dSLR thread

ddrueding

Fixture
Joined
Feb 4, 2002
Messages
19,719
Location
Horsens, Denmark
The AQUOS was only off in the shadows (funny that) ;)

colorprofile.png
 

Handruin

Administrator
Joined
Jan 13, 2002
Messages
13,916
Location
USA
I find that when my posts get eaten, my second draft is more to the point. It may lack information that may be of use (and if the post loss has caused that to happen, sorry), but it is always shorter.

We're moving very soon. I know the performance stinks.
 

LunarMist

I can't believe I'm a Fixture
Joined
Feb 1, 2003
Messages
17,454
Location
USA
Oh, apparently I did. And it isn't just out of stock, it is completely deactivated. I must have bought the last of the old product. Crap.

I don't think that model has changed in years. The one I have is a Gretag Macbeth from before the X-Rite merger or whatever. There is no new model on their website. I would not be concerned in any case.
 

LunarMist

I can't believe I'm a Fixture
Joined
Feb 1, 2003
Messages
17,454
Location
USA
I find that when my posts get eaten, my second draft is more to the point. It may lack information that may be of use (and if the post loss has caused that to happen, sorry), but it is always shorter.

That is usually the case, but I sometimes do not put enough effort into the rewritten response. I use Ctrl-C quite frequently on longer replies. ;)
 

LunarMist

I can't believe I'm a Fixture
Joined
Feb 1, 2003
Messages
17,454
Location
USA
(bits cut & pasted from a PM because I though they might be of general interest)

The tilt-shift lens is a weird thing to use, Dave. Don't know if it would suit you. I bought it for landscapes. Essentially, I was sort of groping towards a way of capturing the vast, flat Australian landscape, and I thought that the TSE would give me that masive depth of field I thought might do it.

Well it does, more or less, but I can get even more DOF by simply using a shorter focal length, and very often that's what I want anyway (for other reasons).

Besides, the TSE is horribly difficult to use. It's not the manual focus (though it is always hard getting accurate focus on a modern DSLR with crop factor and no focus aids in the VF), it's the manual focus plus the fiddling with the tilt, followed by refocussing, followed by adjusting the tilt again, and all of this accompanied by lots of fiddling with my stupid 3-way trpod head, around and around and around. It isn't at all difficult to spend 10 or 15 minutes doing what you want to do with the TSE to get a single shot. I already spend that amount of time and often much longer getting (and as frequently not getting!) a bird shot, I really need to be able to take my landscape shots faster than that - birds are my priority, of course.

I can use even the 90 TSE handheld. It is not that difficult to use fairly quickly when preset in advance. TSE lenses are much easier to use with digital bodies than they were with film. I find that the 24 is more useful for shifting since the DOF is less frequently a problem. Any of these are much easier than 4x5 was. ;)
 

udaman

Wannabe Storage Freak
Joined
Sep 20, 2006
Messages
1,209
Exposures are all over the place. How are you metering? Do you check the histograms in RGB mode?

You also might want to clean the sensor. ;)

Can you further explain what you mean by exposures all over the place, giving specific examples of any images in the set? I would have been content with most, except the one with the arms/hands all joined together (3rd image in set) which looks well under exposed, could have used spot/center weighted metering there? What are you trying to capture in those images LM, where you would change the exposure, + or - in each instance? Paugie can PP the 3rd image to acceptable level?

Do you think most of the quickly captured images taken on a trip by beginners, other than hardcor amateurs or pros, are people that take the time to review the RGB histograms for each and every image? Would tend to miss many a shot that way, slow down the creative process. If I'm using a tripod and taking pictures of birds or flowers in more static occasions, where I have more time to focus on such things as the histograms, of course I would do so.

But in 'run N gun' style, 'paps' kind of photography :p, you don't necessarily take the time to do those things. Meh, maybe that's just me, to each his/her own.

Not seeing what there is about the sensor that needs cleaning, can you use red pointer arrows, since my eyes must not be that good :).
 

Stereodude

Not really a
Joined
Jan 22, 2002
Messages
10,865
Location
Michigan
I know for sure that ddrueding would have HDR'd the first shot. They look good except for the 3rd one which looks underexposed.
 

ddrueding

Fixture
Joined
Feb 4, 2002
Messages
19,719
Location
Horsens, Denmark
I know for sure that ddrueding would have HDR'd the first shot. They look good except for the 3rd one which looks underexposed.

