|
Playing with a Macro Extension Lens...
On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 03:22:31 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote: On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 21:17:31 -0500, John H. wrote: The problem is a focus problem. I'm not trying to be argumentative, I'm just stating a fact. Here's an example: http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l2...wenblurred.jpg Not to be argumentative, but no it's not out of focus. You can see the flecks in the iris of his eyes and individual hair strands and the cord in the weave of his shirt. Look at his eyelashes - nice and crisp. It ain't out of focus. What you have is a flash feedback. Look closely at the left side of his face and see how sharp that is compared to the right side? Plus, like most red heads, he has very fair skin and the flash was set way to hot which washed out his face, but left the rest of his features intact - it's like seeing the blood under the surface of the skin that's how hot that flash was. Remember when you were a kid and put your thumb on top of the flashlight to see it turn red? That's what happened here. The second thing is you shot into a dark background which acentuated the feedback to the camera - you confused the camera would be one way to put it. The Third thing is that you narrowed the auto focus too much which also contributed to the overall skin tone problem. Kids like this - hell, people in general with fair skin - do well with a bounce flash or a diffuser for the flash set at an angle up rather than straight on. It's not a focus problem, it's a picture taking problem. No offense. OK, I'll accept all the other faults, with the exception of the flash, which was bounced off the ceiling. Yes, as it stands the focus isn't too bad. However, if you crop the face even more, the freckles, hairs, etc, become very blurred. Your comment about 'narrowing the auto focus' is interesting. I set the camera for center spot focusing, as opposed to 'area' focusing. I'm expecting to see the center of the picture, or whatever I focus on, in very sharp detail. This picture was taken from about six feet away. In looking at the EXIF data, I noticed that the 'sharpness' was set at 'soft'. I've got to check into that. Maybe that's part of my problem. I appreciate your suggestions. -- John H |
Playing with a Macro Extension Lens...
On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 22:38:19 -0500, HK wrote:
Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 21:17:31 -0500, John H. wrote: The problem is a focus problem. I'm not trying to be argumentative, I'm just stating a fact. Here's an example: http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l2...wenblurred.jpg Not to be argumentative, but no it's not out of focus. You can see the flecks in the iris of his eyes and individual hair strands and the cord in the weave of his shirt. Look at his eyelashes - nice and crisp. It ain't out of focus. What you have is a flash feedback. Look closely at the left side of his face and see how sharp that is compared to the right side? Plus, like most red heads, he has very fair skin and the flash was set way to hot which washed out his face, but left the rest of his features intact - it's like seeing the blood under the surface of the skin that's how hot that flash was. Remember when you were a kid and put your thumb on top of the flashlight to see it turn red? That's what happened here. The second thing is you shot into a dark background which acentuated the feedback to the camera - you confused the camera would be one way to put it. The Third thing is that you narrowed the auto focus too much which also contributed to the overall skin tone problem. Kids like this - hell, people in general with fair skin - do well with a bounce flash or a diffuser for the flash set at an angle up rather than straight on. It's not a focus problem, it's a picture taking problem. No offense. Kodachrome II, a nice 85 or 105 mm fixed focal length lens, a couple of modeling lights, a decent meter and voila! a nice slide, properly exposed. Hell yes! Setting all that up in a dining room on the Disney Magic while dinner is being served would be a breeze! -- John H |
Playing with a Macro Extension Lens...
On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 03:47:00 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote: On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 22:38:19 -0500, HK wrote: Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 21:17:31 -0500, John H. wrote: The problem is a focus problem. I'm not trying to be argumentative, I'm just stating a fact. Here's an example: http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l2...wenblurred.jpg Not to be argumentative, but no it's not out of focus. You can see the flecks in the iris of his eyes and individual hair strands and the cord in the weave of his shirt. Look at his eyelashes - nice and crisp. It ain't out of focus. What you have is a flash feedback. Look closely at the left side of his face and see how sharp that is compared to the right side? Plus, like most red heads, he has very fair skin and the flash was set way to hot which washed out his face, but left the rest of his features intact - it's like seeing the blood under the surface of the skin that's how hot that flash was. Remember when you were a kid and put your thumb on top of the flashlight to see it turn red? That's what happened here. The second thing is you shot into a dark background which acentuated the feedback to the camera - you confused the camera would be one way to put it. The Third thing is that you narrowed the auto focus too much which also contributed to the overall skin tone problem. Kids like this - hell, people in general with fair skin - do well with a bounce flash or a diffuser for the flash set at an angle up rather than straight on. It's not a focus problem, it's a picture taking problem. No offense. Kodachrome II, a nice 85 or 105 mm fixed focal length lens, a couple of modeling lights, a decent meter and voila! a nice slide, properly exposed. Eh - you can do the same thing with a modern digital. John's problem is that dark background confusing the light sensor. He needed to back off a tad and bounce the flash to create some back light so the light sensor had a chance to work properly. Plus, he was way too tight on the shot with the results as I detailed. Digital cameras are wonderful machines, but you have to compensate for their weird and quirky ways. The flash was bounced, damnit! Tightness may be a problem, but I try not to crop a lot. -- John H |
Playing with a Macro Extension Lens...
John H. wrote:
On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 22:38:19 -0500, HK wrote: Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 21:17:31 -0500, John H. wrote: The problem is a focus problem. I'm not trying to be argumentative, I'm just stating a fact. Here's an example: http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l2...wenblurred.jpg Not to be argumentative, but no it's not out of focus. You can see the flecks in the iris of his eyes and individual hair strands and the cord in the weave of his shirt. Look at his eyelashes - nice and crisp. It ain't out of focus. What you have is a flash feedback. Look closely at the left side of his face and see how sharp that is compared to the right side? Plus, like most red heads, he has very fair skin and the flash was set way to hot which washed out his face, but left the rest of his features intact - it's like seeing the blood under the surface of the skin that's how hot that flash was. Remember when you were a kid and put your thumb on top of the flashlight to see it turn red? That's what happened here. The second thing is you shot into a dark background which acentuated the feedback to the camera - you confused the camera would be one way to put it. The Third thing is that you narrowed the auto focus too much which also contributed to the overall skin tone problem. Kids like this - hell, people in general with fair skin - do well with a bounce flash or a diffuser for the flash set at an angle up rather than straight on. It's not a focus problem, it's a picture taking problem. No offense. Kodachrome II, a nice 85 or 105 mm fixed focal length lens, a couple of modeling lights, a decent meter and voila! a nice slide, properly exposed. Hell yes! Setting all that up in a dining room on the Disney Magic while dinner is being served would be a breeze! Oh. It was a snapshot. Then why worry about it? |
Playing with a Macro Extension Lens...
