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................

[jazzman1]

Oh one more note, you can't trust all those reviews you read.  The best you can draw is a general or loose consensus.  Nothing more.  Most have no idea what they are talking about

Got ya.   Will continue tonight when I get to my son's.  I'm going through Kentucky right now.  Stopped at Mickey D.

[jazzman1]

---

@ebiggs1 wrote:

One word about printing.  The print you get will only be as good as the printer or print service you use.  The best lens made along with the best camera will pale and fall flat if you have a crappy printer.  Or, if you use a crappy print service.  Choose wisely here!

---

I'm looking for a monitor for this weekend.  I will also bite the bullet and get LR.  My funds are in the same shape, but I just got my income tax return.   Never hurts for a little unexpected cash to show up  (grin)

Will cont tonight at my son's.

[jazzman1]

---

@ebiggs1 wrote:

A couple thoughts ..........

I always prefer Canon equipment.  I am pretty loyal to Canon.  Especially in the lens department.  The thing that really seperates Canon from the only other brand that even comes close or is even in the game is Nikon, is its lenses.  Nobody has Canon lenses!  Period. End of story. Not debatable.

At the moment Nikon has the best sensor made but it isn't a brand-N sensor.  It is made by Sony.  Nikon buys it from Sony.  Even from the beginning Nikon could not make a sensor. The finally realized that fact.  This caused brand-N a great loss that is just recently been improved.

However if I were to need a top of the line camera, today, right now, it would still be the EOS 1Dx and not the brand-N, highly regarded D4s.  Why, if Nikon has the best sensor?  Because of the lens line-up, that is why.

But there is a flip side to this story.  Canon does have some holes in the lens line-up.  When that becomes appearent, I look at third party lenses. This could be from the fact Canon does not make that lens.  I know it is rare but it happens.  Another is price.  Canon gets pretty costly for seemingly no reason.  Why produce the best lens in the world, if nobody can afford it?

This is a short list but I am satisfied that a very few (Sigma and Tamron) have made exceptionable strides in lens design and performance.

A few short years ago, I would never consider a third world lens.  But even I have to admit SIgma has made extreme improvements in lens IQ and quality control.  Tamron is pulling up fast but lags behind Sigma.  Avoid Tokina, still pretty much .*.*.  well you know the word.  Avoid all the rest, too, but that should go without saying. Right?  Of course, right!

Oh one more note, you can't trust all those reviews you read.  The best you can draw is a general or loose consensus.  Nothing more.  Most have no idea what they are talking about.

---

did'nt know nikon did'nt make their sensors.  they don't make camcorders either.  Canon really does have a heads up in many areas.

The reviews I'm referring to have pics and shows the different distortions in each lens at different ranges.  I've seen many such reviews.  I suppose it's not hard to play wide and loose with pics though. 

i've noticed canon has wide holes in certain range lens.  guess they can't cover every range and aperture.  

i have seen that 3rd party 50mm and the price is nice.  i have a 50mm but it's cheap...1.8.  would 50mm be good for a closeup like the kid you posted???    If so, that would be the way to go....1.4 or 1.2???

[jazzman1]

---

@ebiggs1 wrote:

One word about printing.  The print you get will only be as good as the printer or print service you use.  The best lens made along with the best camera will pale and fall flat if you have a crappy printer.  Or, if you use a crappy print service.  Choose wisely here!

---

thanks for the heads up on that.

[jazzman1]

---

@ebiggs1 wrote:

"Sharpness", hmm that is a biggie for sure but as I say it is not the sole issue.  You need to remember almost any piece of cheap, ----, glass will become sharp as it stops down.  You don't want to consider any of the other issues a lens can have? 

 No. 1: Lens Flare
 No. 2: Vignetting
 No. 3: Converging Verticals
 No. 4: Barrel Distortion/pin cushion
 No. 5: Lens Diffraction

 No. 6: Build

 No: 7: Ease of use

 No. 8: etc ... and on, and on, and on ...

Have you ever looked at some of the old Civil War photos?  I mean really look at them?  They are sharp, now I mean really sharp.  Do you think we have better or worse or the same lens technology today as they had over a 150 years ago?

