DSLR 101

[ebiggs1]

Here is a sample of RAW and how it can help make your photos better. 

Normal RAW exposure.

Normal exposure jpg.  They look pretty close because you are looking at a computer monitor.  The RAW has been converted to jpg in post.  The original jpg was done by the camera, a 1Ds Mk III in this case.

However, suspose you got something wrong. In this case I under exposed it by 3 stops.  But it could be any condition.  WB, color balance, saturation, and on and on, etc.

Corrected RAW.

Corrected jpg.  But below lets look a little closer.

Especially check the shadows. Can you see the difference?  Need a better look?  OK, here is a 100% crop of that enlargment.

It should be blantly obivious that RAW is the way to go.  All else was equal. Same camera. Same lens. Same time of day. Same, same!

Get Lightroom................

[ebiggs1]

Time to start a new thread?  This one is getting pretty long in the tooth.   Unless there are no more questions!

[jazzman1]

---

@ebiggs1 wrote:

"I ordered the HP 23" 1080P Monitor at BB"

It isn't big enough but whatever.  It's not me.  The viewing angle doesn't really matter unless you are watching a movie or baseball game.

You let the reviewers make the dicission for you...........again.  

---

i will just let you see things as you will.  but i don't let any review...absolutely none ....make a purchase decision for me.  not in a lens or anything else.  i use reviews only as a guide and info, but the ultimate choice is mine.  I've never blamed a review for any of my bad choices on a purchase.   i bet Bob don't think I do either.  this is your issue, not mine.

i'm only getting this monitor cause you insist i upgrade.  but i really would rather spend my money on other things more important to me.  i know you wanted me to get a bigger, even better monitor, but i just don't want to spend more money on a monitor.  i'm not doing anything professional i really need one for.  Many of those monitors you like run over $1,000.00 and I just can't justify that kind of expense on a monitor right now.  i read up on better monitors for video editing and as you say the smallest size suggested is 24", that's a minimum.  but i neither have use, the room, nor the desire, to spend more money on a monitor.  maybe later when my needs change Obiwan.  If we were talking about a lens i would need ....no problem, but not a monitor, least ways not right now.  Sorry Obiwan, i really hate to disappoint you here.

[jazzman1]

---

@ebiggs1 wrote:

Time to start a new thread?  This one is getting pretty long in the tooth.   Unless there are no more questions!

---

there's always more questions.  but i follow your lead.

[ebiggs1]

I guess it must be the mixed signals I seem to be getting.  Saying one thing here and doing another is what has lead me to say what I did.  You are right, however, you need what fits you, not me.  If you read the entire post you should have seen this "It isn't big enough but whatever.  It's not me."

Remember I have no interest beyond seeing you succeed but in the end you must do what you believe is right.  Your path is not mine and there are many.  Whatever and most important, do not buy a monitor because I said so or anybody says so.  Buy it because you want it and see the requirement.  The very reason Canon and others make such a vast array of product is everybody is different.  There is sure to be something that works for you and is right.

At this point I suggest, if you care, do not buy Lightroom.  Wait at least for a while.

[jazzman1]

Thanks for your insightful reply.  Yes I saw your statement on monitor size.  That's why I got at least this 23".  Not quite what you wanted but close.  I do relate to how you feel here, I've experienced it myself when I mentored guys and helping them.  Sometimes I have gotton too emotionally involed and lost my objectivity.  Sometimes I have wanted things the indiviual did'nt want for themselves. There were times I tried to push some faster than they were capable of going or even understanding at that point.  For me it's been a learning process and I have found that mentoring can be a 2-way street where I learned as much or more than those I was trying to teach.  My learning came in other areas, usually, but no less important.  You're a very knowledagable photographer and you have alot to offer and share.  Don't give up trying to help, it's peeps like you that make the world a nicer, kinder place, for newbies the world over.

i'll probably keep the monitor anyhow.  it'll get used one way or the other.  I will holdup on LR for now. 

Thanks my Obiwan.

[ebiggs1]

If you care to further this discussion go to the new thread, DSLR 101 2.0

[jazzman1]

BTW......I just saw a Canon Lens that puzzles me.  I thought Canon L lens were the top of the line, the best, and most expensive.  I saw a "non L" lens that cost more than a L lens, of the same range and simular aperture.

,

$1399.00    Canon 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM

$1349.00    Canon 70-300mm f/4-5.6 L IS USM

Both lens are very simular in aperture, though not exactly the same.  One is a "L" (grey lens)     The other is a "DO" (black lens) with a thin green line around the front edge that costs more.

All the reviews (for both lens) say the L lens (grey) is the better one......it's sharper, better contrast, better build, better IQ.   But the DO which is not a L, costs more as you can see from above.   How is this, I don't understand.  This is the 1st time I have seen this.  I cannot understand how Canon would charge more for a lessor quality lens????

Also, why can one not improve, IQ with lessor quality lens, in the pics with post editing to match the better lens???  Why can't a pic's IQ match the quality of better lens in/after post editing???  I'm sure you have a logical answer for all this.

[ebiggs1]

The Canon 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM incorporates Canon's DO (Diffractive Optics) and IS (Image Stabilizing) technologies.

The use of Diffraction Optics allows a lens to be shorter, lighter, and of higher image quality than comparable normal optical systems of the same focal length and aperture-while this lens is heavier than the consumer-grade EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM lens, it is 28% shorter and uses Canon's very best ring-USM (ultrasonic) motor instead of the lighter, slower, and less costly 'micro-USM' motor.

[jazzman1]

Well that explains the quality and cost of this lens, especially over the consumer grade version.  But I still don't understand why would Canon price it over their L version???    Does'nt make any sense to me as to why would Canon think anyone would buy this lens over the L version...for more money.  I would'nt.

[ebiggs1]

" I would'nt."

Well maybe you wouldn't.  But the "DO" lenses fullfill a design goal.  As is the very important reason for you to make a goal and requirements, too.  And, then stick to it!  Some photographers see the need for a shorter very high IQ lens and will certainly buy it.  They are nothing short of amazing and I don't believe any other company has one.

EF 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM and the EF 400mm f/4 DO IS II USM are exclusive to Canon.