"John H." wrote in message
... On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 03:22:31 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 21:17:31 -0500, John H. wrote: The problem is a focus problem. I'm not trying to be argumentative, I'm just stating a fact. Here's an example: http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l2...wenblurred.jpg Not to be argumentative, but no it's not out of focus. You can see the flecks in the iris of his eyes and individual hair strands and the cord in the weave of his shirt. Look at his eyelashes - nice and crisp. It ain't out of focus. What you have is a flash feedback. Look closely at the left side of his face and see how sharp that is compared to the right side? Plus, like most red heads, he has very fair skin and the flash was set way to hot which washed out his face, but left the rest of his features intact - it's like seeing the blood under the surface of the skin that's how hot that flash was. Remember when you were a kid and put your thumb on top of the flashlight to see it turn red? That's what happened here. The second thing is you shot into a dark background which acentuated the feedback to the camera - you confused the camera would be one way to put it. The Third thing is that you narrowed the auto focus too much which also contributed to the overall skin tone problem. Kids like this - hell, people in general with fair skin - do well with a bounce flash or a diffuser for the flash set at an angle up rather than straight on. It's not a focus problem, it's a picture taking problem. No offense. OK, I'll accept all the other faults, with the exception of the flash, which was bounced off the ceiling. Yes, as it stands the focus isn't too bad. However, if you crop the face even more, the freckles, hairs, etc, become very blurred. Your comment about 'narrowing the auto focus' is interesting. I set the camera for center spot focusing, as opposed to 'area' focusing. I'm expecting to see the center of the picture, or whatever I focus on, in very sharp detail. This picture was taken from about six feet away. In looking at the EXIF data, I noticed that the 'sharpness' was set at 'soft'. I've got to check into that. Maybe that's part of my problem. I appreciate your suggestions. -- John H You could also turn OFF the silly auto focus. |
Playing with a Macro Extension Lens...
John H. wrote:
This picture was taken from about six feet away. In looking at the EXIF data, I noticed that the 'sharpness' was set at 'soft'. I've got to check into that. Maybe that's part of my problem. All I have to say is "Duuuuhhhhhh". ;) I appreciate your suggestions. |
Playing with a Macro Extension Lens...
On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 14:14:51 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote: "John H." wrote in message .. . On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 03:22:31 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 21:17:31 -0500, John H. wrote: The problem is a focus problem. I'm not trying to be argumentative, I'm just stating a fact. Here's an example: http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l2...wenblurred.jpg Not to be argumentative, but no it's not out of focus. You can see the flecks in the iris of his eyes and individual hair strands and the cord in the weave of his shirt. Look at his eyelashes - nice and crisp. It ain't out of focus. What you have is a flash feedback. Look closely at the left side of his face and see how sharp that is compared to the right side? Plus, like most red heads, he has very fair skin and the flash was set way to hot which washed out his face, but left the rest of his features intact - it's like seeing the blood under the surface of the skin that's how hot that flash was. Remember when you were a kid and put your thumb on top of the flashlight to see it turn red? That's what happened here. The second thing is you shot into a dark background which acentuated the feedback to the camera - you confused the camera would be one way to put it. The Third thing is that you narrowed the auto focus too much which also contributed to the overall skin tone problem. Kids like this - hell, people in general with fair skin - do well with a bounce flash or a diffuser for the flash set at an angle up rather than straight on. It's not a focus problem, it's a picture taking problem. No offense. OK, I'll accept all the other faults, with the exception of the flash, which was bounced off the ceiling. Yes, as it stands the focus isn't too bad. However, if you crop the face even more, the freckles, hairs, etc, become very blurred. Your comment about 'narrowing the auto focus' is interesting. I set the camera for center spot focusing, as opposed to 'area' focusing. I'm expecting to see the center of the picture, or whatever I focus on, in very sharp detail. This picture was taken from about six feet away. In looking at the EXIF data, I noticed that the 'sharpness' was set at 'soft'. I've got to check into that. Maybe that's part of my problem. I appreciate your suggestions. -- John H You could also turn OFF the silly auto focus. Not with my eyes. Also, the auto focus is very fast, much faster than I could possible focus. For quick shots of kids the auto focus is the way to go. On my 18-70mm, the auto focus is spectacular. -- John H |
Playing with a Macro Extension Lens...
On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 09:24:44 -0500, "Reginald P. Smithers III"
[email protected] wrote: John H. wrote: This picture was taken from about six feet away. In looking at the EXIF data, I noticed that the 'sharpness' was set at 'soft'. I've got to check into that. Maybe that's part of my problem. All I have to say is "Duuuuhhhhhh". ;) I appreciate your suggestions. Give me a break! I spent 30 years with a Canon FTQL. I didn't have to be a damn IT professional to take a picture. -- John H |
Playing with a Macro Extension Lens...
On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 09:10:12 -0500, HK wrote:
John H. wrote: On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 22:38:19 -0500, HK wrote: Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 21:17:31 -0500, John H. wrote: The problem is a focus problem. I'm not trying to be argumentative, I'm just stating a fact. Here's an example: http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l2...wenblurred.jpg Not to be argumentative, but no it's not out of focus. You can see the flecks in the iris of his eyes and individual hair strands and the cord in the weave of his shirt. Look at his eyelashes - nice and crisp. It ain't out of focus. What you have is a flash feedback. Look closely at the left side of his face and see how sharp that is compared to the right side? Plus, like most red heads, he has very fair skin and the flash was set way to hot which washed out his face, but left the rest of his features intact - it's like seeing the blood under the surface of the skin that's how hot that flash was. Remember when you were a kid and put your thumb on top of the flashlight to see it turn red? That's what happened here. The second thing is you shot into a dark background which acentuated the feedback to the camera - you confused the camera would be one way to put it. The Third thing is that you narrowed the auto focus too much which also contributed to the overall skin tone problem. Kids like this - hell, people in general with fair skin - do well with a bounce flash or a diffuser for the flash set at an angle up rather than straight on. It's not a focus problem, it's a picture taking problem. No offense. Kodachrome II, a nice 85 or 105 mm fixed focal length lens, a couple of modeling lights, a decent meter and voila! a nice slide, properly exposed. Hell yes! Setting all that up in a dining room on the Disney Magic while dinner is being served would be a breeze! Oh. It was a snapshot. Then why worry about it? I expect my snapshots to have a bit of quality. You know, like the owls. -- John H |
Playing with a Macro Extension Lens...
John H. wrote:
On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 09:10:12 -0500, HK wrote: John H. wrote: On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 22:38:19 -0500, HK wrote: Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 21:17:31 -0500, John H. wrote: The problem is a focus problem. I'm not trying to be argumentative, I'm just stating a fact. Here's an example: http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l2...wenblurred.jpg Not to be argumentative, but no it's not out of focus. You can see the flecks in the iris of his eyes and individual hair strands and the cord in the weave of his shirt. Look at his eyelashes - nice and crisp. It ain't out of focus. What you have is a flash feedback. Look closely at the left side of his face and see how sharp that is compared to the right side? Plus, like most red heads, he has very fair skin and the flash was set way to hot which washed out his face, but left the rest of his features intact - it's like seeing the blood under the surface of the skin that's how hot that flash was. Remember when you were a kid and put your thumb on top of the flashlight to see it turn red? That's what happened here. The second thing is you shot into a dark background which acentuated the feedback to the camera - you confused the camera would be one way to put it. The Third thing is that you narrowed the auto focus too much which also contributed to the overall skin tone problem. Kids like this - hell, people in general with fair skin - do well with a bounce flash or a diffuser for the flash set at an angle up rather than straight on. It's not a focus problem, it's a picture taking problem. No offense. Kodachrome II, a nice 85 or 105 mm fixed focal length lens, a couple of modeling lights, a decent meter and voila! a nice slide, properly exposed. Hell yes! Setting all that up in a dining room on the Disney Magic while dinner is being served would be a breeze! Oh. It was a snapshot. Then why worry about it? I expect my snapshots to have a bit of quality. You know, like the owls. Learn how to use your camera. |
Playing with a Macro Extension Lens...
