ddrueding
Fixture
I know! I'll take a picture of my screen and post that! Ha!
Stereodude
Not really a
ddrueding
Fixture
It's a dead Easter bunny, risen from the grave 
Kinda fitting, actually...
Kinda fitting, actually...
Stereodude
Not really a
On the 3rd day?It's a dead Easter bunny, risen from the grave
Kinda fitting, actually...
ddrueding
Fixture
I think the bunny can do same-day service. Jesus was the tortoise in the relationship.
ddrueding
Fixture
The AQUOS was only off in the shadows (funny that)
Stereodude
Not really a
You should be targeting 6500K there chief.
ddrueding
Fixture
Yup, I've since corrected for that in the "advanced" mode.
We're moving very soon. I know the performance stinks.
The AQUOS was only off in the shadows (funny that)
Not really. Errors in the shadows are typical.
Why does the ghost look like the Easter bunny?
:lol: Well it was white, the typical cartoon stereotype of a ghost.
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.
paugie
Storage is cool
May I invite you to take a visit to my latest set on Flickr. Would appreciate comments.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/paugie/sets/72157617505368293/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/paugie/sets/72157617505368293/
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.
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.
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.
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
, 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
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
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.
Stereodude
Not really a
That's why you shoot RAW and then make the 3 exposures from the one RAW file.
ddrueding
Fixture
That's why you shoot RAW and then make the 3 exposures from the one RAW file.
I should give that a shot, but is there really enough info in a RAW to make 3 16-bit TIFFs? Would simply moving the "exposure" slider in the RAW conversion be the best way to do this?
paugie
Storage is cool
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.
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
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?
) 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?Stereodude
Not really a
ddrueding
Fixture
Try it and see.
That's what I've done before.
And the answer is...yes, and then some. -4, -2, 0, +2, +4 all included additional information. Holy Crap.
Stereodude
Not really a
I've never messed with it to that extreme. Usually I just do +/-1, but I'm also not usually trying for heavy HDR.
The striping in some (most
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?
I've never messed with it to that extreme. Usually I just do +/-1, but I'm also not usually trying for heavy HDR.
No kidding! That's a huge range to pillage from a single RAW. Let us know how it works out.
Stereodude
Not really a
Ddrueding likes his RAW files the same way he likes his cars... Well abused.
ddrueding
Fixture
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
Ddrueding likes his RAW files the same way he likes his cars... Well abused.
I prefer "fully utilized"
ddrueding
Fixture
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
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.
ddrueding
Fixture
Yeah, I would leave it in the "possible, but only if you need it" pile. Going +/-2 stops works great.
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
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' ?
The striping in some (most
<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
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:
e_dawg
Storage Freak
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.
e_dawg
Storage Freak
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.