Sharpness is important.  It is very important but it needs to be kept in perspective and all things considered. 

I'm back home Obiwan.  Thanks for this lens discussion.  I'm taking it all in.  No I have not examined any of those old B&W photo's, but i have seen some.

You know I made a compromise in my lens purchases when I chose f/4's instead of f/2.8.   Before I got my 70-300mm L, I was looking at the 70-200mmL in 2.8 and 4.  In every review I read the 2.8 L tested better than the f/4L, but I would have still went with the f/4.  I even chose my 70-300mm L, knowing the 70-200mmL was a sharper, better rated lens.   But I felt the compromise I made was best for me.  Saying all this to show you sharpness is not absolute with me.  It is an important charactoristic of a lens that i look for but not the only thing.

On a Monitor, I'm going for a HP 23" 1080P mod # 23cw.  What do you think????

LR 5 or 6???    6 is newest, reading mixed reviews.   Some think 5 better.

---

[ebiggs1]

"On a Monitor, I'm going for a HP 23" 1080P mod # 23cw.  What do you think????"

I have no opinion since I never used one or even remember seeing one.  I can't give a yay or nay on it.  When I can't give a personal review, I don't.  I generally don't trust any of those reviews you read.  As I stated the best you can draw is a general, loose, consensus from them.  Unless, of course, I know the person doing the review.

However, as I salo stated, I would get the very biggest monitor possible.  For me right now, that is two 27" monitors.  Currently, I am in the process of considering the new Microsoft 32" curved monitor. I think I could work with just one with it. Pretty impressive.  But for you get the biggest you can.  You won't regret it.

"LR 5 or 6???    6 is newest, reading mixed reviews.   Some think 5 better."

There you go, again, believing the reviews are gospel.  Without doubt get LR6, geeze.  It requires a 64-bit machine, you know?

Also buy it.  Don't do the cloud, BS , that Adobe pushes.

That said, I am not so sure you are going to benefit from LR 5 or 6.  After the latest go round with you.  Get the monitor (hopefully a 27") up and running first.  If you are not able to see the vast array of adjustments and/or corrections, stay with the free DPP.  There is a newer version 4 of DPP out.   Its pretty nice especially for free.  I just d/l the latest DPP4, as is my routine, and am toying with it.  Bob from Boston,  would be proud and grinning ear to ear.  Canon is getting there. 

[RobertTheFat]

---

@ebiggs1 wrote:

"On a Monitor, I'm going for a HP 23" 1080P mod # 23cw.  What do you think????"

I have no opinion since I never used one or even remember seeing one.  I can't give a yay or nay on it.  When I can't give a personal review, I don't.  I generally don't trust any of those reviews you read.  As I stated the best you can draw is a general, loose, consensus from them.  Unless, of course, I know the person doing the review.

However, as I salo stated, I would get the very biggest monitor possible.  For me right now, that is two 27" monitors.  Currently, I am in the process of considering the new Microsoft 32" curved monitor. I think I could work with just one with it. Pretty impressive.  But for you get the biggest you can.  You won't regret it.

I'd be cautious about giving or following that advice too rigorously. Intelligent monitor selection involves consideration of both size and resolution. If, for example, you're considering a 23" monitor of a given number of pixels, it would be silly to buy a 27" monitor with the same number of pixels unless you were planning to view it from a greater distance. But a 27" monitor with the same pixel density (measured in pixels per square inch or per inch along either the x or the y axis) is apt to be very expensive. So my advice is to buy a monitor of the highest resolution that (a) you can afford and (b) your eyesight is good enough to resolve at a normal viewing distance. The size of the monitor is really just a side effect of those two objectives.

There are other selection criteria too, of course: color fidelity, image stability, adjustibility, persistence, flicker rates, etc., etc., some of which are merely matters of personal preference.

[jazzman1]

---

@ebiggs1 wrote:

"On a Monitor, I'm going for a HP 23" 1080P mod # 23cw.  What do you think????"

I have no opinion since I never used one or even remember seeing one.  I can't give a yay or nay on it.  When I can't give a personal review, I don't.  I generally don't trust any of those reviews you read.  As I stated the best you can draw is a general, loose, consensus from them.  Unless, of course, I know the person doing the review.

