momente

<div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>

You probably missed this:

 

http://www.photo.net/photo-posting-guidelines

The camera was set at auto w/b. First shot (the one with those strong blue tones) was taken at mid-to-long telephoto right from the store, the lighting conditions were not fluorescent, but rather dim daylight. Time was around 12:00 AM. Of course the particular store I was in was artificially lit, and the other two indoor shots show that, although I think it was halogen light, not fluorescent. And I do use a calibrated monitor. <p> Saturation is a matter of taste, of course, and most people who only take candid snapshots of family and flowers would probably love this particular output. However, I don't think the camera is aimed at that market-segment. I'd figure people who are willing to pass on an XT kit in favour of the R1 glass expect results as close as possible to the real thing (or at least a convenient way to make them so). I also wonder if anyone tried shooting sRGB with the saturation turned down to -1 (someone on this forum complained that this setting stripped away the colours too much; I really wish I'd see some more samples), because although Adobe RGB could be a solution (thanks for the answer and the image, I've sent you an e-mail), it implies I'll have to change the color space for each image before saving for web..

I'll keep it simple. For more comprehensive info, you should really google some more.

 

<p> If you want a decent video camera, buy a video camera. You won't get truly respectable video-results (in terms of length & quality) out of a digital camera. If your priority is shooting a lot of video, and the occasional photograph, consider buying a video camera which can take decent photographs (there are some 2 MP good video cameras around). <p> On the other hand, if you are primarily shooting a lot of photographs and need the occasional video-clip, then your choices are limitless, as most consumer digicams offer you just that. Also, your budget is way too big. With 300-350 $ you can get a very good canon powershot (like the a 610, for instance, which can record videos and also has full manual controls, in case your interest in photography grows), extra batteries and a large memory card.

Although I also print images, I mainly share my work online. From what I know, sRGB is recommended for most computer-based uses -- but I do not like the colour saturation of sRGB in the R1. So.. should I shoot adobe-RGB, hopefully get natural results, and then convert those more natural looking images in sRGB for online uploading? Pff..

final example.<div></div>

further examples<div></div>

I just had the chance to play around a bit with a Sony R1. I must say that

although I'm generally pleased with how it feels and responds, I was <b> very

taken aback </b> with how atricious the green and cyan tones are rendered in

sRGB (also a very contrasty output altogether). Unfortunately, I didn't have

enough time to search through the menu and set Adobe RGB. I also want to add

that I'd prefer to go around the RAW mode and shoot low sharpened jpegs (file

size and speed is an issue for me), so natural colours are quite important. <p>

Since I couldn't locate a site or previous post where I can find a colour space

comparison for the r1 (the same caption taken with sRGB and aRGB), I'd be really

interested (and grateful) if one of the r1 owners could provide some info on

this (preferably out of the camera aRGB samples). <p> ps: I don't understand why

Sony pumped up the colours in such an obvious way, after all this machine isn't

a mediocre, pocket-fitting, idiot-mode P&S.<div></div>

there's a small cocoon, right there in front of its 'nose' :)<div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>

I finally got across to someone. Thank you, Frans.

"It doesn't pull magic pixels out of the air."

 

Maybe I had that coming, being so prolix in my previous posts. What I asked was if there is such a thing as losing detail because of 'low sharpening'. Here's an example: the tiny hairs on a plant; is it possible for the camera, if sharpening is set low, not to pick those little hairs at all? So even if I sharpen the image afterwards, there won't be anything to sharpen, because the details simply aren't there in the first place. This could, of course, be wrong (and almost surely is, because the low sharpening mode doesn't probably influence the lens' general capability altogether), but I'd feel better if I was sure about this. <p> However, if this problem isn't generally known and there's no clear answer (that low sharpening can or cannot lead to unrecoverable loss of details), I'd better start order some prints, as Rob suggested.

I don't know what I was thinking, of course I should have posted 100% crops (after all that dpreview reading, I feel quite stupid). Meanwhile, I experimented with some more photos taken with and without 'low sharpening' mode; the differences might be noticable in highlighted areas, where the default in-camera sharpening sometimes makes it harder for me to further work on those specific areas, because they tend to show visible artifacts when re-sharpened. <p> My main question is still this one: <p> * Is it possible, in practice, that after turning down the in-camera sharpening, one might lose image-details, in the sense that the camera would produce an image so soft, that even in post-processing the finer details won't be revealed - details that otherwise could and would have been captured in normal mode? (nomral mode = default in-camera sharpening)

'low sharpening' (2)<div></div>

normal mode (2)<div></div>

'low sharpening'<div></div>

Hi. I own a powershot a 85. I intend to buy a sony r1, and I know that in order

to get the most out of that Zeiss lens, it's recommended that you shoot with

sharpening turned down (-1), then apply unsharp mask in PS. <p>

Now, I presume that using the 'low sharpening' mode on my small Canon could also

allow me to get better results after toying around with sharpening in PS,

right?. I took a few sample shots - same subject, same settings (max res,

superfine jpegs, full manual mode, tripod), only switching 'low sharpening' on

and off, between captures. <p>

I then downloaded the images, resized them in ps cs1, and tried to get the best

results in terms of sharpness (applying different usm settings to each). Here

are the results (are the differences noticeable?) <p>

Concluding: should I always shoot with low sharpening turned on, considering

that I generally run all of my shots through PS, anyhow? I mean, theoretically,

since I avoid potential sharpening artifacts, this can't be a bad move, right?

What I'm worried about is this: is it possible, in practice, that turning down

the in-camera sharpening might result in loss of details, in the sense that the

camera would produce an image so soft, that even in post-processing the finer

details won't be revealed - details that otherwise could and would have been

captured in normal mode?<div></div>

Joao, if Brian (and those that think the current rating system is as good as it is ever going to get) is right about something, it's this: not all photos get that 'instant' 3. I had some of my own shots starting out out with 7s and 6s, and then collected the usual 3s. A gaussian distribution, I think. <p> I'm also not sure about the idea that only people with an active portfolio should be allowed to rate; I've encountered many.. well.. serious photographers who just didn't have their images uploaded on p.net. <p> I've also noticed that there's been some talking about judging the rater's competence by the general score of his own shots -- in this case, who and how decides what level is good or bad? Does my general 4,6/4,7 make me a mediocre or aspiring 'photographer'? <p> The anonimity tick box would be a welcome and perhaps effective (not miraculous, though) upgrade (I, too, suggested it, not a long time ago), though.

Kenneth, keep in mind that only anonymous ratings are relevant to the top photos thread. I'm not sure that's very fair, but it's the way things are, at the moment.

lol. Sorry, I know it's not funny, but.. a mushroom in the lens, can't help smiling. Why don't you photograph the intrusion -- or how do you expect relevant feedback, otherwise?

Ah. I think I gather what w/nw means. At first, I thought he meant to submit it for critique. And yes, I'm still getting familiar with the forum, so my excuses..

I think Ellis' first post is articulate & pertinent enough not to need any re-formulation.