John H. wrote:
On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 09:24:44 -0500, "Reginald P. Smithers III" [email protected] wrote: John H. wrote: This picture was taken from about six feet away. In looking at the EXIF data, I noticed that the 'sharpness' was set at 'soft'. I've got to check into that. Maybe that's part of my problem. All I have to say is "Duuuuhhhhhh". ;) I appreciate your suggestions. Give me a break! I spent 30 years with a Canon FTQL. I didn't have to be a damn IT professional to take a picture. LOL, JohnH, I am teasing you. If you look at my photos, I have a tendency to over sharpen them. I actually think your family photos are really nice. The kids smile, they look happy, composition is nice, and they look like the photos one gets when you buy a new wallet. What more could you want. ;) You wife must be a real beauty to pass along such good genes. |
Playing with a Macro Extension Lens...
John H. wrote:
On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 09:10:12 -0500, HK wrote: John H. wrote: On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 22:38:19 -0500, HK wrote: Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 21:17:31 -0500, John H. wrote: The problem is a focus problem. I'm not trying to be argumentative, I'm just stating a fact. Here's an example: http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l2...wenblurred.jpg Not to be argumentative, but no it's not out of focus. You can see the flecks in the iris of his eyes and individual hair strands and the cord in the weave of his shirt. Look at his eyelashes - nice and crisp. It ain't out of focus. What you have is a flash feedback. Look closely at the left side of his face and see how sharp that is compared to the right side? Plus, like most red heads, he has very fair skin and the flash was set way to hot which washed out his face, but left the rest of his features intact - it's like seeing the blood under the surface of the skin that's how hot that flash was. Remember when you were a kid and put your thumb on top of the flashlight to see it turn red? That's what happened here. The second thing is you shot into a dark background which acentuated the feedback to the camera - you confused the camera would be one way to put it. The Third thing is that you narrowed the auto focus too much which also contributed to the overall skin tone problem. Kids like this - hell, people in general with fair skin - do well with a bounce flash or a diffuser for the flash set at an angle up rather than straight on. It's not a focus problem, it's a picture taking problem. No offense. Kodachrome II, a nice 85 or 105 mm fixed focal length lens, a couple of modeling lights, a decent meter and voila! a nice slide, properly exposed. Hell yes! Setting all that up in a dining room on the Disney Magic while dinner is being served would be a breeze! Oh. It was a snapshot. Then why worry about it? I expect my snapshots to have a bit of quality. You know, like the owls. JohnH, I hate to break the news to you, but the owl pictures was not really Harry's. It done by a professional natural photographer in Florida. Harry just downloaded it from his web site. Based upon the photos Harry has actually taken, you are doing GREAT. One needs to walk before one can run. ;) Trust me, as someone who is crawling and hasn't even learned how to walk yet, I know these things |
Playing with a Macro Extension Lens...
"Reginald P. Smithers III" [email protected] wrote in
message ... John H. wrote: On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 09:24:44 -0500, "Reginald P. Smithers III" [email protected] wrote: John H. wrote: This picture was taken from about six feet away. In looking at the EXIF data, I noticed that the 'sharpness' was set at 'soft'. I've got to check into that. Maybe that's part of my problem. All I have to say is "Duuuuhhhhhh". ;) I appreciate your suggestions. Give me a break! I spent 30 years with a Canon FTQL. I didn't have to be a damn IT professional to take a picture. LOL, JohnH, I am teasing you. If you look at my photos, I have a tendency to over sharpen them. Then stop over sharpening them. It's a nasty effect. Nobody likes the results. Nobody. |
Playing with a Macro Extension Lens...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Reginald P. Smithers III" [email protected] wrote in message ... John H. wrote: On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 09:24:44 -0500, "Reginald P. Smithers III" [email protected] wrote: John H. wrote: This picture was taken from about six feet away. In looking at the EXIF data, I noticed that the 'sharpness' was set at 'soft'. I've got to check into that. Maybe that's part of my problem. All I have to say is "Duuuuhhhhhh". ;) I appreciate your suggestions. Give me a break! I spent 30 years with a Canon FTQL. I didn't have to be a damn IT professional to take a picture. LOL, JohnH, I am teasing you. If you look at my photos, I have a tendency to over sharpen them. Then stop over sharpening them. It's a nasty effect. Nobody likes the results. Nobody. You are absolutely correct. Since you told me in such a forceful manner, I will. |
Playing with a Macro Extension Lens...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Reginald P. Smithers III" [email protected] wrote in message ... John H. wrote: On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 09:24:44 -0500, "Reginald P. Smithers III" [email protected] wrote: John H. wrote: This picture was taken from about six feet away. In looking at the EXIF data, I noticed that the 'sharpness' was set at 'soft'. I've got to check into that. Maybe that's part of my problem. All I have to say is "Duuuuhhhhhh". ;) I appreciate your suggestions. Give me a break! I spent 30 years with a Canon FTQL. I didn't have to be a damn IT professional to take a picture. LOL, JohnH, I am teasing you. If you look at my photos, I have a tendency to over sharpen them. Then stop over sharpening them. It's a nasty effect. Nobody likes the results. Nobody. Most photoshopped photos look photoshopped. I can see touching up a sky a bit or getting rid of redeye or other simple stuff in an image, but most of the rest of it seems to produce clichés, especially in the hands of amateurs. The less you mess with a decent photo, the more pleasing it will be. |
Playing with a Macro Extension Lens...
"Reginald P. Smithers III" [email protected] wrote in message ... You wife must be a real beauty to pass along such good genes. You saying John's genes aren't so good? |
Playing with a Macro Extension Lens...
On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 10:22:39 -0500, "Reginald P. Smithers III"
[email protected] wrote: John H. wrote: On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 09:24:44 -0500, "Reginald P. Smithers III" [email protected] wrote: John H. wrote: This picture was taken from about six feet away. In looking at the EXIF data, I noticed that the 'sharpness' was set at 'soft'. I've got to check into that. Maybe that's part of my problem. All I have to say is "Duuuuhhhhhh". ;) I appreciate your suggestions. Give me a break! I spent 30 years with a Canon FTQL. I didn't have to be a damn IT professional to take a picture. LOL, JohnH, I am teasing you. If you look at my photos, I have a tendency to over sharpen them. I actually think your family photos are really nice. The kids smile, they look happy, composition is nice, and they look like the photos one gets when you buy a new wallet. What more could you want. ;) The wallet. You wife must be a real beauty to pass along such good genes. That's where two of the boys got their red hair. No one knows (except me) where it came from. I just happen to know that my first wife was a natural red head. But, she always bleached her hair. I didn't even think of that until you mentioned genes. -- John H |
Playing with a Macro Extension Lens...