I would, except there is no way to hold all those people still for three shots. That is the one reason I would want a 50D (frame rate). But I would have done some local adaptation to change the energy back to the kids. Something like this.

Edit: I do like most of these pictures, but this one is my favorite. So much going on.
 

paugie

Storage is cool
Joined
Dec 13, 2003
Messages
702
Location
Bulacan, Philippines
Thank you for the comments.
I acknowledge the need to clean the sensor as dust particles manifest themselves every now and then. Which is why I shun small apertures. But right now, I don't have a way of cleaning it.
I did some levels on all the shots, (not that it was actually needed) and some contrast boost and that was it. No cropping at all.
The one with the hands was underexposed, very true, and I have no explanation for it. I raised the camera over my head to get the high viewpoint, I was shooting blind, there. Maybe the sun was entering the viewfinder and screwed the exposure. But the way it came out, dark in the edges, somehow pleased me, so I kept it that way.
Whee, I am honored you took the time to look and say what you thought of them. Most places I post to, there is very little response.

I completely am "run and gun" and Uda says. I throw away a lot of exposures, because I have not learned to chimp after every shot. When I do and decided to adjust exposure. I usually forget and many succeeding exposures have unnecessary compensation I only realize after I think of chimping the next time.

Yes, I would like to understand what "exposures all over the place" means.

I use the Pentax K100D in center (not spot) metering. Aperture priority mode, use compensation when I want to in 1/3 stop increments.

No, I do not know know how to check histograms. I'll google that.
 

ddrueding

Fixture
Joined
Feb 4, 2002
Messages
19,719
Location
Horsens, Denmark
The striping in some (most :( ) of my panos is the result of some pretty bad vignetting on my 10-22 and my 35/2. What is the best lens in this range (at a sane price) to avoid this specific issue? I don't think my 50/1.8 is as bad, does it happen more with WA lenses?
 

LunarMist

I can't believe I'm a Fixture
Joined
Feb 1, 2003
Messages
17,454
Location
USA
The striping in some (most :( ) of my panos is the result of some pretty bad vignetting on my 10-22 and my 35/2. What is the best lens in this range (at a sane price) to avoid this specific issue? I don't think my 50/1.8 is as bad, does it happen more with WA lenses?

You may need to overlap more, ideally 50% on most lenses matched to the format. It is assumed that mid-small apertures are used. How much do you usually overlap?
 

ddrueding

Fixture
Joined
Feb 4, 2002
Messages
19,719
Location
Horsens, Denmark
You may need to overlap more, ideally 50% on most lenses matched to the format. It is assumed that mid-small apertures are used. How much do you usually overlap?

It really depends on how much time I have. If the clouds are blowing quickly or it is getting dark fast, 10-20% overlap is it. If I have the time and I have the tripod and Nodal Ninja with me, 50-70% overlap easy.
 

ddrueding

Fixture
Joined
Feb 4, 2002
Messages
19,719
Location
Horsens, Denmark
No kidding! That's a huge range to pillage from a single RAW. Let us know how it works out.

Um, yeah...not well. There is additional detail to be had, but you would need to mask out the rest; the response curve goes goofy and neither CS4 or Photomatix can handle it.
 

Stereodude

Not really a
Joined
Jan 22, 2002
Messages
10,865
Location
Michigan
Um, yeah...not well. There is additional detail to be had, but you would need to mask out the rest; the response curve goes goofy and neither CS4 or Photomatix can handle it.
Now that's not too hard (I think). I've used a manual HDR process using layer masks based on the image itself for all my HDR efforts.
 

LunarMist

I can't believe I'm a Fixture
Joined
Feb 1, 2003
Messages
17,454
Location
USA
It really depends on how much time I have. If the clouds are blowing quickly or it is getting dark fast, 10-20% overlap is it. If I have the time and I have the tripod and Nodal Ninja with me, 50-70% overlap easy.

Moving water and clouds are not good for pans. :(

10-20% overlap is probably not enough to maintain even IQ across a pan. (It may be OK with an FX lens on a DX sensor.) I usually overlap 50% and more in some cases. Stopping the lens down to optimum apertures usually reduces light falloff to minimal levels. Do you use the DPP peripheral illumination correction during RAW conversion; is it available for your lenses?