However, as I salo stated, I would get the very biggest monitor possible.  For me right now, that is two 27" monitors.  Currently, I am in the process of considering the new Microsoft 32" curved monitor. I think I could work with just one with it. Pretty impressive.  But for you get the biggest you can.  You won't regret it.

"LR 5 or 6???    6 is newest, reading mixed reviews.   Some think 5 better."

There you go, again, believing the reviews are gospel.  Without doubt get LR6, geeze.  It requires a 64-bit machine, you know?

Also buy it.  Don't do the cloud, BS , that Adobe pushes.

That said, I am not so sure you are going to benefit from LR 5 or 6.  After the latest go round with you.  Get the monitor (hopefully a 27") up and running first.  If you are not able to see the vast array of adjustments and/or corrections, stay with the free DPP.  There is a newer version 4 of DPP out.   Its pretty nice especially for free.  I just d/l the latest DPP4, as is my routine, and am toying with it.  Bob from Boston,  would be proud and grinning ear to ear.  Canon is getting there. 

I'll get the monitor next week.  I have to order it, BB does'nt have it in stock.  It's 1080P.   They have 4000 K (ultra HD)out now but cost much as my lens.   What do you mean..."vast array of adjustments and corrections???????????????"       Last time I checked DPP 4 won't work with my 60D, mostly only with full frame bodies.  It works with Bob's bodies, he has FF. 

I don't take reviews for the gosple, I only use them as info,  I told you that.  Obiwan, you don't listen good to what I say at times.  You seem to sometimes hear what you want to hear.   I think many times you really don't get a clear picture of things I say.

---

[RobertTheFat]

---

@ebiggs1 wrote:

"LR 5 or 6???    6 is newest, reading mixed reviews.   Some think 5 better."

There you go, again, believing the reviews are gospel.  Without doubt get LR6, geeze.  It requires a 64-bit machine, you know?

Also buy it.  Don't do the cloud, BS , that Adobe pushes.

That said, I am not so sure you are going to benefit from LR 5 or 6.  After the latest go round with you.  Get the monitor (hopefully a 27") up and running first.  If you are not able to see the vast array of adjustments and/or corrections, stay with the free DPP.  There is a newer version 4 of DPP out.   Its pretty nice especially for free.  I just d/l the latest DPP4, as is my routine, and am toying with it.  Bob from Boston,  would be proud and grinning ear to ear.  Canon is getting there. 

---

Me? Gloat? Surely you jest!

[jazzman1]

---

@RobertTheFat wrote:

---

@ebiggs1 wrote:

"On a Monitor, I'm going for a HP 23" 1080P mod # 23cw.  What do you think????"

I have no opinion since I never used one or even remember seeing one.  I can't give a yay or nay on it.  When I can't give a personal review, I don't.  I generally don't trust any of those reviews you read.  As I stated the best you can draw is a general, loose, consensus from them.  Unless, of course, I know the person doing the review.

However, as I salo stated, I would get the very biggest monitor possible.  For me right now, that is two 27" monitors.  Currently, I am in the process of considering the new Microsoft 32" curved monitor. I think I could work with just one with it. Pretty impressive.  But for you get the biggest you can.  You won't regret it.

I'd be cautious about giving or following that advice too rigorously. Intelligent monitor selection involves consideration of both size and resolution. If, for example, you're considering a 23" monitor of a given number of pixels, it would be silly to buy a 27" monitor with the same number of pixels unless you were planning to view it from a greater distance. But a 27" monitor with the same pixel density (measured in pixels per square inch or per inch along either the x or the y axis) is apt to be very expensive. So my advice is to buy a monitor of the highest resolution that (a) you can afford and (b) your eyesight is good enough to resolve at a normal viewing distance. The size of the monitor is really just a side effect of those two objectives.

There are other selection criteria too, of course: color fidelity, image stability, adjustibility, persistence, flicker rates, etc., etc., some of which are merely matters of personal preference.

Thanks Bob, I understand.  Here's a link to checkout:

http://www.bestbuy.com/site/hp-pavilion-23-ips-led-hd-monitor-jet-black-natural-silver/3795033.p?id=...

---