On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 11:08:58 -0500, HK wrote:
JoeSpareBedroom wrote: "Reginald P. Smithers III" [email protected] wrote in message ... John H. wrote: On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 09:24:44 -0500, "Reginald P. Smithers III" [email protected] wrote: John H. wrote: This picture was taken from about six feet away. In looking at the EXIF data, I noticed that the 'sharpness' was set at 'soft'. I've got to check into that. Maybe that's part of my problem. All I have to say is "Duuuuhhhhhh". ;) I appreciate your suggestions. Give me a break! I spent 30 years with a Canon FTQL. I didn't have to be a damn IT professional to take a picture. LOL, JohnH, I am teasing you. If you look at my photos, I have a tendency to over sharpen them. Then stop over sharpening them. It's a nasty effect. Nobody likes the results. Nobody. Most photoshopped photos look photoshopped. I can see touching up a sky a bit or getting rid of redeye or other simple stuff in an image, but most of the rest of it seems to produce clichés, especially in the hands of amateurs. The less you mess with a decent photo, the more pleasing it will be. Were the owls touched up? I do very little touch up with Photoshop. I haven't learned how to do much yet, and I try to get a semi-decent picture to begin with. I wish RG would take me along to the Grand Tetons next time he goes. I'd love to hold his camera bag or something and maybe get in a few shots myself. -- John H |
Playing with a Macro Extension Lens...
On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 12:28:27 -0400, "Don White"
wrote: "Reginald P. Smithers III" [email protected] wrote in message ... You wife must be a real beauty to pass along such good genes. You saying John's genes aren't so good? I get 'em at LLBean. They're good, believe me! -- John H |
Playing with a Macro Extension Lens...
On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 10:25:54 -0500, "Reginald P. Smithers III"
[email protected] wrote: John H. wrote: On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 09:10:12 -0500, HK wrote: John H. wrote: On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 22:38:19 -0500, HK wrote: Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 21:17:31 -0500, John H. wrote: The problem is a focus problem. I'm not trying to be argumentative, I'm just stating a fact. Here's an example: http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l2...wenblurred.jpg Not to be argumentative, but no it's not out of focus. You can see the flecks in the iris of his eyes and individual hair strands and the cord in the weave of his shirt. Look at his eyelashes - nice and crisp. It ain't out of focus. What you have is a flash feedback. Look closely at the left side of his face and see how sharp that is compared to the right side? Plus, like most red heads, he has very fair skin and the flash was set way to hot which washed out his face, but left the rest of his features intact - it's like seeing the blood under the surface of the skin that's how hot that flash was. Remember when you were a kid and put your thumb on top of the flashlight to see it turn red? That's what happened here. The second thing is you shot into a dark background which acentuated the feedback to the camera - you confused the camera would be one way to put it. The Third thing is that you narrowed the auto focus too much which also contributed to the overall skin tone problem. Kids like this - hell, people in general with fair skin - do well with a bounce flash or a diffuser for the flash set at an angle up rather than straight on. It's not a focus problem, it's a picture taking problem. No offense. Kodachrome II, a nice 85 or 105 mm fixed focal length lens, a couple of modeling lights, a decent meter and voila! a nice slide, properly exposed. Hell yes! Setting all that up in a dining room on the Disney Magic while dinner is being served would be a breeze! Oh. It was a snapshot. Then why worry about it? I expect my snapshots to have a bit of quality. You know, like the owls. JohnH, I hate to break the news to you, but the owl pictures was not really Harry's. It done by a professional natural photographer in Florida. Harry just downloaded it from his web site. Based upon the photos Harry has actually taken, you are doing GREAT. One needs to walk before one can run. ;) Trust me, as someone who is crawling and hasn't even learned how to walk yet, I know these things ****. Now I feel badly. -- John H |
Playing with a Macro Extension Lens...
Don White wrote:
"Reginald P. Smithers III" [email protected] wrote in message ... You wife must be a real beauty to pass along such good genes. You saying John's genes aren't so good? Naw, he has great genes, they are just ugly genes. ;) |
Playing with a Macro Extension Lens...
John H. wrote:
On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 11:08:58 -0500, HK wrote: JoeSpareBedroom wrote: "Reginald P. Smithers III" [email protected] wrote in message ... John H. wrote: On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 09:24:44 -0500, "Reginald P. Smithers III" [email protected] wrote: John H. wrote: This picture was taken from about six feet away. In looking at the EXIF data, I noticed that the 'sharpness' was set at 'soft'. I've got to check into that. Maybe that's part of my problem. All I have to say is "Duuuuhhhhhh". ;) I appreciate your suggestions. Give me a break! I spent 30 years with a Canon FTQL. I didn't have to be a damn IT professional to take a picture. LOL, JohnH, I am teasing you. If you look at my photos, I have a tendency to over sharpen them. Then stop over sharpening them. It's a nasty effect. Nobody likes the results. Nobody. Most photoshopped photos look photoshopped. I can see touching up a sky a bit or getting rid of redeye or other simple stuff in an image, but most of the rest of it seems to produce clichés, especially in the hands of amateurs. The less you mess with a decent photo, the more pleasing it will be. Were the owls touched up? I do very little touch up with Photoshop. I haven't learned how to do much yet, and I try to get a semi-decent picture to begin with. I wish RG would take me along to the Grand Tetons next time he goes. I'd love to hold his camera bag or something and maybe get in a few shots myself. JohnH, Since you shot in jpg, the camera is functioning as your "photoshop". The different auto settings will make minor changes in the way it will process the photo. They will change the color to vibrant, soft focus, emphasize certain colors etc. If you shot in RAW, you need to process it out of the camera. |
Playing with a Macro Extension Lens...
On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 13:53:03 -0500, "Reginald P. Smithers III"
[email protected] wrote: John H. wrote: On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 11:08:58 -0500, HK wrote: JoeSpareBedroom wrote: "Reginald P. Smithers III" [email protected] wrote in message ... John H. wrote: On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 09:24:44 -0500, "Reginald P. Smithers III" [email protected] wrote: John H. wrote: This picture was taken from about six feet away. In looking at the EXIF data, I noticed that the 'sharpness' was set at 'soft'. I've got to check into that. Maybe that's part of my problem. All I have to say is "Duuuuhhhhhh". ;) I appreciate your suggestions. Give me a break! I spent 30 years with a Canon FTQL. I didn't have to be a damn IT professional to take a picture. LOL, JohnH, I am teasing you. If you look at my photos, I have a tendency to over sharpen them. Then stop over sharpening them. It's a nasty effect. Nobody likes the results. Nobody. Most photoshopped photos look photoshopped. I can see touching up a sky a bit or getting rid of redeye or other simple stuff in an image, but most of the rest of it seems to produce clichés, especially in the hands of amateurs. The less you mess with a decent photo, the more pleasing it will be. Were the owls touched up? I do very little touch up with Photoshop. I haven't learned how to do much yet, and I try to get a semi-decent picture to begin with. I wish RG would take me along to the Grand Tetons next time he goes. I'd love to hold his camera bag or something and maybe get in a few shots myself. JohnH, Since you shot in jpg, the camera is functioning as your "photoshop". The different auto settings will make minor changes in the way it will process the photo. They will change the color to vibrant, soft focus, emphasize certain colors etc. If you shot in RAW, you need to process it out of the camera. I only shoot in the raw when I'm in San Francisco. -- John H |
Playing with a Macro Extension Lens...
