C&P Random Thread -
#6761
It's the same as adjusting your image for printing. You have to pump up the image to get what you want on on paper.
#6762
Moderator
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Not Las Vegas (SF Bay Area)
Age: 40
Posts: 63,304
Received 2,810 Likes
on
1,991 Posts
Over the last few days I have been looking at a fair number of photos on 500px and Flickr, and all I have to say is....
The saturation slider should cost extra money.
So many people seem to get their picture to a good place in Post and then they look at it and say, "Well, if +5 on saturation is good, +25 must be better!"
My eyes hurt. Nearly any RAW capture could benefit form some tweaks, including saturation, but it IMO it should be used like habanero pepper in cooking. Sparingly, for fear of overpowering.
The saturation slider should cost extra money.
So many people seem to get their picture to a good place in Post and then they look at it and say, "Well, if +5 on saturation is good, +25 must be better!"
My eyes hurt. Nearly any RAW capture could benefit form some tweaks, including saturation, but it IMO it should be used like habanero pepper in cooking. Sparingly, for fear of overpowering.
#6763
Race Director
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: South Florida
Age: 31
Posts: 18,278
Received 3,824 Likes
on
2,847 Posts
Amen, Stogie.
#6764
Moderator
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Not Las Vegas (SF Bay Area)
Age: 40
Posts: 63,304
Received 2,810 Likes
on
1,991 Posts
#6765
Senior Moderator
Thread Starter
is flickr like, super slow for anyone else? click on a pic and it takes a while to load?
#6766
Senior Moderator
Thread Starter
Over the last few days I have been looking at a fair number of photos on 500px and Flickr, and all I have to say is....
The saturation slider should cost extra money.
So many people seem to get their picture to a good place in Post and then they look at it and say, "Well, if +5 on saturation is good, +25 must be better!"
My eyes hurt. Nearly any RAW capture could benefit form some tweaks, including saturation, but it IMO it should be used like habanero pepper in cooking. Sparingly, for fear of overpowering.
The saturation slider should cost extra money.
So many people seem to get their picture to a good place in Post and then they look at it and say, "Well, if +5 on saturation is good, +25 must be better!"
My eyes hurt. Nearly any RAW capture could benefit form some tweaks, including saturation, but it IMO it should be used like habanero pepper in cooking. Sparingly, for fear of overpowering.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/delobbo/10353159523/http://www.flickr.com/photos/delobbo/10353159523/ by http://www.flickr.com/people/delobbo/, on Flickr
http://www.flickr.com/photos/delobbo/10352661923/http://www.flickr.com/photos/delobbo/10352661923/ by http://www.flickr.com/people/delobbo/, on Flickr
http://www.flickr.com/photos/delobbo/10352195824/http://www.flickr.com/photos/delobbo/10352195824/ by http://www.flickr.com/people/delobbo/, on Flickr
The following users liked this post:
Mizouse (10-24-2013)
#6767
My first Avatar....
Anyone know of really good vantage points from which to get great panos of NYC?
#6768
Needs more Lemon Pledge
Look, let me start by saying that most of photography is "Art", so make it look however you like to fit your vision.
Having said that (and having been guilty of being heavy handed on the saturation slider myself), here are some shots that I personally feel are overcooked. Of course this is subjective, and of course the fact I have been looking at and planning B+W shots a lot lately has affected my sensitivity, but here are a few (absolutely no disrespect to the photographers, I think these are great compositions, exposures, etc):
<table cellpadding="2">
<tr>
<td style="border-bottom: 0px solid #fff;">
<a href="http://500px.com/photo/26133205">
<img src="http://ppcdn.500px.org/26133205/78327416bb247d61eab70a8aab57fe1d0dd06ef3/3.jpg" width="280" height="280" alt="Untitled by Tom Corey on 500px.com" border="0" style="margin: 0 0 5px 0;">
</a>
<br/>
<font style="font-size: 120%;">
<a href="http://500px.com/photo/26133205">Untitled</a> by <a href="http://500px.com/TomCorey">
Tom Corey
</a>
</font>
</td>
</tr>
</table>
<table cellpadding="2">
<tr>
<td style="border-bottom: 0px solid #fff;">
<a href="http://500px.com/photo/26334651">
<img src="http://ppcdn.500px.org/26334651/4e0636da656c6b120a72cafd3cef8d2386234ced/3.jpg" width="280" height="280" alt="Tucson Sunset by Steve Steinmetz on 500px.com" border="0" style="margin: 0 0 5px 0;">
</a>
<br/>
<font style="font-size: 120%;">
