cromwell1664877587

<p>Brian, being that you're asking why the photos on Photo.net aren't as sharp as the same picture you uploaded from your hard drive(at least I feel pretty certain that's what you're asking), you need to resize the pictures to 680 pixels wide or smaller. When clicking on a picture wider than 680 pixels to view it in the large uploaded size, it should look the same as what you have on your hard drive, but to keep the default view of the picture from being compressed keep it at 680.</p>

<p>IE and FF 3.6.7 look the same. The helpful comment question needs to go up a tad. It is directly below the dotted line instead of directly above it.</p>

<p>Your screenshot looks proper, but when looking at any image, the "was this comment helpful" is not below the correct dotted line and it is a little confusing if we are saying yes or no to the right comment. Probably just a temporary glitch.</p>

<p>Thanks for the pics, Steve. I didn't have anything but a sliver of sky on the iso500 shots and nothing that was exposed close to yours. The shot with the most sky, with an area that was almost exposed like yours, and with an angle to the sun that was close to yours was an iso250 shot. When you scroll around to find the spot that comes close to matching yours, it might be a hair cleaner than your iso400 shot. I think it's going to be rainy and cloudy for the next week, but if I get a chance I'll put on the same lens as yours and try to replicate your shots at higher iso's. I suspect now that they'll be pretty close. I'm thinking I might just go ahead and quit worrying about it and try to enjoy my new toy that I couldn't afford. <br /> </p>

<p>Then both of our settings were pretty close to the same and my iso500 sky shot looks about like your iso3200. Pretty significant difference between two shots from the same model of camera. You want to trade?</p>

<p>I didn't do any sharpening or NR. The camera was set to the default sharpening of 3 out of 7. Just as the 20D was set to the default setting. When shot in RAW, nothing done, and converted it's still set to the same sharpening. Pretty much the same difference. I realize I'm about the only one left that shoots exclusively in jpg, but I think my samples do have some meaning, especially for us jpg shooters....me and that one other guy. Unless you were talking about the poster's crop samples, then agreed. We need the whole untouched pic.</p>

<p>

Although I'm more concerned with lower iso than 1600, since that's what I'll mostly be shooting, the iso1600's look pretty darn close to call to me. I didn't say anybody said the 20D had bad high iso, but they're all saying the 7D has way better high iso than the 40D and 50D. You're right, most people never even bring up the old 20D...my bad. Yes, yes, you get more pixels to play with. I'm well aware of that, but not my point. If you want to go to extra post processing work, then you wouldn't sharpen the oof background, but for all intents and purposes we have to judge the pics without any selective post processing.

</p>

I promise not to put this same basic post in all of the 7D praise posts, but at the moment I'm not getting all this noise free 7D hoopla. From my experience, the noise in skies is far worse with a 7D than with my 20D. If those are 100% crops then you had the sharpening turned to 0 and the images were super soft and/or(probably and) you had the noise reduction cranked up. If I'm wrong, please email me some full size pics or post some straight from the camera pics somewhere with all the exif data. Here's a 100% crop of the sky I took yesterday with my fisheye lens at iso500, noise reduction set to standard, and sharpening set to standard. Like I said in another post, maybe I just got a bad copy, but I'm starting to hear other people say the same about theirs. My very first picture with my 7D was of a bird house in the middle of my yard with an out of focus stockade fence for the background. I immediately picked up my 20D, took the same shot with the same settings and compared. The 20D shots had a creamy background, the 7D shots looked like crap. I then started to panic, jumped in my car with my camera, and went to the camera store to compare theirs with mine. Naturally, they didn't even have a display model left, so I'm still in a state of panic.:) Here's a test comparing my 20D with the 7D. <strong>I'd love to hear any 7D owners opinion of them....better, same, worse than what their 7D does.</strong> All the camera settings between the two are identical and the only thing I did to the pics out of the camera was change their names. You can float over the right side, click on "original", then right click and save. <a>http://sccromwell.smugmug.com/Other/7D-VS-20D/9838232_cUmmb#668848655_YMveL</a> Dark area noise is about the same, but the averagely exposed plain background like the wall has more noise than the 20D. I could get rid of some of that noise by setting the sharpness to 0, but after sharpening in Photoshop or DPP to equal the sharpness of the 20D, it's back to the way it would have been. It seems like I shoot mostly at iso400, so I took the 20D test shot, upsampled it to 18mp, brightened, and color balanced to match the 7D sample, although not sure why it wasn't the same to begin with. Given the brutality I gave the pic, it looked surprisingly good compared to the 7D test shot. The 7D was obviously better, but we're talking about the hot new 18mp compared to a 5 year old 8mp camera's pic that just got upsampled 225%. The difference was not that great and it should have been. <div></div>

<p>

I got a 7d a couple of days and couldn't be more unhappy. I hear all these people saying how great the noise is, but mine is comparable or worse than my 20D. In dark shadows the noise is about the same, but with a solid out of focus background the noise is worse, like the sky or the yellow wall in my samples. I did a test comparing the 2. Both cameras set exactly the same with the same lens, noise reduction off, straight from the camera jpgs. Judge for yourself. I have 12 days left to send it back and eat the 15% restocking fee. As many people that are praising this camera, I'm wondering if mine is bad enough that I can send it in for a replacement at no charge, or it's just getting undo hype. You can float to the right side and click on "original" to view the entire untouched pics. <a href="http://sccromwell.smugmug.com/Other/7D-VS-20D/9838232_cUmmb#668848655_YMveL">http://sccromwell.smugmug.com/Other/7D-VS-20D/9838232_cUmmb#668848655_YMveL</a>

</p>

My apologies, Josh, but I meant no offense toward any of you guys. I said I know you know what needs to be done and am in hopes it will be done soon, because I just can't get passed them. So yes, I do think you guys have a clue. They probably shouldn't bother me so much, but they honest to God do. I just tried to read my post from your point of view and I guess it could have been worded differently, but I think there's some misunderstanding going on.