John H. wrote:
On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 13:53:03 -0500, "Reginald P. Smithers III" [email protected] wrote: John H. wrote: On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 11:08:58 -0500, HK wrote: JoeSpareBedroom wrote: "Reginald P. Smithers III" [email protected] wrote in message ... John H. wrote: On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 09:24:44 -0500, "Reginald P. Smithers III" [email protected] wrote: John H. wrote: This picture was taken from about six feet away. In looking at the EXIF data, I noticed that the 'sharpness' was set at 'soft'. I've got to check into that. Maybe that's part of my problem. All I have to say is "Duuuuhhhhhh". ;) I appreciate your suggestions. Give me a break! I spent 30 years with a Canon FTQL. I didn't have to be a damn IT professional to take a picture. LOL, JohnH, I am teasing you. If you look at my photos, I have a tendency to over sharpen them. Then stop over sharpening them. It's a nasty effect. Nobody likes the results. Nobody. Most photoshopped photos look photoshopped. I can see touching up a sky a bit or getting rid of redeye or other simple stuff in an image, but most of the rest of it seems to produce clichés, especially in the hands of amateurs. The less you mess with a decent photo, the more pleasing it will be. Were the owls touched up? I do very little touch up with Photoshop. I haven't learned how to do much yet, and I try to get a semi-decent picture to begin with. I wish RG would take me along to the Grand Tetons next time he goes. I'd love to hold his camera bag or something and maybe get in a few shots myself. JohnH, Since you shot in jpg, the camera is functioning as your "photoshop". The different auto settings will make minor changes in the way it will process the photo. They will change the color to vibrant, soft focus, emphasize certain colors etc. If you shot in RAW, you need to process it out of the camera. I only shoot in the raw when I'm in San Francisco. Well, you know what they say, "When in Rome..... " |
Playing with a Macro Extension Lens...
On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 09:01:48 -0500, John H.
wrote: OK, I'll accept all the other faults, with the exception of the flash, which was bounced off the ceiling. Ok, then something else happened to soften up the image. Did you check white balance, sharpening, saturation. contrast levels in the camara? Did you shoot in RGB or Adobe color space? Yes, as it stands the focus isn't too bad. However, if you crop the face even more, the freckles, hairs, etc, become very blurred. Read on dude... Your comment about 'narrowing the auto focus' is interesting. I set the camera for center spot focusing, as opposed to 'area' focusing. I'm expecting to see the center of the picture, or whatever I focus on, in very sharp detail. Ok, I phrased that badly - what I meant to say was that your narrow focus spot metering did you in on that image - sorry, I was really (and still am) tired late yesterday. Area spot imaging will give you a broader focusing area to work with and as you were to the side of the subject with varying distances involved, spotting the meter wouldn't necessarily work well. With respect to detail on spot metering, the spot metering does more than just focus the lens for you - it also reads light, adjusts the image parameters and a ton of other things as part of it's algorithm. That image is focused - it's all the other issues that caused the percieved soft focus problem. This picture was taken from about six feet away. In looking at the EXIF data, I noticed that the 'sharpness' was set at 'soft'. I've got to check into that. Maybe that's part of my problem. Very definetly part of the probem, but not the whole problem. The other issue that I forgot to ask is if you shot in .jpg, then exported the image to a processor. Sometimes, not always mind you, if you have the camera color space set differently than the processor color space, the results can be iffy - changes in compression, etc. You might have shot at a low compression scale also which might have affected things. Also, again not always, once you edit an image, if the processor isn't get properly, the translation can give you some loss - in particular if the image is set for print or web display. Which is why I always shoot in Adobe space and in RAW format. I appreciate your suggestions. |
Playing with a Macro Extension Lens...
On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 21:46:42 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote: On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 09:01:48 -0500, John H. wrote: OK, I'll accept all the other faults, with the exception of the flash, which was bounced off the ceiling. Ok, then something else happened to soften up the image. Did you check white balance, sharpening, saturation. contrast levels in the camara? Did you shoot in RGB or Adobe color space? Yes, as it stands the focus isn't too bad. However, if you crop the face even more, the freckles, hairs, etc, become very blurred. Read on dude... Your comment about 'narrowing the auto focus' is interesting. I set the camera for center spot focusing, as opposed to 'area' focusing. I'm expecting to see the center of the picture, or whatever I focus on, in very sharp detail. Ok, I phrased that badly - what I meant to say was that your narrow focus spot metering did you in on that image - sorry, I was really (and still am) tired late yesterday. Area spot imaging will give you a broader focusing area to work with and as you were to the side of the subject with varying distances involved, spotting the meter wouldn't necessarily work well. With respect to detail on spot metering, the spot metering does more than just focus the lens for you - it also reads light, adjusts the image parameters and a ton of other things as part of it's algorithm. That image is focused - it's all the other issues that caused the percieved soft focus problem. This picture was taken from about six feet away. In looking at the EXIF data, I noticed that the 'sharpness' was set at 'soft'. I've got to check into that. Maybe that's part of my problem. Very definetly part of the probem, but not the whole problem. The other issue that I forgot to ask is if you shot in .jpg, then exported the image to a processor. Sometimes, not always mind you, if you have the camera color space set differently than the processor color space, the results can be iffy - changes in compression, etc. You might have shot at a low compression scale also which might have affected things. Also, again not always, once you edit an image, if the processor isn't get properly, the translation can give you some loss - in particular if the image is set for print or web display. Which is why I always shoot in Adobe space and in RAW format. I appreciate your suggestions. I shoot in what the D200 calls "jpg fine". Usually this hasn't been a problem. I didn't do any processing, other than cropping the sides. Not sure what you mean by 'color space'. I am going to change the sharpness setting, if I can find it. Again, your comments are welcome. -- John H |
Playing with a Macro Extension Lens...
John H. wrote:
On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 21:46:42 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 09:01:48 -0500, John H. wrote: OK, I'll accept all the other faults, with the exception of the flash, which was bounced off the ceiling. Ok, then something else happened to soften up the image. Did you check white balance, sharpening, saturation. contrast levels in the camara? Did you shoot in RGB or Adobe color space? Yes, as it stands the focus isn't too bad. However, if you crop the face even more, the freckles, hairs, etc, become very blurred. Read on dude... Your comment about 'narrowing the auto focus' is interesting. I set the camera for center spot focusing, as opposed to 'area' focusing. I'm expecting to see the center of the picture, or whatever I focus on, in very sharp detail. Ok, I phrased that badly - what I meant to say was that your narrow focus spot metering did you in on that image - sorry, I was really (and still am) tired late yesterday. Area spot imaging will give you a broader focusing area to work with and as you were to the side of the subject with varying distances involved, spotting the meter wouldn't necessarily work well. With respect to detail on spot metering, the spot metering does more than just focus the lens for you - it also reads light, adjusts the image parameters and a ton of other things as part of it's algorithm. That image is focused - it's all the other issues that caused the percieved soft focus problem. This picture was taken from about six feet away. In looking at the EXIF data, I noticed that the 'sharpness' was set at 'soft'. I've got to check into that. Maybe that's part of my problem. Very definetly part of the probem, but not the whole problem. The other issue that I forgot to ask is if you shot in .jpg, then exported the image to a processor. Sometimes, not always mind you, if you have the camera color space set differently than the processor color space, the results can be iffy - changes in compression, etc. You might have shot at a low compression scale also which might have affected things. Also, again not always, once you edit an image, if the processor isn't get properly, the translation can give you some loss - in particular if the image is set for print or web display. Which is why I always shoot in Adobe space and in RAW format. I appreciate your suggestions. I shoot in what the D200 calls "jpg fine". Usually this hasn't been a problem. I didn't do any processing, other than cropping the sides. Not sure what you mean by 'color space'. I am going to change the sharpness setting, if I can find it. Again, your comments are welcome. John it really is easy: 1. Hit menu 2.Go the little camera,(it will say "Shooting Menu" on the top of the window. Move down till you see the "Color Space" if you normally don't process in Adobe make sure it is on sRGB. If you do use Adobe to adjust color, vibrance, etc, change it to AdobeRGB. 3. Now move the cursor down until you see "Optimize Image" Click on that and you can change it to Normal, softer, vivid etc. Now the camera computer will process the info using those settings and save it as a jpg. Or shoot in RAW and then adjust afterwards. |
Playing with a Macro Extension Lens...
