cancel
Showing results for 
Show  only  | Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

DSLR 101

ebiggs1
Legend
Legend

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

 

_DS37738.jpg

Normal RAW exposure.

 

1.jpg

 

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.

 

2.jpg

 

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.

 

3.jpg

 

Corrected RAW.

 

4.jpg

 

Corrected jpg.  But below lets look a little closer.

 

5.jpg

 

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

 

6.jpg

 

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................Smiley Happy

 

EB
EOS 1DX and 1D Mk IV and less lenses then before!
210 REPLIES 210


@ebiggs1 wrote:

"Long as I see a logical reason for change I will do so no problem."

 

And herein lies the conclusion.  When does the pupil become as the teacher?  That is the question.  By now you should know what you want and what direction you want to go.  You decided "pro" is not for you.  Fine.  It is not for everybody and in reality more fail at it than make a living.

If you want and think the EF 100mm f2 is going to enhance your hobby, go for it.  Personally I would not buy it.  Neither is right or wrong! Plus buying it is not a life sentence. You can sell it if you find it isn't for you.  I do this a lot now that I am playing around instead of trying to make money.

 

But you do need to notice what the pros use.  Whether you are one or not.  They know what works and what doesn't.

The Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS USM Lens is a very fine lens.  Top drawer!  Anybody would like using it.  But it is not for me mainly because the Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II USM Lens is there.  And it is way more useful in my thoughts.  But that is me and you need to do what you believe it right.  

 

You need to move on further from the sharpness thingy being the sole criteria for judging a photo.  Not all photos are sharp by design.  And I still think you need a better monitor as I believe you can not see what you need to.  Maybe spend the money on that before a new lens?


I have told you what I want and where I want to go.  In the last couple posts I told you the lens I'm going with.  Since you say what you did, I'll go with the 85mm.   I'm never confused as to who is the teacher and who the pupil.   I have thoughts and ideas, you have suggestions and direction.   With my budget it'll sometimes be a compromise.   I really wanted the 70-200mmL and agree with you,  it's top tier.  But I wanted a little more reach and the 70-300mmL was about the same price.  I really like and wanted the new 100-400mm IS ll L also, but decided to get the 70-300mmL now and go for longer reach (600mm) later with one of the 3rd party lens you've mentioned that you like and think a good buy.  I do take notice of what the pro's use, and more to the point, what you use.   But money is always a factor with me and many times I have to compromise here.  I think with the 24-105mmL, 70-300mmL, and whichever 85mm I choose, I will have a good lenses foundation to build on.   I can then take my time and add the right lens to my collection in the future, taking my time and not compromise. Least this is how I'm thinking.  If there's any holes here you can tell me.

 

Far as sharpness and the monitor I won't mention sharpness again.  You seem to have issues with me and that term.  The monitor is on my list.   So is LR.   The 70-300mmL came yesterday.  I love it, it's as nice as I envisioned.   Bigger and heavier than I thought, but it'll work just fine.   Really happy to get rid of the 75-300 it really was a lens that irked me, I may have to give it away.   I'll be going back to the Zoo next week with the 24-105L and new 70-300L.  Gonna have much fun this time, I tell ya.

.  


@ebiggs1 wrote:

Remember a 85mm on a crop body is going to appear like a 135mm.  Which is begining to be a little long for portraits most of the time. IMHO, of course.


Thanks.  I did forget about the crop factor here.  You're right, 85mm would be better for me.  Do you think a different lens  better?

One reason I am backing down on replies is because you are making your best decisions and don't need me to tell you.  You know your needs and requirements by now.  I simply try to estabilish a base for those decisions.  That is done.

 

You are the one that says "sharpness" as your first thought.  A photo that is  supposed to be sharp should be but not all are supposed to be.  This make sharpness just one of several cinsiderations.

 

The 24 -105mm includes 85mm inits focal range.  Does it not?  You have a 24-105mm and now a 70-300mm, STOP.  You need other items way more than a 85mm lens.  If budget is truly the objective?  You are telling me one thing than you do something else.