Other things can be done to reduce the total number of frames rather than overly compromise overlap. For example, pre-visualize the scene to find an effective pan composition, rather than making an excessively long pan with no main point of interest. Observe the scene and find the brightest parts, then take a couple of quick shots to determine correct exposure. Three exposures should be sufficient for bracketing or HDR, if it is necessary.
 

udaman

Wannabe Storage Freak
Joined
Sep 20, 2006
Messages
1,209
You may need to overlap more, ideally 50% on most lenses matched to the format. It is assumed that mid-small apertures are used. How much do you usually overlap?

Wrong assumption, never assume anything with dd, you know that's a suckers game, there are *always* qualifications to come later, haven't you learned anything about 'tweetspeak' ? :D

The striping in some (most :( ) of my panos is the result of some pretty bad vignetting on my 10-22 and my 35/2. What is the best lens in this range (at a sane price) to avoid this specific issue? I don't think my 50/1.8 is as bad, does it happen more with WA lenses?

<HAL9000>: What are you doing Dave?

<HAL9000>: You did not answer Lunar Mist's question, Dave.



You are incorrect dd, both lenses are relatively low on vignetting when used in the optimal range (which should be learned for any lens, yes?), particularly the 35/2


http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/135/cat/11

1vignet.gif



Uggh, my slow connection again, there's this comparison site too:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...&SampleComp=0&Camera=453&Go.x=8&Go.y=12&Go=Go


@f4 you should see virtually no vignetting on the 35/2:




1vignet.gif
 

e_dawg

Storage Freak
Joined
Jul 19, 2002
Messages
1,903
Location
Toronto-ish, Canada
You should be targeting 6500K there chief.

I personally recommend an even warmer setting. I have mine around 6000 K, but you could go even warmer, IMO, as most ambient lighting sources indoors are quite a bit warmer than that, and your prints will be most likely be viewed in warmer light as opposed to anywhere close to the D50-ish white point most profiles are designed for.

(That said, if you have a decent printer-paper profiling setup, you can just profile for a warmer white point anyways, but most people don't have that capability at home. I create profiles for somewhere around D40 as a more universal WP, and have my viewing light somewhere around that as well, but again, not something most consumers bother doing at home)

I would also recommend a shallower gamma curve as well. I use 2.0-2.1 and process my pics so that just clip the darkest of the blacks, knowing that it evens out to something close to ideal. But I get the benefit of maximum shadow detail so I can see exactly what I'm doing with the shadows. I find 2.2 obscures shadow detail just enough that it prevents you from editing it properly. You should try 2.1 as a good way to facilitate editing if your room lighting isn't too bright.
 

LunarMist

I can't believe I'm a Fixture
Joined
Feb 1, 2003
Messages
17,454
Location
USA
I use D50 lighting for viewing prints, and a 5000K monitor works best for my eyes. However, some other people prefer 5500K with my setup.
 

e_dawg

Storage Freak
Joined
Jul 19, 2002
Messages
1,903
Location
Toronto-ish, Canada
This is the monitor you should get in the 24" range, or the similar one without SV if you don't want it.

That's a great monitor from most reports. For a more affordable model with decent performance, the HP LP2475w is one of the few left on the market that hasn't gone crazy with the quest for the widest colour gamut:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824176104

I have the BenQ FP241W and highly recommend that along with the HP LP2475w as value choices. Unfortunately, I don't think they make the FP241W anymore and I don't know what panel the newer model uses. The Dell UltraSharp 2407WFP was a good choice as well if you got a later revisions using the same AUOptronics panel as the BenQ. The Dell UltraSharp 2408WFP switched to a wide-gamut panel and some are divided on whether it was better or worse than the 2407WFP. That leaves the HP as probably the best choice by default... but with an important caveat.

I have the HP at work and don't like it for photos uncalibrated. The colours are just too saturated, and the gamma tracking is a bit frustrating not being able to quell the magenta tinge in the midtones without introducing a green tint in the highlights. The black level and shadow detail is not great either with the default settings, but you can adjust the black level from the OSD enough to be tolerable without calibration. Bottom line: not a monitor to get if you're not going to calibrate it.

While I am not fond of using the HP uncalibrated, I also know that it performs much better when calibrated. And since you have an i1 Display 2, you should have no problems getting good results from this monitor.
 
Top