On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 17:46:01 -0500, "Reginald P. Smithers III"
[email protected] wrote: John H. wrote: On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 21:46:42 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 09:01:48 -0500, John H. wrote: OK, I'll accept all the other faults, with the exception of the flash, which was bounced off the ceiling. Ok, then something else happened to soften up the image. Did you check white balance, sharpening, saturation. contrast levels in the camara? Did you shoot in RGB or Adobe color space? Yes, as it stands the focus isn't too bad. However, if you crop the face even more, the freckles, hairs, etc, become very blurred. Read on dude... Your comment about 'narrowing the auto focus' is interesting. I set the camera for center spot focusing, as opposed to 'area' focusing. I'm expecting to see the center of the picture, or whatever I focus on, in very sharp detail. Ok, I phrased that badly - what I meant to say was that your narrow focus spot metering did you in on that image - sorry, I was really (and still am) tired late yesterday. Area spot imaging will give you a broader focusing area to work with and as you were to the side of the subject with varying distances involved, spotting the meter wouldn't necessarily work well. With respect to detail on spot metering, the spot metering does more than just focus the lens for you - it also reads light, adjusts the image parameters and a ton of other things as part of it's algorithm. That image is focused - it's all the other issues that caused the percieved soft focus problem. This picture was taken from about six feet away. In looking at the EXIF data, I noticed that the 'sharpness' was set at 'soft'. I've got to check into that. Maybe that's part of my problem. Very definetly part of the probem, but not the whole problem. The other issue that I forgot to ask is if you shot in .jpg, then exported the image to a processor. Sometimes, not always mind you, if you have the camera color space set differently than the processor color space, the results can be iffy - changes in compression, etc. You might have shot at a low compression scale also which might have affected things. Also, again not always, once you edit an image, if the processor isn't get properly, the translation can give you some loss - in particular if the image is set for print or web display. Which is why I always shoot in Adobe space and in RAW format. I appreciate your suggestions. I shoot in what the D200 calls "jpg fine". Usually this hasn't been a problem. I didn't do any processing, other than cropping the sides. Not sure what you mean by 'color space'. I am going to change the sharpness setting, if I can find it. Again, your comments are welcome. John it really is easy: 1. Hit menu 2.Go the little camera,(it will say "Shooting Menu" on the top of the window. Move down till you see the "Color Space" if you normally don't process in Adobe make sure it is on sRGB. If you do use Adobe to adjust color, vibrance, etc, change it to AdobeRGB. 3. Now move the cursor down until you see "Optimize Image" Click on that and you can change it to Normal, softer, vivid etc. Now the camera computer will process the info using those settings and save it as a jpg. Or shoot in RAW and then adjust afterwards. Hey! I wanted to look it up in my book, damnit. Now you took all the joy of discovery learning away. But, thanks anyway! -- John H |
Playing with a Macro Extension Lens...
On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 18:10:26 -0500, John H. wrote:
On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 17:46:01 -0500, "Reginald P. Smithers III" [email protected] wrote: John H. wrote: On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 21:46:42 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 09:01:48 -0500, John H. wrote: OK, I'll accept all the other faults, with the exception of the flash, which was bounced off the ceiling. Ok, then something else happened to soften up the image. Did you check white balance, sharpening, saturation. contrast levels in the camara? Did you shoot in RGB or Adobe color space? Yes, as it stands the focus isn't too bad. However, if you crop the face even more, the freckles, hairs, etc, become very blurred. Read on dude... Your comment about 'narrowing the auto focus' is interesting. I set the camera for center spot focusing, as opposed to 'area' focusing. I'm expecting to see the center of the picture, or whatever I focus on, in very sharp detail. Ok, I phrased that badly - what I meant to say was that your narrow focus spot metering did you in on that image - sorry, I was really (and still am) tired late yesterday. Area spot imaging will give you a broader focusing area to work with and as you were to the side of the subject with varying distances involved, spotting the meter wouldn't necessarily work well. With respect to detail on spot metering, the spot metering does more than just focus the lens for you - it also reads light, adjusts the image parameters and a ton of other things as part of it's algorithm. That image is focused - it's all the other issues that caused the percieved soft focus problem. This picture was taken from about six feet away. In looking at the EXIF data, I noticed that the 'sharpness' was set at 'soft'. I've got to check into that. Maybe that's part of my problem. Very definetly part of the probem, but not the whole problem. The other issue that I forgot to ask is if you shot in .jpg, then exported the image to a processor. Sometimes, not always mind you, if you have the camera color space set differently than the processor color space, the results can be iffy - changes in compression, etc. You might have shot at a low compression scale also which might have affected things. Also, again not always, once you edit an image, if the processor isn't get properly, the translation can give you some loss - in particular if the image is set for print or web display. Which is why I always shoot in Adobe space and in RAW format. I appreciate your suggestions. I shoot in what the D200 calls "jpg fine". Usually this hasn't been a problem. I didn't do any processing, other than cropping the sides. Not sure what you mean by 'color space'. I am going to change the sharpness setting, if I can find it. Again, your comments are welcome. John it really is easy: 1. Hit menu 2.Go the little camera,(it will say "Shooting Menu" on the top of the window. Move down till you see the "Color Space" if you normally don't process in Adobe make sure it is on sRGB. If you do use Adobe to adjust color, vibrance, etc, change it to AdobeRGB. 3. Now move the cursor down until you see "Optimize Image" Click on that and you can change it to Normal, softer, vivid etc. Now the camera computer will process the info using those settings and save it as a jpg. Or shoot in RAW and then adjust afterwards. Hey! I wanted to look it up in my book, damnit. Now you took all the joy of discovery learning away. But, thanks anyway! PS. It was set on 'normal' and on sRGB. I left it alone until I get the lens back from Nikon. -- John H |
Playing with a Macro Extension Lens...