 

If you just are still in the lens buying mode than you should go wide.  Something like the ef-s 10-22mm and not a 85mm.

10-22mm, 24-105mm and 70-300mm is pretty a good lens inventory.  IMB, (in my book) that is.  IMHO, too, of course.

EB
EOS 1DX and 1D Mk IV and less lenses then before!

"Thanks.  I did forget about the crop factor here.  You're right, 85mm would be better for me.  Do you think a different lens  better?"

 

Yes, I do.  A 50mm would be better.  Better yet neither!!!!!!!!!!  You have the 24-105mm.  Do you not????  It includes 50mm and 85mm.  Smiley Frustrated

EB
EOS 1DX and 1D Mk IV and less lenses then before!


@ebiggs1 wrote:

One reason I am backing down on replies is because you are making your best decisions and don't need me to tell you.  You know your needs and requirements by now.  I simply try to estabilish a base for those decisions.  That is done.

 

You are the one that says "sharpness" as your first thought.  A photo that is  supposed to be sharp should be but not all are supposed to be.  This make sharpness just one of several cinsiderations.

 

The 24 -105mm includes 85mm inits focal range.  Does it not?  You have a 24-105mm and now a 70-300mm, STOP.  You need other items way more than a 85mm lens.  If budget is truly the objective?  You are telling me one thing than you do something else.

 

If you just are still in the lens buying mode than you should go wide.  Something like the ef-s 10-22mm and not a 85mm.

10-22mm, 24-105mm and 70-300mm is pretty a good lens inventory.  IMB, (in my book) that is.  IMHO, too, of course.


Yes I know the 24-105mm covers 85mm.   But I thought a prime is better at any range than a zoom.   I thought all zooms were compromises.   And my 24-105mm is a "4L".  I thought something in prime at f/2.8 or faster aperture would be better.  I would need something for indoors, lower light.  I did'nt think my 24-105mmL would be good indoors, low light, at 85mm for closeups.   Are you telling me it would be????    

 

I'm not in the the lens buying zone now, I'm satisfied for now.   My budget has'nt changed things are as I told you.  I can wait for a wide lens for now.   I do see other lens in my future, but I'm quite happy at the moment.


@ebiggs1 wrote:

"Thanks.  I did forget about the crop factor here.  You're right, 85mm would be better for me.  Do you think a different lens  better?"

 

Yes, I do.  A 50mm would be better.  Better yet neither!!!!!!!!!!  You have the 24-105mm.  Do you not????  It includes 50mm and 85mm.  Smiley Frustrated


 

 

See my privious answer to this.

"I'm not in the the lens buying zone now, I'm satisfied for now.   My budget has'nt changed things are as I told you."

 

Hmm, OK, I am glad you come to this conclusion.  You need a good monitor next.  The bigger the better.  Than a good post editor.  

A 85mm prime can be better than a zoom.  You can't just say that without qualifications.  THAT is the point I am trying to get across to you.  Why I stress, your notice of sharpness most of the time as the sole point of a lens.  Just as when a sharp photo must be sharp, all photos are not necessarily so.  You must consider the whole which also includes the camera.book-5-2.jpg

EB
EOS 1DX and 1D Mk IV and less lenses then before!


@ebiggs1 wrote:

"I'm not in the the lens buying zone now, I'm satisfied for now.   My budget has'nt changed things are as I told you."

 

Hmm, OK, I am glad you come to this conclusion.  You need a good monitor next.  The bigger the better.  Than a good post editor.  

A 85mm prime can be better than a zoom.  You can't just say that without qualifications.  THAT is the point I am trying to get across to you.  Why I stress, your notice of sharpness most of the time as the sole point of a lens.  Just as when a sharp photo must be sharp, all photos are not necessarily so.  You must consider the whole which also includes the camera.book-5-2.jpg


I like this pic too.