<a href="http://500px.com/photo/26334651">Tucson Sunset</a> by <a href="http://500px.com/sjspix">
Steve Steinmetz
</a>
</font>
</td>
</tr>
</table>
<table cellpadding="2">
<tr>
<td style="border-bottom: 0px solid #fff;">
<a href="http://500px.com/photo/49573508">
<img src="http://ppcdn.500px.org/49573508/f71269e06b82723f459717264d8337a8c4357b76/3.jpg" width="280" height="280" alt="Valley View by Mark Myhaver on 500px.com" border="0" style="margin: 0 0 5px 0;">
</a>
<br/>
<font style="font-size: 120%;">
<a href="http://500px.com/photo/49573508">Valley View</a> by <a href="http://500px.com/Myhaver">
Mark Myhaver
</a>
</font>
</td>
</tr>
</table>
Having said that (and having been guilty of being heavy handed on the saturation slider myself), here are some shots that I personally feel are overcooked. Of course this is subjective, and of course the fact I have been looking at and planning B+W shots a lot lately has affected my sensitivity, but here are a few (absolutely no disrespect to the photographers, I think these are great compositions, exposures, etc):
<table cellpadding="2">
<tr>
<td style="border-bottom: 0px solid #fff;">
<a href="http://500px.com/photo/26133205">
<img src="http://ppcdn.500px.org/26133205/78327416bb247d61eab70a8aab57fe1d0dd06ef3/3.jpg" width="280" height="280" alt="Untitled by Tom Corey on 500px.com" border="0" style="margin: 0 0 5px 0;">
</a>
<br/>
<font style="font-size: 120%;">
<a href="http://500px.com/photo/26133205">Untitled</a> by <a href="http://500px.com/TomCorey">
Tom Corey
</a>
</font>
</td>
</tr>
</table>
<table cellpadding="2">
<tr>
<td style="border-bottom: 0px solid #fff;">
<a href="http://500px.com/photo/26334651">
<img src="http://ppcdn.500px.org/26334651/4e0636da656c6b120a72cafd3cef8d2386234ced/3.jpg" width="280" height="280" alt="Tucson Sunset by Steve Steinmetz on 500px.com" border="0" style="margin: 0 0 5px 0;">
</a>
<br/>
<font style="font-size: 120%;">
<a href="http://500px.com/photo/26334651">Tucson Sunset</a> by <a href="http://500px.com/sjspix">
Steve Steinmetz
</a>
</font>
</td>
</tr>
</table>
<table cellpadding="2">
<tr>
<td style="border-bottom: 0px solid #fff;">
<a href="http://500px.com/photo/49573508">
<img src="http://ppcdn.500px.org/49573508/f71269e06b82723f459717264d8337a8c4357b76/3.jpg" width="280" height="280" alt="Valley View by Mark Myhaver on 500px.com" border="0" style="margin: 0 0 5px 0;">
</a>
<br/>
<font style="font-size: 120%;">
<a href="http://500px.com/photo/49573508">Valley View</a> by <a href="http://500px.com/Myhaver">
Mark Myhaver
</a>
</font>
</td>
</tr>
</table>
The following users liked this post:
Mizouse (10-25-2013)
#6769
Needs more Lemon Pledge
None of the above are extreme, or powerful HDR or anything, just what I would consider a "too liberal" use of oversaturation. I live in the desert, I know what it looks like and can spot what, to me, would be mis-representitive greens, yellows, etc.
#6771
Senior Moderator
Thread Starter
I like those you posted stogie. haha
#6772
Moderator
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Not Las Vegas (SF Bay Area)
Age: 40
Posts: 63,304
Received 2,810 Likes
on
1,991 Posts
Yea it's all personal preference. I like them too, but I do think they're a bit over saturated.
#6773
My first Avatar....
#6775
I miss my 03 CL-S :(
Got a letter from Adobe yesterday in the mail as a follow-up to the hack that had all of us change our passwords...
They're offering 1 year of free credit monitoring, suggesting we monitor our credit accounts (duh), check our credit reports, add fraud alerts and consider a security freeze on credit file.
Yikes. I may take them up on the credit monitoring deal.
On behalf of Adobe Systems, I am writing to inform you about an incident that involved information about you.
Yikes. I may take them up on the credit monitoring deal.
#6776
I miss my 03 CL-S :(
1M photo views yesterday...
<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/ep_jhu/10494562126/" title="Obligatory 1M Photo Views Screenshot by ep_jhu, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5547/10494562126_a7bbe5b626_z.jpg" width="640" height="158" alt="Obligatory 1M Photo Views Screenshot"></a>
<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/ep_jhu/10494562126/" title="Obligatory 1M Photo Views Screenshot by ep_jhu, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5547/10494562126_a7bbe5b626_z.jpg" width="640" height="158" alt="Obligatory 1M Photo Views Screenshot"></a>
#6777
Senior Moderator
Thread Starter
congrats!
#6778
Living the Dream
I am thinking about picking up a new DSLR.
Currently have a Canon Rebel XT (w/kit), the 50 1.8 and 70-300 (non-L). I also have a Panasonic GX1 (w/kit) and 20 1.7.
