading to Flickr?

4/30/2010 12:35:57 AM

i lol'd pretty hard at craptastic's edit.

4/30/2010 1:01:44 AM

Wow, just noticed Kiwi's stamp job on the parking lot and the cars, definitely like that better than cropping as it keeps the centering and the proportions!

Gunzz's skin colors look much more natural on the work computer, which I think is slightly understaurated (Wolf Web Red looks more like Wolf Web Orange, then the blood red i see at home)

Here is an example on how the FB uploader now washes out images. First one is uploaded with the JAVA uploader, and the second one with Simple Uploader tool:





pretty noticeable, I must say. I do not think FB did this before.


[Edited on April 30, 2010 at 1:46 AM. Reason : yeah, I know, her eyes still look closed, I really need to go through the RAW pictures and pick some]

4/30/2010 1:36:57 AM

4/30/2010 8:48:26 AM

Playing with HDR tonemapping this afternoon...this is one of my new favorite tools

5/1/2010 7:52:27 PM

..........

5/1/2010 8:02:51 PM

^^We're out numbered

5/1/2010 8:25:16 PM

Tough crowd here. I find some cool post-processing shit and then damn...

Here, some more *un-touched* SV goodness for the purists out there.




[Edited on May 1, 2010 at 9:24 PM. Reason : uno mas]

5/1/2010 8:59:28 PM

Ahaha; I'm a fan of tonemapping & HDR... but nobody else seems to be. However, I am not much of a fan of the "grunge" setting on Photomatrix (or anything that exaggerated)
http://www.flickr.com/photos/unincbrtn/sets/72157623526124768/

[Edited on May 1, 2010 at 10:45 PM. Reason : ]

5/1/2010 10:42:52 PM

HDR is ok when used appropriately/tastefully.

The above example is gratuitous and horribly tacky.

5/1/2010 10:44:46 PM

the above example reminds me of the airbrush shirts you buy at the fair

5/2/2010 1:17:56 AM

Question:
What is with the HDR everyone is churning out? Or rather, what is the point?

I've used some sort of HDR technique on every outing I've been on in the past couple years, but my purpose was always to retrieve an exposure that could not be accomplished with single exposure due to huge variations of light within the frame.

Are you just hitting a button in photoshop to get that (No, I don't have photoshop)?

Example: this is my typical result with HDR.

5/2/2010 1:50:47 AM

I was just using the bracketed exposure mode on my camera. You can also do it from a RAW file and generate the different EV's, but I've never tried it that way.

I stated out with these. IIRC, they are +/-2EV.

Under-exposed


Over-exposed


Normal exposure



When the HDR algorithm is applied, it ends up with something like this, but that needs more processing, as that's just a representation of the data:



The tonemapping process makes visible and smooth those details that the HDR algorithm brings together. Playing with contrast and saturation settings gives you a normal-looking photo that still brings out some additional details. I'm looking at things like the engine and the logos, which normally get their details a little washed out. The latter has very minor processing applied, and it looks the best, IMO.




The first one I posted was definitely an extreme example, but that's why I thought it worked well for that particular photograph. It's cool *because* it has that unnatural, almost airbrushed look. I would not do that to every one of my pictures, calm down.

[Edited on May 2, 2010 at 8:00 AM. Reason : wrong link]

5/2/2010 7:58:35 AM

Quote :

"HDR is ok when used appropriately/tastefully. The above example is gratuitous and horribly tacky."

5/2/2010 8:30:39 AM

Quote :

"I've used some sort of HDR technique on every outing I've been on in the past couple years, but my purpose was always to retrieve an exposure that could not be accomplished with single exposure due to huge variations of light within the frame."

ditto

Quote :

"The first one I posted was definitely an extreme example, but that's why I thought it worked well for that particular photograph. It's cool *because* it has that unnatural, almost airbrushed look. I would not do that to every one of my pictures, calm down."

i think the issue isn't that it's not "cool," but it deviates from the implied purpose of this thread

for the most part, this thread has been dedicated to DSLR equipment and relatively unedited photography and its composition, not about what sort of neat tricks you can do in photoshop

your photoshopping has its place, but this thread serves more as a place where photographers can display their work, get feedback, and make improvements, rather than a place where people can demonstrate the editing features of photoshop

personally, i feel like maybe we could benefit from a new thread where the focus IS post-processing techniques, but i like the idea that this thread stays mostly focused on equipment and shooting

[Edited on May 2, 2010 at 9:04 AM. Reason : .]

5/2/2010 9:03:13 AM

well, it's definitely turned into that type of thread, although it started as "hey, i got a DSLR, here are some shots" thread. Now a lot of it's about pro gear and post-processing.

5/2/2010 11:33:50 AM

Well, on topic, I did get to play with a new(old) free lens this morning. I managed to get a hold of an older Beck 135mm f/2.8-16 prime lens and do some experimenting. My current 18-55 only stops down to f/4 at most of its range, and opens up to f/3.5 right at 18mm. It was interesting playing with a lens that had such a long focal length, but was capable of a narrow depth of field. No autofocus either made for quite a few thrown away shots as I learned to focus without a proper focusing screen.

The lens


And a few shots with it















This was an odd one. Obviously overexposed, taken in full manual mode, but the top left corner is less exposed and doesn't look as bad. I actually had another shot with that same artifact. Is that something with the lens?



