dcstep

<p><strong>Lush Prairie Grass</strong></p> <p>Canon 5D MkIII, EF 15mm f/2.8 fisheye, Av Mode, ISO 200, -2/3EV, f/16, resulting in 1/250-sec., hand held, with Raw conversion and de-fishing in DxO Optics Pro 9.5</p> <p><a title="Lush Prairie Grass by David Stephens, on Flickr" href=" src="https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3878/14235540850_8ffd990d7d_c.jpg" alt="Lush Prairie Grass" width="800" height="534" /></a></p>

<p><strong>Lone Prairie Dog</strong></p> <p><a title="Lonely Prairie Dog by David Stephens, on Flickr" href=" src="https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3926/14235495509_5b3d63e406_c.jpg" alt="Lonely Prairie Dog" width="534" height="800" /></a></p> <p>Apparently this guy survived a colony extermination, or moved in after the carnage. Anyway, he's the only PD left in an area that had dozens last year at this time.</p>

<blockquote> <p>I wonder if you really need a collar on the f/4 lens. I've had two of those lenses, and I never felt that I needed it.</p> </blockquote> <p>I already said it earlier in the thread, but Dan said it better and I agree with Dan.</p>

<p>It's definitely worth the upgrade.</p> <p>Noise Reduction is only very slow if you elect to use their new PRIME NR engine, which does a pixel by pixel evaluation and correction. It's excellent, but you will not need it for most of your shots. When you try it, experiment with the percentage application. I find the default setting at 100 to smear feather and fur detail in my wildlife shots and generally end up with a compromise setting between 80 and 90. </p> <p>PRIME NR processing time will be dependent on your Ram, processor speed, etc. With my Windows PC, with 8GB or Ram and OpenCL enabled, it's five to eight minutes for 30MB Raw files. Using the default NR results in processing times usually under 10-seconds per image.</p> <p>Another tool that was added sometime after v. 7.0 was Micro Contrast, it's a great sharpening tool, particularly if you want to bring out fur and feather details. It's kind of like the Clarity slider in LightRoom.</p> <p>The changed interface may aggravate you at first, but I predict that you'll get over than in one or two processing sessions. Why they change names of functions is beyond me, but they do and you'll need a little extra time when you first use it.</p> <p>Oh, another valuable tool that I think was added after v. 7 is Lens Softness. For lenses that DxO has profiled, it'll add detailed sharpness-like correction, without artifacts. I love it and use it on almost every image. Between this slider and the Micro Contrast, I hardly ever make an Unsharp Mask adjustment. </p>

<p>Cormorant Land</p> <p>Canon 5D MkIII, EF 500mm f/4L IS, EF 2.0x TC-III, Av Mode, ISO 800, 0EV, f/8, resulting in 1/2000-sec., with Raw conversion in DxO Optics Pro 9.5</p> <p><a title="Cormorant Lands by David Stephens, on Flickr" href=" src="https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3882/14365811122_60ea4b339e_c.jpg" alt="Cormorant Lands" width="800" height="534" /></a></p>

<p><strong>Coyote In Lush Grass</strong></p> <p>Canon 5D MkIII, EF 500mm f/4L IS, EF 2.0x TC-III, Av Mode, ISO 800, 0EV, f/8, resulting in 1/3200-sec., with Raw conversion in DxO Optics Pro 9.5</p> <p><a title="Coyote In Lush Prairie Grass by David Stephens, on Flickr" href=" src="https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2905/14180703648_5e912e9114_c.jpg" alt="Coyote In Lush Prairie Grass" width="800" height="534" /></a></p>

<p><strong>Foggy Morning Row</strong></p> <p>Canon 7D, EF 70-200mm f/4L IS, EF 1.4x TC-III, @280mm, Av Mode, ISO 800, +1/3EV, f/8, resulting in 1/2000-sec., hand held, with Raw conversion in DxO Optics Pro 9.5</p> <p><a title="Foggy Morning Row by David Stephens, on Flickr" href=" src="https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2911/14180684748_296ef957cc_c.jpg" alt="Foggy Morning Row" width="800" height="400" /></a></p>

<p>Will you really need and use the collar? If so, then get the Canon collar.</p> <p>The EF 70-200mm f/4L IS is one of my main lenses and it's light that I don't think you need a collar at all. I do 99.9% of my shooting hand held and the other .1% I just attach the body/lens to the tripod using the quick release plate on the camera body.</p> <p>It's a light lens.</p>