 

I'm aware of what you say about lens, and camera too.  I will think hard on that when I get my FF body in the future.   By then, the top body today be obstlete so I won't decide till I'm ready to buy.   I'm picking my lens with FF body in mind.  I speak so much about sharpness because I'm building my lens foundation and want these 1st lens to be sharp.   I can go for the other qualities in my lens later, I can factor all that in as I build my lens collection.  I plan to probably have maybe 8-10 more lens total overtime.   I will need ...... indoors, lowlight, closeups, wide angle, Micro, long range, very long range, etc.   The qualities for each I will look for at the time and purpose I need them for.   Some I will look for good boken (fuzzy background), etc.  

 

I have a monitor in mind and LR too.  All in good time.   Kinda wanted LR next.

"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? Smiley Sad

 

 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. 

 

For instance I just sold two lenses, a Sigma 50mm f1.4 and a 85mm f1.4, which are claimed by some to be the sharpest lenses in these focal lengths made. Period.  Bar none!  I chose and would rather have the Canon EF 50mm f1.2 and EF 85mm f1.2.  Why, you say?  Because f1.2 was a bigger factor for me than "sharpness".

 

I might add, BTW, the waterfall photo was done in PS.  There was no filter on the lens involved.  And there was no tripod used either.  It is a sample from a tutorial on how to use PS.

EB
EOS 1DX and 1D Mk IV and less lenses then before!


@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? Smiley Sad

 

 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. 

 

For instance I just sold two lenses, a Sigma 50mm f1.4 and a 85mm f1.4, which are claimed by some to be the sharpest lenses in these focal lengths made. Period.  Bar none!  I chose and would rather have the Canon EF 50mm f1.2 and EF 85mm f1.2.  Why, you say?  Because f1.2 was a bigger factor for me than "sharpness".

 

I might add, BTW, the waterfall photo was done in PS.  There was no filter on the lens involved.  And there was no tripod used either.  It is a sample from a tutorial on how to use PS.

 

 

Thanks Obiwan, that's great info.  But really, I was already aware of all those things you mentioned about difference in lens, encluding aperture.  I mentioned aperture myself in getting f/2.8mm or faster for low light and indoors.  After all our conversations and all your comments, you should be aware of what I know and don't know.  I've told you more times than I care to mention I'm aware that sharpness is not the only quality in a lens to look for.  Still does'nt change what I'm looking for in a lens at any particular moment.  I have my reasons and needs and that is the biggest factor in what I look for at any given time.....same as you, I'm no different.

 

Far as all the other issues lens have the problem for me is I see very few in my own pics.  I see and read about all that in site reviews and such.   Even in reviews of the particular lens I'm using at the time.  But I rarely see alot of those things with my naked eyes in my very own pics that I take.   That's really my problem Obiwan....what I can see with my own eyes.   Things are only a problem for me, if I can see those issues in the pics I take.  I've found, as you say all the time....."my real world results" are not the same as all those site reviews that point every issue out of a lens or pic.  I see very few of those issues I read about in those reviews in my pics.   Not saying my pics have none of that, just that I rarely see that stuff in my pics.  But really Obiwan, an issue is only a n issue if I can see it.   If I don't see it, it's not a problem I'm gonna concern myself with too much.

 

Yep, I like your pic, and see the object was not sharpness there.  Did'nt know how you created it, but thought you created that look with aperture and shutter speed.   Did'nt think you used a filter, you said you don't like or use them.  I can also envision LR or PS alterations.   In fact where did you take that pic????   You seem to have alot of photo secenary and opertunies where you live.  You seem to get out taking nice pics at will.  Your town must be an intersting photo opt place to take shots.   Here where I live there's no lack of photo oppotunities.  I will start to venture into some of those shots you take all the time.   I just wanted the lens I thought I would need to accomplish the shots and resuts I want.   I know LR will aid me along in that venture and desire.   I'm going to start experimenting and using deifferent setting with aperture and shutter speeds.


 

Announcements