An experiment in DOF isolation. Does it work?
It turns out the food poisoning was more of a flu-type bug. My mother, her boyfriend, my sister, and my grandmother were all stricken with similar symptoms. EL is still sick and I am limping along toward recovery. Can you say suck?
On another note,
Michael had a cool idea about posting some pics at wallpaper size, but I think I still have a long way to go... click on the photo for a 1280x1024 version of this photo if interested.
some details:
Shooting Date/Time - 12/21/2003 10:56:12 AM
Shooting Mode - Aperture-Priority AE
Tv( Shutter Speed ) - 1/6400
Av( Aperture Value ) - 2.8
Metering Mode - Spot
Exposure Compensation - 0
ISO Speed - 100
Lens - EF 70-200mm L IS USM
Focal Length - 195.0 mm
Image Quality - RAW
Flash - Off
White Balance - Auto
AF Mode - Manual Focus
Gorgeous! Perfect subject for such a trial, don’t you think?
OK, a couple of more questions, because I’m more and more unhappy with my results and I wonder what I can do about them.
What size are your images straight from the camera? What’s the diff with RAW files? I’ve tried comparing RAW and the regular jpegs on mine and there seems to be no difference other than the file size!
I can’t get as low as 100ASA either which is a little disappointing - only 200…
”Gorgeous!”
Thanks a million! Positive feedback always give a warm fuzzy.
”What size are your images straight from the camera?”
Are you referring to resolution or file size? The highest resolution output is 4064 x 2704, but I’ve found that the biggest aid in sharp imagery (other than proper focus and exposure) is the glass. A 4, 5, or 6 megapixel camera can produce just as sharp and stunning results with good glass. You don’t need the extra resolution for normal printing up to 11x14 or so… even 3MP shots look good up to 8x10.
”What’s the diff with RAW files?”
The biggest advantage of RAW is flexibility in post processing. The more obvious advantage is that it is not lossfully compressed like JPEG. When you save your images in RAW format, you are saving exactly the data that the sensor records with no in-camera manipulation (which is quite heavy in a lot of prosumer digicams). You can make minor exposure and color adjustments during the RAW conversion to your final format… then further tweek once there. I first shot only in high-res JPG. I moved to RAW because I read a lot about it being the way to go without really understanding the benefits. It was cumbersome because I shot RAW, then used something like BreezeBrowser or Powershovel to convert to TIFF. Then Converted TIFF to Photoshop… ugh… only then was I able to post process. Now, my workflow is a little more refined: I shoot exclusively in RAW and import straight into Photoshop CS (16bit color) using Adobe RAW converter. Canon’s File Viewer Utility and BreezeBrowser both use the Canon RAW conversion algorithm, so the results can be mapped to in-cam color matrixes and stuff, but I prefer ACR because you have more control in the conversion. Either way, you may not notice it now, but shoot in RAW and do your own conversions and you will see some improvement in your image quality imho.
”I can’t get as low as 100ASA either which is a little disappointing - only 200...”
This isn’t as big a problem as many think. What are some reasons for shooting ASA100 over 200? Lower noise? Better color saturation? Unless noise is a huge problem on your digicam, I wouldn’t consider it as a hindrance. If your photos look noise free at 200, then you gain nothing there by shooting at slower “film speed”. If noise is a problem on any of your shots (say you have to push the ASA up to get the shutter speeds you want), then I recommend NeatImage. It’s only about $30 to register and worth every penny. Awesome software. As for the color saturation part… you can push levels in PS during post processing to regain the little, if any, loss from ASA100 to 200. My $0.02.
Very, very nice. Makes me think of Jan Hammer.
;)
"People in stucco houses shouldn’t throw quiche.” - Sonny Crockett
hmm, well the glass I’m stuck with - my camera’s lens is built in, but the images are very noisy, even in RAW and in photos taken at 200ASA equiv.
I’ll have a look at that NeatImage and see what that gets me, otherwise, compared to you guys, I didn’t really spend much for this camera, so I suppose I should start saving up for the step up to proper digiSLR!
http://www.neatimage.com/
Free trial… if you license it, you get the ability to save in TIFF… awesome software.
That’s awesome dude. Where’s the damned MIAMI VICE box set? Why is it I can find a FOREVER KNIGHT series box set and that silly DARK ANGEL but not this quintessential piece of 80’s nostalgia? The world just isn’t fair.
I dig it quite a lot. A few nits would be if the lower fella were farther to the right, which would make the main subject feel a little less disconnected. Same really with the fella on the left, just a bit close for my taste.
It shows depth pretty spiffily, but I think if the three subjects were staggered a bit more, diagonally - it would really pop.
And believe me, I know you couldnt direct the birds - just nitpicking a great shot :)
I’m speechless. I love this photo. Matter of fact, if it’s ok with you - I’ll be using it for my wallpaper at work as soon as I can change it on Monday. It’s just gorgeous! (And so PINK!)
Post a comment