brett_cole

I would like to see all POTW and top rated photos displayed side by side with

their untouched original captures out of the camera. Then we could have honest

discussions about said photographs.

Thanks Rick,

 

I do a lot of field work for others, and they never say "the photos looked good but they were kind of bright," so it doesn't seem extreme in any case. I had a book published last year, printed offset in Hong Kong, and the tonally was really good across the board, with 250 photos shot over three years. That seemed to me like an assurance that the tonality of my work in general was in a good range. These factors are one reason this threw me for such a loop today. I'll take into account your experience with the charts.

 

Thanks

Hi Pete,

 

No offense taken at all. I'm obviously an idiot for not having a better handle on this all along. All I did was adjust my brightness while looking at the chart, and met the stated criteria for the white bar and the two black bars.

 

Actually, meeting it completely meant my brightness went way up, from 35 to 60, so I dialed it back down to 53. But all the photos on my site where tonally corrected with brightness at the old level of 35. With it there, the two bars were almost all black.

 

That's why I'm confused. I expected people here to say, yeah everything is too bright.

 

I downloaded quickgamma but am still trying to figure out how to use it.

 

Thanks for taking time to respond in general

Thanks Tim,

 

I sent you an email about Autoeye

Thanks again everyone for the nice and helpful comments. I am confused, as now that I've set my brightness higher everything looks bright and washed out on my CRT. This is the test I used - The "gamma and black level" chart on the right halfway down

 

http://www.normankoren.com/makingfineprints1A.html

 

I realize as a working photographer I should have a real calibration method. My spider broke and I haven't broken down and bought a new one. My old Lacie monitor was calibrated. It broke (lots of breaking in my gear world), I inherited a nice Decaview, and everything looked peachy with the brightness set were it was when I got it (35), so I never bothered.

 

If you look at the "old" homepage, don't the solid color fields (blue and brown) in fact look too bright.

 

Thanks again

Thanks guys. Yikes! What is going on then, because they looked great on my CRT (and most others too, although too bright on maybe 50% of other CRTs I've observed them on), but way too washed out on most LCDs. Then I ran a few of the standard gamma adjustment apps, and they all indicated my monitor brightness was way too low. I wound up cranking it quite a bit, as I indicated.

 

Gotta love photo.net. Ten minutes and two responses already.

<p>THE PROBLEM</p>

<p>Not the photos so much as the monitor at the time that they were processed,

but therefore the photos as well. </p>

<p>I realized my monitor has been set too dark. My work looked good tonally on

my CRT - when it was set too dark - and on most other CRTs, but bright and

washed out on LCDs.</p>

<p>I adjusted for proper gamma and wound up changing the brightness setting

from 35 to 53 on the monitor. Yikes... I am assuming I'm in for a big round of

image adjustment now, but wanted to get feedback from folks first.</p>

<p>HELP WANTED</p>

<p>Not fishing for input good or bad on my photos, just tonality and gamma

issues. Not wondering whether my method of gamma adjustment/calibration is good

or bad, just whether the images on my site, as you see them right now, appear to

have incorrect gamma (too bright, lacking low end)</p>

<p>If it were you and you now had to readjust these photos, what would your

likely adjustment be?</p>

<p>THE URL</p>

<p>My url is <a href="http://www.wildnorthwest.org">www.wildnorthwest.org</a></p>

<p>The old home page (before I darkened the solid colors blues and brown,

photos are all the same) - <a

href="http://www.wildnorthwest.org/old.html">www.wildnorthwest.org/old.html</a></p>

<p></p>

<p>Thanks,</p>

<p>Brett</p>

Hey all,

 

My D60 starting producing posterized images today. Was shooting fine then all of

a sudden images became screwed up. Attached picture shows typical example. Any

help diagnosing would be much appreciated.

 

I've tried: Changing CF cards, formatting card, changing battery, changing

lenses, changing ISO, swapping lenses, shooting RAW vs. jpeg, resetting custom

functions to factory defaults, and shooting with and without flash.