John H. wrote:
On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 18:10:26 -0500, John H. wrote: On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 17:46:01 -0500, "Reginald P. Smithers III" [email protected] wrote: John H. wrote: On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 21:46:42 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 09:01:48 -0500, John H. wrote: OK, I'll accept all the other faults, with the exception of the flash, which was bounced off the ceiling. Ok, then something else happened to soften up the image. Did you check white balance, sharpening, saturation. contrast levels in the camara? Did you shoot in RGB or Adobe color space? Yes, as it stands the focus isn't too bad. However, if you crop the face even more, the freckles, hairs, etc, become very blurred. Read on dude... Your comment about 'narrowing the auto focus' is interesting. I set the camera for center spot focusing, as opposed to 'area' focusing. I'm expecting to see the center of the picture, or whatever I focus on, in very sharp detail. Ok, I phrased that badly - what I meant to say was that your narrow focus spot metering did you in on that image - sorry, I was really (and still am) tired late yesterday. Area spot imaging will give you a broader focusing area to work with and as you were to the side of the subject with varying distances involved, spotting the meter wouldn't necessarily work well. With respect to detail on spot metering, the spot metering does more than just focus the lens for you - it also reads light, adjusts the image parameters and a ton of other things as part of it's algorithm. That image is focused - it's all the other issues that caused the percieved soft focus problem. This picture was taken from about six feet away. In looking at the EXIF data, I noticed that the 'sharpness' was set at 'soft'. I've got to check into that. Maybe that's part of my problem. Very definetly part of the probem, but not the whole problem. The other issue that I forgot to ask is if you shot in .jpg, then exported the image to a processor. Sometimes, not always mind you, if you have the camera color space set differently than the processor color space, the results can be iffy - changes in compression, etc. You might have shot at a low compression scale also which might have affected things. Also, again not always, once you edit an image, if the processor isn't get properly, the translation can give you some loss - in particular if the image is set for print or web display. Which is why I always shoot in Adobe space and in RAW format. I appreciate your suggestions. I shoot in what the D200 calls "jpg fine". Usually this hasn't been a problem. I didn't do any processing, other than cropping the sides. Not sure what you mean by 'color space'. I am going to change the sharpness setting, if I can find it. Again, your comments are welcome. John it really is easy: 1. Hit menu 2.Go the little camera,(it will say "Shooting Menu" on the top of the window. Move down till you see the "Color Space" if you normally don't process in Adobe make sure it is on sRGB. If you do use Adobe to adjust color, vibrance, etc, change it to AdobeRGB. 3. Now move the cursor down until you see "Optimize Image" Click on that and you can change it to Normal, softer, vivid etc. Now the camera computer will process the info using those settings and save it as a jpg. Or shoot in RAW and then adjust afterwards. Hey! I wanted to look it up in my book, damnit. Now you took all the joy of discovery learning away. But, thanks anyway! PS. It was set on 'normal' and on sRGB. I left it alone until I get the lens back from Nikon. JohnH, You know what they say, "once you shot in RAW, you will never go back". Or was it "It is all RAW on the inside". |
Playing with a Macro Extension Lens...
On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 17:26:40 -0500, John H.
wrote: I shoot in what the D200 calls "jpg fine". Usually this hasn't been a problem. I didn't do any processing, other than cropping the sides. Not sure what you mean by 'color space'. I am going to change the sharpness setting, if I can find it. Basic primer - color space is the mathematical space in which color is expressed by numbers, the adding and substraction of to obtain shade. Put simply, this process is called gamut. There is a more detailed explanation if you are interested There are base three schemas used in defining color: RGB (which is the same method used in human site), but density (shading/combining to obtain other colors) is limited to about 30%of what is called Lab Color Space which is based on the CIE Lab1931color space. It is designated on your camera as sRGB Adobe space is called aRGB or sometimes Adobe (in the color space on your camera's menu) and has a wider gamut representing 50% of the 1931 color space. The third is Adobe's Wide Gamut space, but frankly it sucks and you probably don't have it on your camera anyway. There are other types of color spaces depending on the needs of the graphics environment, but these are the most commonly accepted in the world of digital cameras. What happens in processing is that the processor sometimes will be set to sRGB and if you take the image in aRGB, it makes the translation and you might not even be aware of it. Could be the reverse. Might not be that at all, but it's worth looking into. |
Playing with a Macro Extension Lens...
On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 23:24:48 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote: On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 17:26:40 -0500, John H. wrote: I shoot in what the D200 calls "jpg fine". Usually this hasn't been a problem. I didn't do any processing, other than cropping the sides. Not sure what you mean by 'color space'. I am going to change the sharpness setting, if I can find it. Basic primer - color space is the mathematical space in which color is expressed by numbers, the adding and substraction of to obtain shade. Put simply, this process is called gamut. There is a more detailed explanation if you are interested There are base three schemas used in defining color: RGB (which is the same method used in human site), but density (shading/combining to obtain other colors) is limited to about 30%of what is called Lab Color Space which is based on the CIE Lab1931color space. It is designated on your camera as sRGB Adobe space is called aRGB or sometimes Adobe (in the color space on your camera's menu) and has a wider gamut representing 50% of the 1931 color space. The third is Adobe's Wide Gamut space, but frankly it sucks and you probably don't have it on your camera anyway. There are other types of color spaces depending on the needs of the graphics environment, but these are the most commonly accepted in the world of digital cameras. What happens in processing is that the processor sometimes will be set to sRGB and if you take the image in aRGB, it makes the translation and you might not even be aware of it. Could be the reverse. Might not be that at all, but it's worth looking into. When I put the card in the card reader, Adobe Elements opens to download the pictures from the card. Once the pictures are downloaded, I close Adobe and use IrfanView to view them, make small fixes, and crop, if necessary. Up to that point, I'm thinking Adobe has had no impact on the pictures. Sometimes I'll open a picture in Adobe and adjust color, contrast, etc, but not often. -- John H |
Playing with a Macro Extension Lens...
John H. wrote:
On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 23:24:48 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: When I put the card in the card reader, Adobe Elements opens to download the pictures from the card. Once the pictures are downloaded, I close Adobe and use IrfanView to view them, make small fixes, and crop, if necessary. Up to that point, I'm thinking Adobe has had no impact on the pictures. Sometimes I'll open a picture in Adobe and adjust color, contrast, etc, but not often. You haven't read the manual that comes with your D200? Perhaps you need a camera more suitable to your level of intellectual curiosity. http://tinyurl.com/2vnovu |
Playing with a Macro Extension Lens...
On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 18:50:21 -0500, HK wrote:
John H. wrote: On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 23:24:48 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: When I put the card in the card reader, Adobe Elements opens to download the pictures from the card. Once the pictures are downloaded, I close Adobe and use IrfanView to view them, make small fixes, and crop, if necessary. Up to that point, I'm thinking Adobe has had no impact on the pictures. Sometimes I'll open a picture in Adobe and adjust color, contrast, etc, but not often. You haven't read the manual that comes with your D200? Perhaps you need a camera more suitable to your level of intellectual curiosity. http://tinyurl.com/2vnovu Boy, Harry. You sure got me that time! Good work! -- John H |
Playing with a Macro Extension Lens...