Now, not knowing much about lenses, what would be some good applications for this lens? I've only used wide angle primes and zoom lenses, so I'm not entirely sure what I should do with this.

[Edited on May 2, 2010 at 11:53 AM. Reason : .]

5/2/2010 11:51:59 AM

i can't tell if some of the shots people post are look at the "great" work i've done - or i know this is crap and please help me

i agree a second post processing thread would perhaps be nice with a focus on before/after

how old is that lens ^

5/2/2010 12:20:01 PM

^I think there are 2 crowds


Im pretty sure that if you've read this thread longer than whatever the last page is, you would be retarded to post a pic in here and not expect it to get ripped to shreads if it looks supid...Like a nice kiwi crop or an HDR that looks like a fucking cartoon. Its funny though, just lurking in this thread, to watch people post stuff and get pissed when people don't like it.

5/2/2010 1:57:11 PM

First submission . . . I know it is to have pictures of your kids. But I love that I caught her face as the water hit her.

5/2/2010 3:44:39 PM

i picked up two lenses (both quantaray) and a new N75 film SLR for $70 this afternoon from craigslist:

28-90mm F/3.3-5.6
100-300mm F/4.5-6.7

nothing special...but worth the $70 (came with circular polarizer and a UV filter for each lens)? i have no use for the N75 (and the film it came with), so i was thinking i'd sell that

i only have the D90 kit lens (nikkor 18-105mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR)

5/2/2010 4:20:01 PM

Quote :

"i know this is crap and please help me "

I am squarely in this camp.

Quote :

"how old is that lens "

No idea. Got it from my g/f's mom and I know she's had the camera for close to 20 years.
It works fine, I just don't really know what it's best for.

5/2/2010 4:51:36 PM

I'm running into a bit of an issue with processing images in Lightroom that hopefully someone might have some insight on. I process the RAW files so that the colors are really vibrant and have that "pop", but when I go to export the files they lose a lot of that color and are just very flat. I'm not sure what I'm doing wrong but I've only been using Lightroom for less than a month so I'm sure it's something I'm missing on my part. Basically I'll export to a .tif or .jpg file and the colors are accurate in the Windows picture viewer, but as soon as I upload the picture onto a website to either display the files or print them is when they lose a lot of the color. Any ideas?

5/3/2010 4:13:48 PM

what are you export settings in lightroom? if the export pictures look fine though it might be whatever site you are using to upload pictures is compressing them horribly (this is definitely not rare)

i use lightroom and don't have this issue so i imagine it's either the site or settings

for printing it's completely dependent on the printer and paper you use and to an extent the ink

5/3/2010 4:17:22 PM

^^^ You say that you don't really know what to use that lens for. I probably would avoid using that lens outside. That lower exposer in the top left of the lower picture looks like it could be caused by how the light is hitting the lens at an angle.

If that lens is is as old as you say it is, the manufacturing techniques probably weren't as good as they are now, and if that's a lower end lens, that distortion could be the result of bad glass. This isn't to say that you can't use the lens.

But to me, judging from that little rainbow effect that you get at the edge of the distortion, I would be mindful to how the sun is hitting the lens. With that said, I would probably use that lens indoors in low light situations, on cloudy days, or at night.

Remember, with the larger aperture, you can use lower sensitivity or faster shutter times than you can with your other lens, to achieve the same exposure. Obviously you can use a combination of the two. It will depend on how good your hand is and how good your sensor is when it comes to noise.

Of course I could be talking out of my ass. I would personally mess around with the lens and try to duplicate that distortion, to find out under what conditions does it occur at.

5/3/2010 4:36:37 PM

^^I've tried several sites to try to narrow it down including flickr, picasa, and ritzpix. I even went into Wolf Camera to print an image there and it did the same thing on their computers. It's the same dull image each time. I wanted to print a pic of a NCSU flag and the image was a bright red, but once it got uploaded it looked like a very dark grey with a hint of burgandy. I'll see if I cant post an example tonight or tomorrow.

5/3/2010 4:54:59 PM

LOOK! I PUT HER IN A TREE!

5/3/2010 5:31:24 PM

^^ please tell me you are printing/uploading the exported photo and not the original - lightroom does not modify the original photo - you have to export the changes to a separate file...

5/3/2010 5:38:59 PM

yeah, I know enough not to do that. I think I figured it out though. I was using AdobeRGB as the color profile and I switched to sRGB and they look much better...still not exactly what I had, but not enough to be noticeable. I'm going to play around with it a bit more and see how they turn out.

5/3/2010 7:37:43 PM

I took about 300 pictures yesterday, so I have to put them together. Uploads coming soon.

5/3/2010 7:59:23 PM

I'm hoping that I can get out tomorrow and take some pictures.

I think main campus will be a good place to go.

5/3/2010 8:01:36 PM

Boston Public Garden

http://www.flickr.com/photos/unincbrtn/4576839913/

Longfellow Bridge

http://www.flickr.com/photos/unincbrtn/4577466982/

I liked the clarity.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/unincbrtn/4576835639/

Boston panorama taken from across the Charles

http://www.flickr.com/photos/unincbrtn/4577489720/

5/4/2010 1:01:17 AM