MWGL Photography thread
- Thread starter jaxn slim
- Start date
- Status
mongooz
.
i'm not inclined to search back thru a bunch of pages, so......make? model? attach some pics?
parrotheada1a
Resident Pitmaster
mongooz
.
my cam has a setting to capture both raw & jpeg. so when i get home i can look at the jpeg's to see if i got a 'good' shot and then if i did, i open the raw (max resolution) and convert (makes a copy) to hi-res jpeg. then i just delete everything that wasn't good enough.
Hanglow
Not Phil
this
I've had VR on a couple of the basic Nikon lenses but they are way behind this one in terms of stabilisation, at least for stills
It is over a foot long though with the hood on, so im going to look some sort of filthy pap if I try it out in public
I always shoot in RAW and JPG at the same time. Most canons can do both at the same time. Raw is super useful for adjusting exposure post image capture, and it can rescue a picture from some serious mistakes. Sometimes. The exposure on these pictures was fine so these are JPG files straight from the camera that were then cropped and processed in Luminar.
Last edited:
mongooz
.
what kind of 'processing' do you typically do?
the only software i have is the stuff that came with the cam (Sony Alpha), so yea, exposure, color, saturation, contrast, etc. but that's it. no 'painting' things out of the pic. what you got, is what you shot.
Vignettes, color filtering, enhance saturation, blurring selectively/tilt shift, other minor enhance of shadows, etc. you can get Luminar for a free trial and test out some filters.
If you want I can post the original images straight from the camera so you can compare them. The original images are not particularly dynamic, and the processing helps add some excitement to the shots that looked quite static as they are short exposure without motion blur.
mongooz
.
yea.....that would be cool.
i don't have any experience with 'processing'. i have seen some nature photography that has been processed and HDR'd to the point that it's definitely not real, and it wasn't done for 'effect', it's just SO over sharp and SO over color saturated, that it turned me off on the 'processing' thing.
The nice thing about processing is that if you save with a new file name you can always go back to the original and try different things. I like what I did with these pics, but others might do something different. I take pictures for fun and I make what I like as the output. One can make a hundred different versions of these couple of images, and the processing is actually kind of fun to see what you can do to add to the original image.
shoeless
Riffin'
The view from the train station. I have taken that exact same shot more than once.
parrotheada1a
Resident Pitmaster
I do exactly that with my screenies from F04. Sometimes a shot that looks decent in game does not look so hot once you look at it again. Doubly so if the shot ends up being too dark or too light. I've made probably 20 different automatic multi filter presets that get most post processing done. Even then there are times when I need to change stuff up manually.
Sigma 18 - 300mm or Tamron 16 - 300mm ?
From what I've seen (including a couple of YouTube videos directly comparing them), the Sigma sounds like it has slightly better image quality then the Tamron, but the image stabilization and build quality is better on the Tamron. The Tamron is $200 more new, but I can get a used Tamron for a bit less than a new Sigma.
Normally, I'd heavily weigh the picture quality when making my choice, but considering post processing programs can fix chromatic aberration and barrel/pincushion distortion given lens correction files (which exist for both these lenses), I'm wondering if a slightly better picture quality matters.
The Sigma has a USB dock which allows updating the firmware and tweaking the focus, but I'm not sure how much of an advantage that is.
From what I've seen (including a couple of YouTube videos directly comparing them), the Sigma sounds like it has slightly better image quality then the Tamron, but the image stabilization and build quality is better on the Tamron. The Tamron is $200 more new, but I can get a used Tamron for a bit less than a new Sigma.
Normally, I'd heavily weigh the picture quality when making my choice, but considering post processing programs can fix chromatic aberration and barrel/pincushion distortion given lens correction files (which exist for both these lenses), I'm wondering if a slightly better picture quality matters.
The Sigma has a USB dock which allows updating the firmware and tweaking the focus, but I'm not sure how much of an advantage that is.
mongooz
.
i like my Sigmas. i don't have experience with Tamaron.
- Status