On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 18:43:05 -0500, John H.
wrote: On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 23:24:48 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 17:26:40 -0500, John H. wrote: I shoot in what the D200 calls "jpg fine". Usually this hasn't been a problem. I didn't do any processing, other than cropping the sides. Not sure what you mean by 'color space'. I am going to change the sharpness setting, if I can find it. Basic primer - color space is the mathematical space in which color is expressed by numbers, the adding and substraction of to obtain shade. Put simply, this process is called gamut. There is a more detailed explanation if you are interested There are base three schemas used in defining color: RGB (which is the same method used in human site), but density (shading/combining to obtain other colors) is limited to about 30%of what is called Lab Color Space which is based on the CIE Lab1931color space. It is designated on your camera as sRGB Adobe space is called aRGB or sometimes Adobe (in the color space on your camera's menu) and has a wider gamut representing 50% of the 1931 color space. The third is Adobe's Wide Gamut space, but frankly it sucks and you probably don't have it on your camera anyway. There are other types of color spaces depending on the needs of the graphics environment, but these are the most commonly accepted in the world of digital cameras. What happens in processing is that the processor sometimes will be set to sRGB and if you take the image in aRGB, it makes the translation and you might not even be aware of it. Could be the reverse. Might not be that at all, but it's worth looking into. When I put the card in the card reader, Adobe Elements opens to download the pictures from the card. Once the pictures are downloaded, I close Adobe and use IrfanView to view them, make small fixes, and crop, if necessary. Up to that point, I'm thinking Adobe has had no impact on the pictures. Sometimes I'll open a picture in Adobe and adjust color, contrast, etc, but not often. Never mind. |
Playing with a Macro Extension Lens...
On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 00:37:43 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote: On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 18:43:05 -0500, John H. wrote: On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 23:24:48 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 17:26:40 -0500, John H. wrote: I shoot in what the D200 calls "jpg fine". Usually this hasn't been a problem. I didn't do any processing, other than cropping the sides. Not sure what you mean by 'color space'. I am going to change the sharpness setting, if I can find it. Basic primer - color space is the mathematical space in which color is expressed by numbers, the adding and substraction of to obtain shade. Put simply, this process is called gamut. There is a more detailed explanation if you are interested There are base three schemas used in defining color: RGB (which is the same method used in human site), but density (shading/combining to obtain other colors) is limited to about 30%of what is called Lab Color Space which is based on the CIE Lab1931color space. It is designated on your camera as sRGB Adobe space is called aRGB or sometimes Adobe (in the color space on your camera's menu) and has a wider gamut representing 50% of the 1931 color space. The third is Adobe's Wide Gamut space, but frankly it sucks and you probably don't have it on your camera anyway. There are other types of color spaces depending on the needs of the graphics environment, but these are the most commonly accepted in the world of digital cameras. What happens in processing is that the processor sometimes will be set to sRGB and if you take the image in aRGB, it makes the translation and you might not even be aware of it. Could be the reverse. Might not be that at all, but it's worth looking into. When I put the card in the card reader, Adobe Elements opens to download the pictures from the card. Once the pictures are downloaded, I close Adobe and use IrfanView to view them, make small fixes, and crop, if necessary. Up to that point, I'm thinking Adobe has had no impact on the pictures. Sometimes I'll open a picture in Adobe and adjust color, contrast, etc, but not often. Never mind. I'll go back to my room. -- John H |
Playing with a Macro Extension Lens...
"John H." wrote in message
... On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 00:37:43 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 18:43:05 -0500, John H. wrote: On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 23:24:48 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 17:26:40 -0500, John H. wrote: I shoot in what the D200 calls "jpg fine". Usually this hasn't been a problem. I didn't do any processing, other than cropping the sides. Not sure what you mean by 'color space'. I am going to change the sharpness setting, if I can find it. Basic primer - color space is the mathematical space in which color is expressed by numbers, the adding and substraction of to obtain shade. Put simply, this process is called gamut. There is a more detailed explanation if you are interested There are base three schemas used in defining color: RGB (which is the same method used in human site), but density (shading/combining to obtain other colors) is limited to about 30%of what is called Lab Color Space which is based on the CIE Lab1931color space. It is designated on your camera as sRGB Adobe space is called aRGB or sometimes Adobe (in the color space on your camera's menu) and has a wider gamut representing 50% of the 1931 color space. The third is Adobe's Wide Gamut space, but frankly it sucks and you probably don't have it on your camera anyway. There are other types of color spaces depending on the needs of the graphics environment, but these are the most commonly accepted in the world of digital cameras. What happens in processing is that the processor sometimes will be set to sRGB and if you take the image in aRGB, it makes the translation and you might not even be aware of it. Could be the reverse. Might not be that at all, but it's worth looking into. When I put the card in the card reader, Adobe Elements opens to download the pictures from the card. Once the pictures are downloaded, I close Adobe and use IrfanView to view them, make small fixes, and crop, if necessary. Up to that point, I'm thinking Adobe has had no impact on the pictures. Sometimes I'll open a picture in Adobe and adjust color, contrast, etc, but not often. Never mind. I'll go back to my room. -- John H Do you have access to any photography books that predate the digital era? |
Playing with a Macro Extension Lens...
On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 01:23:57 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote: "John H." wrote in message .. . On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 00:37:43 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 18:43:05 -0500, John H. wrote: On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 23:24:48 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 17:26:40 -0500, John H. wrote: I shoot in what the D200 calls "jpg fine". Usually this hasn't been a problem. I didn't do any processing, other than cropping the sides. Not sure what you mean by 'color space'. I am going to change the sharpness setting, if I can find it. Basic primer - color space is the mathematical space in which color is expressed by numbers, the adding and substraction of to obtain shade. Put simply, this process is called gamut. There is a more detailed explanation if you are interested There are base three schemas used in defining color: RGB (which is the same method used in human site), but density (shading/combining to obtain other colors) is limited to about 30%of what is called Lab Color Space which is based on the CIE Lab1931color space. It is designated on your camera as sRGB Adobe space is called aRGB or sometimes Adobe (in the color space on your camera's menu) and has a wider gamut representing 50% of the 1931 color space. The third is Adobe's Wide Gamut space, but frankly it sucks and you probably don't have it on your camera anyway. There are other types of color spaces depending on the needs of the graphics environment, but these are the most commonly accepted in the world of digital cameras. What happens in processing is that the processor sometimes will be set to sRGB and if you take the image in aRGB, it makes the translation and you might not even be aware of it. Could be the reverse. Might not be that at all, but it's worth looking into. When I put the card in the card reader, Adobe Elements opens to download the pictures from the card. Once the pictures are downloaded, I close Adobe and use IrfanView to view them, make small fixes, and crop, if necessary. Up to that point, I'm thinking Adobe has had no impact on the pictures. Sometimes I'll open a picture in Adobe and adjust color, contrast, etc, but not often. Never mind. I'll go back to my room. -- John H Do you have access to any photography books that predate the digital era? Well, I've got a library within a few blocks. -- John H |
Playing with a Macro Extension Lens...
|
Playing with a Macro Extension Lens...
John H. wrote:
On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 12:28:27 -0400, "Don White" wrote: "Reginald P. Smithers III" [email protected] wrote in message ... You wife must be a real beauty to pass along such good genes. You saying John's genes aren't so good? I get 'em at LLBean. They're good, believe me! You do know you're replying to a moron, right? |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:57 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com