What a difference a lens makes
Jun 12, 2022 12:42:10 #
Nickaroo wrote:
Mission accomplished I'am about the same way as yo... (show quote)
Yes, I am certainly a creature of habit. I admit that many times I will balk at something new and have to "be shown" that it is better.
However, that being said, I also believe that just because something is new does not always mean it is better.
Jun 12, 2022 12:43:05 #
[quote=wvince][I read your talk about your lens and just wanted to tell you that your pictures of the birds are worth framing tsk.[/quote]
Thank you. They are really neat birds and were cooperative.
Thank you. They are really neat birds and were cooperative.
Jun 12, 2022 13:17:26 #
Jun 12, 2022 14:49:33 #
rlv567 wrote:
I compared the two downloaded pictures two ways - ... (show quote)
I agree with Loren. On my 25" screen (admittedly much smaller than a "wall hanger"), I prefer the photo of the kite in terms of sharpness.
Jun 12, 2022 15:44:29 #
bajadreamer wrote:
Yes, both of these images were processed in PS. ... (show quote)
I think you need to credit the fact that the R5 is a 45 MP camera and the R6 is a 20 MP camera. I'm sure that adds to the improved IQ. Bot posted images are of the same pixel count. I can't tell if that means one is a deeper crop than the other or you chose to saved the processed photos that way.
Jun 12, 2022 16:08:43 #
PHRubin wrote:
I think you need to credit the fact that the R5 is a 45 MP camera and the R6 is a 20 MP camera. I'm sure that adds to the improved IQ. Bot posted images are of the same pixel count. I can't tell if that means one is a deeper crop than the other or you chose to saved the processed photos that way.
I save all my shots for the web at 1800 pixels on the long end. That way they fit into any of the websites I post on. These shots were both cropped about 10% from the R and bottom to remove some OOF sprigs of grass. You are correct about the MP count. My R5 images are often visibly more detailed than my R6 images when viewed at full size. In this case the bird in the R6 image is a much more intricately patterned bird. Not sure that has any bearing now that I look at the statement.
Jun 12, 2022 16:27:48 #
White balance and hue contamination are two different issues. White balance addresses the color temperature of the source of illumination. Hue contamination is the result of the colors surrounding, or adjacent to, the subject.
I use a WB (Uni-White Balance) that addresses the fact that there are twice as many green pixels as red or blue in a typical sensor. Additionally, I shoot RAW almost exclusively. Thus, my WB adjustment is done in ACR, and hue contamination adjustment is done in Ps.
Even using Auto WB, I've found that there is a bit bluer in scenic photos due to the amount of surrounding sky. I adjust for hue contamination with every photograph I process.
--Bob
I use a WB (Uni-White Balance) that addresses the fact that there are twice as many green pixels as red or blue in a typical sensor. Additionally, I shoot RAW almost exclusively. Thus, my WB adjustment is done in ACR, and hue contamination adjustment is done in Ps.
Even using Auto WB, I've found that there is a bit bluer in scenic photos due to the amount of surrounding sky. I adjust for hue contamination with every photograph I process.
--Bob
bajadreamer wrote:
Ah, that will the be the subject of another topic in the future. Do you adjust WB or hue to "make the picture look right" or do you allow the WB to reflect your memory of the time and place where the image was taken? Both of these pictures were taken shortly after sunrise with very yellow-red light. Also the surrounding grass/vegetation was yellow-white. It also appears to me (my eyes and my monitor) that my Canon cameras have a slight bias to the red side.
Jun 12, 2022 18:25:33 #
Nigel7
Loc: Worcestershire. UK.
mvetrano2 wrote:
Both images are superb and clearly in focus, but I think I like the blurry background produced by your wife's lens a lot better than the nondescript background produced from your 600mm.
I agree about preferring your wife's photo. I believe it important to show wild animals in their natural environment. Certainly blur the background to focus on the subject, but IMHO not to the degree of losing it entirely.
In competition judges want to see the environment.
Jun 12, 2022 19:32:23 #
Jun 12, 2022 19:58:29 #
worldcycle
Loc: Stateline, Nevada
Looking fairly critically at both photos I have a few questions to ask. Have both had the same post processing (or not) done for sharpening? Is all about Bokeh and depth of field? About the exclusiveness of being able to purchase big ticket items? (OK, disregard that one)
Sharpness is up for grabs without knowing what kind of PP was done. In my opinion they both seem fairly similar. How much further for sharpness you could take them is up to you and your software.
For bokeh, of course the 600 @ f4 wins. Then again, I have achieved the same results in Lightroom PP by either painting or doing a subject highlight and then inversing it so it becomes background and then applying both sharpness and clarity to the left and futzing around with sharpness as well you can fairly well duplicate the result.
Sharpness is up for grabs without knowing what kind of PP was done. In my opinion they both seem fairly similar. How much further for sharpness you could take them is up to you and your software.
For bokeh, of course the 600 @ f4 wins. Then again, I have achieved the same results in Lightroom PP by either painting or doing a subject highlight and then inversing it so it becomes background and then applying both sharpness and clarity to the left and futzing around with sharpness as well you can fairly well duplicate the result.
Jun 12, 2022 20:12:27 #
Nigel7 wrote:
I agree about preferring your wife's photo. I believe it important to show wild animals in their natural environment. Certainly blur the background to focus on the subject, but IMHO not to the degree of losing it entirely.
In competition judges want to see the environment.
In competition judges want to see the environment.
I can see your point and on some of my images (not these) that indeed is my goal. With these images, especially the Raven, there is no "natural environment" so the buttery BG becomes my goal.
Jun 12, 2022 20:15:46 #
\About the exclusiveness of being able to purchase big ticket items? (OK, disregard that one)
I have owned this lens (the 600) for 8 years. It was purchased used. At 75 years of age I still work so I can afford to buy camera gear and to travel places my wife and I want to go to photograph birds. If you really wanted me to disregard your comment, it would have been easier to delete the sentence.
I have owned this lens (the 600) for 8 years. It was purchased used. At 75 years of age I still work so I can afford to buy camera gear and to travel places my wife and I want to go to photograph birds. If you really wanted me to disregard your comment, it would have been easier to delete the sentence.
Jun 12, 2022 20:17:04 #
Jun 12, 2022 20:21:34 #
worldcycle wrote:
Looking fairly critically at both photos I have a ... (show quote)
The rest of your comments I read and consider. No, the images have not been processed the same, although close. Both of the images have had the BG exposure brought down moderately. The background vegetation was white/yellow and very reflective. The exposure of the Kite was slightly brought down as the whites were very bright (not blown). The Raven exposure was brought up slightly. I should have used an EC of +0.3 on the Raven, but instead it was -.03. Both images were sharpened using DeNoise AI as a final step before converting to JPEG, setting 1800 pixels on the long end for use in UHH and other forums.
I also have blurred the background of other images. Using PS I use a Gaussian Blur on the entire image, place an inverted mask over the layer and paint the blur where and how much I want. Works pretty well.
Jun 12, 2022 20:22:16 #
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.