 

Thanks,

Brett<div></div>

NeatImage works wonders on high grain/noise images. Used by pros around the world with very good results.

I'm talking about the 400 5.6, not the 100-400.

L stands for "luxury," and means a lens has professional characteristics in both build and optics

The ring really isn't necessary with this lens

I owned the 20-35mm zoom years ago and would recommend against it. Just bad quality all around. 24 2.8 is my recommendation

I posted on this before and everyone said there is no option to retain AF, but

I've purchased the Tamron-F 1.4x AF Tele, and it works perfectly on my 20D with

the 400 5.6. I have tested the AF at all apertures and ISOs, and using single

shot and servo, and the performance is fine in all scenarios - low light, low

contrast, etc - it behaves no differently than without the converter. It's

surprising it works at all since the instruction booklet for the tele says it

needs f4.5 lenses to work, but there you go. So, anybody looking to extend

their 400 5.6 go check this tele out. ($99)

For backpacks there's the regular LowePros and the big ones, and waterproof/non-waterproof versions. They're all good and will take years of abuse. Since you'll be spending a fair amount on it, maybe think about its future use as well.

 

If you're going to rent a lens for CR and it's between the 300IS and the 100-400, definitely get the zoom. Some wildlife there is far away but some of it can be pretty close. You'll want the range. There are lots of dramatic sweeping landscapes throughout the country so definitely bring a wide angle. Unless you're going to languish in the forest, you may not need a macro, but then you'll likely see quite a few bugs and will regret not having it.

 

I've shot birds in Costa Rica most of the time without flash, or with diffused fill flash within 20 feet of the subject, with no need for flash extension.

 

If you go to Monteverde look for my book! I'm the photographer for the Tropical Science Center, which administers Monteverde, and I authored the first and only official photo book of the Preserve. Have spent lots of time there. It's a photographer's paradise, and the light is a lot friendlier than most of the rest of the country.

 

A few of my MV pics

 

http://www.wildnorthwest.org/galleries/mv/index.html

 

Have a good trip -

Thanks for the resolution of the question. Much appreciated.

Write-up for the Tamron says:

 

"The TAMRON 1.4X TELECONVERTER/CANON EOS features 4-element 1.4x teleconverter for autofocus lens mounts, and autofocus with lenses that are F/4.5 or faster"

 

That would seem to rule out the 400 5.6

So the Tamron 1.4 retained AF for the 100-400? I have the 400 5.6. What do you think? I'm trying to find out if any 1.4s are definitely AF compatible with the 400 5.6. I know the Canon isn't. Word seems to be still be out on the Kenko.

 

Its fine with me if I only get the AF center point only.

Is the answer in the word "full"? Does the Kenko retain AF, but its spotty, whereas the Canon loses it entirely?

Ok, so B&H lists this tele as an accessory for the Canon 400 5.6, which is what

I would be getting it for. But in the write-up it says:

 

"Full AF operation is only possible with lenses with open aperture of f/4 or

brighter. Please be aware that AF will work properly only if there is enough

light and contrast on the subject to activate the camera's AF sensors. "

 

That would seem to rule the 400 5.6 out right? Why would they list the Kenko as

an accesory then, but not the Canon 1.4x, which although basically compatible,

loses AF?

 

Can anyone say with certainty that the Kenko retains AF when used with the 400

5.6?

 

It's on a 20D btw, I know that Canon 1 series bodies are more compatible with

the teles.

 

Thanks

Adobe RGB images will look washed out in color mamaged programs that use the sRGB space

Karen, you should lobby to have day games! I shot this at 1/2000th at f5.6 at 400<div></div>

I live right next to Hayward Field (famous UO track stadium). I guess I'm used to that level of stadium lighting. I'm a nature photographer though. I've only shot a few track events - all daytime. Sorry to underestimate the light. I did qualify my advice by saying if the field is well-lit.

Should have stated I'm using a 400 5.6

If you're asking about the built-in exif data - camera settings, etc. I can't help.