<p>I received a call from a technician from MyPublisher, saying they did, in fact, changed presses in 2013 and it's printing darker than the old press. He suggested that I use trial and error to develop a monitor calibration for MyPublisher, where the monitor is a few points darker than my current calibration, guiding me to create brighter images for MyPublisher projects.</p> <p>Unfortunately, there was no guidance that the technician could offer on how much difference there was between the old and new presses. He also suggest sRGB color space, even though the official position is neutral regarding sRGB vs. RGB.</p>

<p>Thanks Dan.</p> <p>Customer Service has been useless so far. I actually sent the books and they said that they didn't see my problem. They promised to put me in touch with a technician via callback, but that hasn't happened. I guess I'll call again and/or email.</p> <p>My problem is with exposure, specifically under-exposing several pages in my latest book. Have you done a book in the last eight-weeks? What color space do you use, sRGB or RGB?</p>

<a href=" title="Men At Work by David Stephens, on Flickr"><img src="https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5519/12805014475_2e6b32bc96_c.jp g" width="800" height="534" alt="Men At Work"></a>

<p>I've been using MyPublisher for several years now to print vanity books of trips, wildlife and other subjects. I've printed around 15-books, most in the largest size. Up until my latest book, I've been entirely pleased with every aspect of quality, including paper, binding, colors and exposure, but my latest book has many under-exposed images.</p> <p>I use MyPublisher's proprietary software to construct my books, using a calibrated monitor. I've been taking my images in RGB color space, doing Raw conversion in DxO Optics Pro and producing a JPEG in the original RGB color space. Nothing has changed in this regard since I first started using MyPublisher. MyPublisher has a Preview function so that you can review your book prior to ordering. Prior to my last book, the exposure in the Preview and the exposure in the printed book always matched. This time, some images were up to 1-stop darker.</p> <p>Of course, I noticed the under-exposures immediately, reviewed the book again in the Preview and held the book up to my monitor to see the glaring differences. MyPublisher paid for me to send the book back, but then they reviewed it and saw nothing wrong. They would have refunded my money, but I decided to accept the flawed books, so I just got them back this evening. When I compare the pages in question to the Preview and my JPEG files, many are under-exposed. It's interesting to note that many images are properly exposed.</p> <p>Reviewing MyPublisher's site, I found no discussion at all about color space. OTOH, if you look at AdoramaPix, they insist that the best results will come with sRGB color space. I called MyPublisher to speak to a "technician" that could talk about the subject and got someone that seemed to have no idea what I was even talking about; however, he promised to have a real technician call me. That was three-days ago, and still no call.</p> <p>I'm starting the process of ordering three test books from Blurb, AdoramaPix and MyPublisher. I'll convert the images to sRGB and order a small book from each, with full-page images of some of the shots that MyPublisher had problems with.</p> <p>Seems like I read that MyPublisher and Snapfish merged recently. I wonder if there have been operational changes having negative impact on MP's QC. Is anyone else having problems with MyPublisher after having prior success?</p> <p>Does anyone have other bookmaker suggestions?</p> <p>Thanks in advance.</p>

<p><strong>Wildflower</strong></p> <p>Canon 5D MkIII, EF 500mm f/4L IS, EF 2.0x TC-III, Av Mode, ISO 800, +2/3EV, f/11, resulting in 1/1600-sec., hand held, with Raw conversion in DxO Optics Pro 9.1</p> <p><a title="Yellow Wildflower by David Stephens, on Flickr" href=" src="https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3775/14312186502_fee029e1a0_c.jpg" alt="Yellow Wildflower" width="800" height="800" /></a></p>

<p><strong>Siblings</strong></p> <p>Canon 7D, EF 70-200mm f/4L IS, EF 1.4x TC-III, 263mm, AV Mode, ISO 800, +2/3EV, f/8, resulting in 1/320-sec., hand held, with Raw conversion in DxO Optics Pro 9.1</p> <p><a title="Siblings by David Stephens, on Flickr" href=" src="https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3784/14313426184_b7c71d52b8_c.jpg" alt="Siblings" width="800" height="534" /></a></p>