I am leaning towards the 70D. I like what I am reading about this camera.
Here are my questions:
I like landscape photography so I am leaning towards the 70D w/18-135 as a kit and a 10-22. However, for the same price I can get the 70D body and the 17-55.
Which would you recommend?
I did look into the Nikon D7100, but my familiarity with Canon plus that fact that I do have some (not a lot) of money tied into Canon gear led me towards the Canon.
Currently have a Canon Rebel XT (w/kit), the 50 1.8 and 70-300 (non-L). I also have a Panasonic GX1 (w/kit) and 20 1.7.
I am leaning towards the 70D. I like what I am reading about this camera.
Here are my questions:
I like landscape photography so I am leaning towards the 70D w/18-135 as a kit and a 10-22. However, for the same price I can get the 70D body and the 17-55.
Which would you recommend?
I did look into the Nikon D7100, but my familiarity with Canon plus that fact that I do have some (not a lot) of money tied into Canon gear led me towards the Canon.
#6779
Moderator
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Not Las Vegas (SF Bay Area)
Age: 40
Posts: 63,304
Received 2,810 Likes
on
1,991 Posts
I'd go with the 70D 17-55 combo. Save up a nice 70-200L lens.
#6780
Moderator
cmschmie, if you like landscape photography I really recommend the Sigma 8-16. Yes it's a Sigma but I had absolutely no problem with mine when I bought it used. I sold it because I was focusing on my automotive hobby and since it was a specialty lens, I didn't use it as much as I would like. It actually has lower distortion than the Tokina 11-16. I don't know too much about the 10-22 but I was definitely happy with the 8-16.
One bad thing is that this lens is slow. But since I was doing mainly landscape, there were always plenty of light. And if the light was low, I'd always use a tripod. But then again if you can live without the 8mm, nothing is wrong with the 10-22.
One bad thing is that this lens is slow. But since I was doing mainly landscape, there were always plenty of light. And if the light was low, I'd always use a tripod. But then again if you can live without the 8mm, nothing is wrong with the 10-22.
#6781
#6782
I shoot people
yeah, if you're really into landscapes, unless it's high noon with plenty of light, always be prepared and have a tripod. Because you should always stop down for the sharpest capture. At the very least, have one of those Gorillapods (the heavy duty ones)
#6783
Moderator
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Not Las Vegas (SF Bay Area)
Age: 40
Posts: 63,304
Received 2,810 Likes
on
1,991 Posts
The following users liked this post:
srika (10-28-2013)
#6784
#6785
And that's not going to work....
#6786
Senior Moderator
iTrader: (1)
1M photo views yesterday...
<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/ep_jhu/10494562126/" title="Obligatory 1M Photo Views Screenshot by ep_jhu, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5547/10494562126_a7bbe5b626_z.jpg" width="640" height="158" alt="Obligatory 1M Photo Views Screenshot"></a>
<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/ep_jhu/10494562126/" title="Obligatory 1M Photo Views Screenshot by ep_jhu, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5547/10494562126_a7bbe5b626_z.jpg" width="640" height="158" alt="Obligatory 1M Photo Views Screenshot"></a>
I am thinking about picking up a new DSLR.
Currently have a Canon Rebel XT (w/kit), the 50 1.8 and 70-300 (non-L). I also have a Panasonic GX1 (w/kit) and 20 1.7.
I am leaning towards the 70D. I like what I am reading about this camera.
Here are my questions:
I like landscape photography so I am leaning towards the 70D w/18-135 as a kit and a 10-22. However, for the same price I can get the 70D body and the 17-55.
Which would you recommend?
I did look into the Nikon D7100, but my familiarity with Canon plus that fact that I do have some (not a lot) of money tied into Canon gear led me towards the Canon.
Currently have a Canon Rebel XT (w/kit), the 50 1.8 and 70-300 (non-L). I also have a Panasonic GX1 (w/kit) and 20 1.7.
I am leaning towards the 70D. I like what I am reading about this camera.
Here are my questions:
I like landscape photography so I am leaning towards the 70D w/18-135 as a kit and a 10-22. However, for the same price I can get the 70D body and the 17-55.
Which would you recommend?
I did look into the Nikon D7100, but my familiarity with Canon plus that fact that I do have some (not a lot) of money tied into Canon gear led me towards the Canon.
Last edited by asianspec; 10-28-2013 at 04:44 PM.
#6787
Moderator
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Not Las Vegas (SF Bay Area)
Age: 40
Posts: 63,304
Received 2,810 Likes
on
1,991 Posts
Asianspec 17-55 is constant 2.8 + IS
I loved that lens on my XTi and 40D
It was my PJ work horse.
I loved that lens on my XTi and 40D
It was my PJ work horse.