Well put, Kurt. It's more than just a little obvious to anyone with an artistic eye what basically has to be done with the arrows....put them at the bottom of the picture just outside the title box. I would say, keep the arrows the same size and turn them from white to a little lighter than the color that surrounds them now, so you can do away with the visible area that surrounds them. I know you guys know this and have basically stated so....kind of. I just hope the predetermined amount of time you have set so that most of the occasional users of this site are familiar with the arrows is drawing to a near, because I honestly haven't been able to thoroughly enjoy a photo on this site for 2-3 weeks now. Right now, people are going to be clicking on the arrows and driving up the image views. They're a brand new feature, not to mention a huge distraction that takes just as much or more attention than the actual picture. That doesn't mean they're looking at more of our pictures(at least not 15-20% more)....just playing with the new buttons. Of course, maybe it takes 15-20% more image viewing to get our fix when the quality is diluted with bold arrows.

Thanks for the reply, Josh....my rude behavior and all. It doesn't sound like something that will be changed anytime in the near future.

Tim - I added a sentence I probably shouldn't have, due to being freshly frustrated. I'm not going to ask what your excuse is.

 

Scott - I have been sending them there. My point is, they can no longer see everything from that page. They have to then click on "view complete gallery on one page".

I've been away from this site for a little while, but still send people a link

to my portfolio. How long ago did you make the change to include only 20 images

per folder when viewing a portfolio? Most people don't know to click on "view

complete gallery on one page". I wouldn't have known if I didn't notice some of

my best work was missing. This is certainly one of the worst moves you guys

have ever made. I suppose now I have to go through and create more folders so

none of them contain more than 20 images. Be sure and email me when you get

even more stingy and knock it down to 10 images per folder. If your reasoning

is to save bandwidth, I'll pay you another 25 bucks to put it back the way that

it was.

I don't have any pics to show how it makes people look different, but here's one of my dog that you're more than welcome to use.<div></div>

The master will always fire a preflash that makes it look like it is actually going off, even when it's set to not fire. Just to confirm, set the slave to manually fire at full power with the master set to not fire, and test it. There won't be any mistaking the output from a preflash and full power.

Looking at nudes is not what bothers me. What bothers me is knowing the rating system is under attack by one or more persons that have made bots, programs, or whatever to put all of the nudes at the front of the TRP and no one at PN seems to be willing or able to stop them. For as long as I can remember, every so often this would happen, but it would only last for a few days until Brian or whoever caught them and fixed the problem. Now it seems like this has been going on for months and getting worse. Since most of the nude photos have bogus anonymous rates, I suspect most of the anonymous rates in general are bogus. I keep hearing something about a new system that is supposed to be taking effect in the near future that will solve most of these problems. The only thing is, I've been hearing this for I think about a year now. Btw Josh, the new top photo option does help and is a very good idea, but it's not a solution to the REAL problem, although granted, it is a solution to a problem. I like to go through the top photo list and also look at the nude photos that deserve to be towards the top, not a lot of the nasty crap that's been there recently.

I just discovered an update to IE7 fixes the problem.

The more I think I about, the more I'm sure I was at least partially wrong in my last comment. I've done very little macro shooting this year, but thinking back, I remember always losing some light with extension tubes and never when I used dioptors.

Anupam, you might want to add that when people do this test, they keep in mind the dof with the tubes is going to be greater than what they're used to the camera saying it should be. Example: Lay a receipt on the table with a flashlight laying down shining on it. The flashlight is because you have to get closer with the dioptors and you don't want the ambient light you're blocking to have any affect. Fill the frame with a word using 2 250Ds stacked on the end of your lens. Your camera may read f8 at 1/60. Take the same shot with a set of extension tubes and your camera may read f8 at 1/20. When you look at the pictures, the shot with the tubes has a much greater dof, so when you compensate by opening up the aperture to have the same dof as the shot using the dioptors, the shutter speed should be about the same. As far as answering your question, Weiyang, a set of Kenko extension tubes are cheaper and will probably give you a little higher quality picture.

You're still missing 9 combinations, Tom. 3-6,3-7,4-6,4-7,5-7,6-3,7-3,7-4,7-5

The thumbs are blazing today. Yea!

This site quite often has that problem, Glenn. Lately though, it's been so bad I just get frustrated and go somewhere else. It's worse than the dial-up days. There seems to be very little response to this question, so I performed a full update of Windows, since I use Internet Explorer, and there is no change. No response from Brian either, so maybe he doesn't think this is a real problem....or maybe he's just busy working on it. I hope so.

I'm surprised there haven't been more people complaining about this, since it is a real problem with their system. I currently have a <a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/3730535">photo</a> that I posted two days ago that would currently be the top rated photo in the last 3 days under "rate recent avg", but is not even showing up in the list. I requested a critique immediately after uploading it. Within less than half an hour I got 6 anonymous ratings, but in that same amount of time I got 4 or 5 straight ratings. Since this has happened to me before, I think I've figured out that this is where the problem lies. If you get several ratings that aren't anonymous at the very beginning of your critique, it probably won't end up on the "rate recent avg" list. So when you submit a photo, hope that it's good but not so good that people viewing it with the other 15 thumbnails in the "newest critique requests" don't rate it.