<p><strong>Hovering Hummingbird Feeds</strong><br> <strong> </strong><br> Canon 5D MkIII, EF 500mm f/4L IS, EF 2.0x TC-III, Av Mode, ISO 800, +2/3EV, f/8, resulting in 1/2000-sec. hand held, with Raw conversion in DxO Optics Pro 9.1:</p> <p><a title="Feeding Hummingbird by David Stephens, on Flickr" href=" src="https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2926/14127392200_df2e958684_c.jpg" alt="Feeding Hummingbird" width="800" height="534" /></a></p>

<p>Expect to crop. Here's a shot taken with a 1,000mm rig (500mm plus 2.0x TC-III) that I cropped.</p> <p><a title="Feeding Hummingbird by David Stephens, on Flickr" href=" src="https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3665/14312169742_0c3198f506_c.jpg" alt="Feeding Hummingbird" width="800" height="534" /></a></p> <p>The extra reach will reduce the crop and preserve pixels, but rarely does it reduce the need to crop.</p> <p>Those samples with your 50-500mm don't look bad to me. What disappoints you about them?</p>

<a href=" title="Dive! by David Stephens, on Flickr"><img src="https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2846/12512254523_45b87270af_c.jpg " width="534" height="800" alt="Dive!"></a>

<p>Rob, you might show us some shots with your 50-500 that disappoint you, along with the EXIF info. There are lots of mistakes to make with a long lens. You want to get the shutter speed up over 1/1000-sec., which is pretty easy if you set ISO at 400 on bright days and 800 if it's not bright. Soft telephoto shots are usually some sort of user error or the micro focus is off.</p>

<p>Rent.</p>

<p><strong>Broad-tail Hummingbird Approaches Wild Currant Flower</strong></p> <p><a title="Feeding Hummingbird by David Stephens, on Flickr" href=" src="https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2926/14127392200_df2e958684_c.jpg" alt="Feeding Hummingbird" width="800" height="534" /></a></p>

<p>After 15-books with My Publisher, I've started having trouble with some exposures being too dark. Until this last book, all pages were perfect and matched the Preview on my calibrated monitor. On this last book, several pages were up to one-stop too dark. When I complained, they said that they didn't see any difference. When I hold the book up to my monitor and compare it to the My Publisher Preview, some, but not all pages are clearly darker.</p> <p>I think that My Publisher and Shutterfly merged. I wonder if that would explain the decline in quality control.</p> <p>I'm looking for a new provider and thinking about Adorama Pix.</p>

<p>Borja makes a good point about what's more "enjoyable". A true birder is happy seeing the bird well and identifying it. OTOH, the bird photographer wants to capture it in flight, with a perfect head angle, perfect wing position, eye-light, super background or bokeh in a complimentary color. The two activities really don't mix well.</p> <p>A photographer friend, converted from bird watcher, convinced me to go with him once with one of the local birding groups. It was a total waste of time for me, since the guide always had us on the wrong side of the light and was happy to ID many of the birds by their silhouette. Conversely, the bird watchers are going to get impatient with a photographer that wants to take 100+ images of a hummingbird in flight approaching a flowering bush. They've already counted it, multiplied by two and they're ready to move on.</p> <p>Most true birders that I know (keeping lists, hunting for rarities and always trying to increase their counts) only do photography to document and provide for later study. A very few get much deeper into photography, but they usually change hats, depending on which group they're with at a particular time.</p>

<a href=" title="Low Bridge by David Stephens, on Flickr"><img src="https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7351/9768820236_58867587b2_c.j pg" width="800" height="534" alt="Low Bridge"></a>

<p><strong>Bumble Bee Face-plant</strong></p> <p>Canon 5D MkIII, EF 500mm f/4L IS, EF 2.0x TC-III, Av Mode, ISO 1600, +4/3EV, f/8, resulting in 1/1600-sec., hand held, with Raw conversion in DxO Optics Pro 9.1:</p> <p><a title="Face Plant. by David Stephens, on Flickr" href=" src="https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3724/14089258768_c6d683e220_c.jpg" alt="Face Plant." width="800" height="800" /></a></p>

<p><strong>Hovering Hummingbird</strong></p> <p>Canon 5D MkIII, EF 500mm f/4L IS, EF 2.0x TC-III, Av Mode, ISO 1600, +4/3EV, f/8, resulting in 1/1000-sec., hand held, with Raw conversion in DxO Optics Pro 9.1:</p> <p><a title="Hovering Hummingbird by David Stephens, on Flickr" href=" src="https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5530/14273841592_6e1422b630_c.jpg" alt="Hovering Hummingbird" width="800" height="800" /></a></p>