DSLR Shots and Discussions

LunaZ

Thanks everyone
I think my tastes have changed quite a bit since I took that shot. I do love the composition and angle. I was laying on my stomach for the shot.
On the other hand, I know I really amped up the colour, contrast, and sharpness to the point of being unrealistic. I probably could have stood to open it a bit more to soften the background, but being that I was probably shooting on "the green square", that's what the camera gave me.
It's noisy as all hell, and we won't even talk about the piece of crap, non-focusing Tamron lens I had on the front of my 10D

__________________

2009 370Z Sport/Touring/Navigation | see my journal for mods
facebook: Be my friend... or not.

osbornsm

Heya there... just a photo comment... there is some pretty wicked purple fringing around your highlights. Other than that, iti's a shot i'd be proud to have on my desktop :-D

__________________

RiCharlie

You think that is something other than the color of the sky?

RiCharlie

I know its not fashionable but I like JPEG..Unless the exposure is way off, there is no need for radical RAW processing,.and frankly call me lazy..but I figure I paid enough for this camera,so let it do its thing and save me the trouble..

Yes RAW has much more flexibility,.,.,.if you encounter a situation where radical processing is needed...but so far I think its more bother than its worth for the great majority of shots..and in the end looks the same.

As for noise, i have a 14x11 print in my hand,,shot at 1600 ISO and I see no noise..and my eyesight is fine..

Plus I can shoot a whole bunch and not worry about buffer overload,.

So anyone care to have a discussion on this?

This old dog is always open to learning new tricks!

RiCharlie

I have to say it again...the shot really looks good! I dont know what problems you are seeing with JPEG..or with post processing,,,if you could be more specific or post it done the way you think it should be done, maybe I could learn something ,.,.but until then i think its excellent

LunaZ

I think I am going to re-visit it, as I have done with quite a few shots after I've learned new tricks.
And address the CA as mentioned above!

__________________

2009 370Z Sport/Touring/Navigation | see my journal for mods
facebook: Be my friend... or not.

happytheman

Great shot Eric!!

__________________
--Brantly--

onzedge

__________________

Koni|Swift|Michelin|Motordyne|Berk|RJM Performance|Gates|SPL|Motul|Technafit|Ate Super Blue|Hawk
Tommy Kaira|Momo|Optima|Hella|Hotchkis|Red Line|ZSpeed|Stillen|B&M|H&R

HKYStormFront

that's a nice looking shot Luna! The red contrasts well against the background and the composition is great

__________________
Patrick // 06 Frontier 6spd Nismosis // Mods: Uprev Tuned @ Z1 Motorsports: 257whp & 292 ft lbs
09 Pontiac G8 GXP // M6 // Sunroof // Tint... For now

10MPlayer

No need to apologize for the shot. It's nice and clear. A good photo doesn't need much post processing.

Cmike2780

Personally, the RAW vs. JPEG debate is kind of silly. They both have their advantages and for the most part a jpeg image can be good enough for certain projects. I tend to shoot more JPEG than RAW in some instances, because processing RAW can be a bit more time consuming. It really depends on the shoot. For family events that will only really see Facebook, shooting RAW is overkill. Your results will be the same as shooting jpeg, but with more work. You don't need the extra dynamic range and white balance data if your shot is pretty close to what you want. JPEG has more than enough data for minor tweaks.

For a professional shoot or stuff you want to end up in your portfolio though, it's worth it to shoot RAW because you want as much image data as possible. It's all about time and money management. It would be more expensive to do a re-shoot for fashion for example, whereas it wouldn't really matter much for snapshots of your company picnic.

It's a bit silly to take sides. Some people swear by RAW, others swear by jpeg. Until cameras can handle large, lossless RAW files without breaking a sweat, there will always be a place for a compressed jpeg file. I wouldn't be surprised if something new comes around to replace both in the near future. Lossless data with the ease of jpeg. Just think, we use to think 6 megapixel jpeg files were insanely huge at one point, but technology has allowed for cameras and computers to handle them with ease.

__________________

[09][MB][6-Spd MT][Touring][Stillen Gen III][K&N][Borla CBE][Evo-R]

6spd

If you know what you want to achieve in regards to color, noise, sharpness, etc, before you shoot, there is no "need" for RAW. For instance, when I shoot a car, I know my white balance is correct, I control the lighting with either my lights, and I can shoot 100 ISO, therefore I only shoot in JPEG. But, last night, I shot a concert in a bar and the lights were dim, unevenly colored, and very unevenly directed. Even using my primes @ ~f/2, I knew I had to crank the ISO up around 2000 to 3200 to shoot handheld, so I shot RAW. This way I can go in later and apply my noise correction and make subtle color balance changes in RAW. If I were to do this in Photoshop with a JPEG (at least with the resources available to me), It'd likely create artifacting and hurt the image quality, which is already less than I wanted due to the high ISO. I'll post some when I finish them.

__________________
-Jay- jonathanjamesphotographer.com

RiCharlie

I agree If the camera can make the correct adjustments no need for RAW..There is a program called Noise Ninja that i used to use but when I switched to Windows 8 all that software for Photoshop Elements was useless..

Pintsize725

The Deltawing at COTA. Probably compressed thanks to Photobucket.

__________________
Tracie

10MPlayer

So I haven't told the wife yet but I bought a new macro lens today ... a Canon 100mm 1:1 with USM AF, the works. I took some pictures at the rose garden after the rain this afternoon.