#6789
Moderator
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Not Las Vegas (SF Bay Area)
Age: 40
Posts: 63,304
Received 2,810 Likes
on
1,991 Posts
#6790
I shoot people
#6791
I miss my 03 CL-S :(
I am thinking about picking up a new DSLR.
Currently have a Canon Rebel XT (w/kit), the 50 1.8 and 70-300 (non-L). I also have a Panasonic GX1 (w/kit) and 20 1.7.
I am leaning towards the 70D. I like what I am reading about this camera.
Here are my questions:
I like landscape photography so I am leaning towards the 70D w/18-135 as a kit and a 10-22. However, for the same price I can get the 70D body and the 17-55.
Which would you recommend?
I did look into the Nikon D7100, but my familiarity with Canon plus that fact that I do have some (not a lot) of money tied into Canon gear led me towards the Canon.
Currently have a Canon Rebel XT (w/kit), the 50 1.8 and 70-300 (non-L). I also have a Panasonic GX1 (w/kit) and 20 1.7.
I am leaning towards the 70D. I like what I am reading about this camera.
Here are my questions:
I like landscape photography so I am leaning towards the 70D w/18-135 as a kit and a 10-22. However, for the same price I can get the 70D body and the 17-55.
Which would you recommend?
I did look into the Nikon D7100, but my familiarity with Canon plus that fact that I do have some (not a lot) of money tied into Canon gear led me towards the Canon.
#6792
Living the Dream
Thanks for the replies everyone. I may lean slightly towards the 17-55 since the max aperture does allow more flexibility for low light situations.
However, the 18-135 (or 15-85 ) would make an damn good walk around lens due to the focal length. Plus I think the 10-22 is coming down in the price and the similarly priced Sigma 8-16 had a pretty good review on The Digital Picture.com.
Decisions decisions
Just a random question based on my research over the last couple weeks.
Are companies getting away from CF cards? Both the 70D and D7100 are SD card only.
However, the 18-135 (or 15-85 ) would make an damn good walk around lens due to the focal length. Plus I think the 10-22 is coming down in the price and the similarly priced Sigma 8-16 had a pretty good review on The Digital Picture.com.
Decisions decisions
Just a random question based on my research over the last couple weeks.
Are companies getting away from CF cards? Both the 70D and D7100 are SD card only.
#6793
Moderator
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Not Las Vegas (SF Bay Area)
Age: 40
Posts: 63,304
Received 2,810 Likes
on
1,991 Posts
I think so since they're finally catching up to speed of CF cards.
#6794
Needs more Lemon Pledge
SD cards are physically smaller, so it makes sense if the speeds are equal (or nearly).
The following users liked this post:
Mizouse (10-29-2013)
#6795
Moderator
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Not Las Vegas (SF Bay Area)
Age: 40
Posts: 63,304
Received 2,810 Likes
on
1,991 Posts
#6796
This is why you want better than 18mm on a cropped body...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ov2pHV98Fc#t=221
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ov2pHV98Fc#t=221
#6797
Needs more Lemon Pledge
^ never heard of that guy. Hack.
#6798
Senior Moderator
iTrader: (1)
Thanks for the replies everyone. I may lean slightly towards the 17-55 since the max aperture does allow more flexibility for low light situations.
However, the 18-135 (or 15-85 ) would make an damn good walk around lens due to the focal length. Plus I think the 10-22 is coming down in the price and the similarly priced Sigma 8-16 had a pretty good review on The Digital Picture.com.
Decisions decisions
Just a random question based on my research over the last couple weeks.
Are companies getting away from CF cards? Both the 70D and D7100 are SD card only.
However, the 18-135 (or 15-85 ) would make an damn good walk around lens due to the focal length. Plus I think the 10-22 is coming down in the price and the similarly priced Sigma 8-16 had a pretty good review on The Digital Picture.com.
Decisions decisions
Just a random question based on my research over the last couple weeks.
Are companies getting away from CF cards? Both the 70D and D7100 are SD card only.
could be a possibly since it is small and cheaper to buy. i still prefer CF cards though.
#6799
Needs more Lemon Pledge
This is why you want better than 18mm on a cropped body...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ov2pHV98Fc#t=221
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ov2pHV98Fc#t=221
#6800
I miss my 03 CL-S :(
^
Zoom with your feet. Not a problem when shooting barns, and sometimes even gives you other shots while you're walking to get the compo you want. Shoot with a prime enough and you'll get used to it.
That said, widest I have is 17mm (on the 17-55) but IQ is so bad at the edges that I rarely use the full crop at that focal length
Zoom with your feet. Not a problem when shooting barns, and sometimes even gives you other shots while you're walking to get the compo you want. Shoot with a prime enough and you'll get used to it.
That said, widest I have is 17mm (on the 17-55) but IQ is so bad at the edges that I rarely use the full crop at that focal length