If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
The new 100-400mm seems to work.
On Mon, 09 Jul 2018 12:00:14 -0700, Savageduck
wrote: On Jul 9, 2018, PeterN wrote (in article ): On 7/8/2018 11:06 PM, Savageduck wrote: The only thing I can think of was the very strong wind factor, and the possibility that the OIS was just not able to keep up. Try my quick and dirty test to sharp. Shoot a brick wall. That will quickly tell you if you have a lens issue. I think that this was a case of what area of the photograph was examined (or pixel peeked). A very high percentage of the shots have the targeted windsurfer sail quite sharp, while the wind blown wavetops are admittedly a mess. If there were any issue they were probably due to shooting handheld in gusty strong wind, and my having to familiarize myself with a new lens. Check this shot and a 100% crop of the top of the sail. https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-f5k8TQh/0/9ebe2259/O/i-f5k8TQh.jpg Now that's better. https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-xJ9w5gP/0/a2225efd/O/i-xJ9w5gP.jpg .... and that's interesting ... umm. -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
The new 100-400mm seems to work.
On Jul 10, 2018, Eric Stevens wrote
(in ): On Mon, 09 Jul 2018 12:00:14 -0700, Savageduck wrote: On Jul 9, 2018, PeterN wrote (in article ): On 7/8/2018 11:06 PM, Savageduck wrote: The only thing I can think of was the very strong wind factor, and the possibility that the OIS was just not able to keep up. Try my quick and dirty test to sharp. Shoot a brick wall. That will quickly tell you if you have a lens issue. I think that this was a case of what area of the photograph was examined (or pixel peeked). A very high percentage of the shots have the targeted windsurfer sail quite sharp, while the wind blown wavetops are admittedly a mess. If there were any issue they were probably due to shooting handheld in gusty strong wind, and my having to familiarize myself with a new lens. Check this shot and a 100% crop of the top of the sail. https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-f5k8TQh/0/9ebe2259/O/i-f5k8TQh.jpg Now that's better. https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-xJ9w5gP/0/a2225efd/O/i-xJ9w5gP.jpg ... and that's interesting ... umm. ....and what exactly did you find interesting? -- Regards, Savageduck |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
The new 100-400mm seems to work.
On Tue, 10 Jul 2018 22:11:27 -0700, Savageduck
wrote: Check this shot and a 100% crop of the top of the sail. https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-f5k8TQh/0/9ebe2259/O/i-f5k8TQh.jpg Now that's better. https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-xJ9w5gP/0/a2225efd/O/i-xJ9w5gP.jpg ... and that's interesting ... umm. ...and what exactly did you find interesting? I was thinking that the edges look slightly fuzzy and the contrast is soft. Here by way of comparison is a photograph I took some years ago when I first got my D300 https://www.dropbox.com/s/usuksr9zjd...C1038.jpg?dl=0 and here is a 100% crop of the same image. https://www.dropbox.com/s/s6v6tu0sin...8-100.jpg?dl=0 No processing has been done other than converting from NEF to JPG. -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
The new 100-400mm seems to work.
On Jul 12, 2018, Eric Stevens wrote
(in ): On Tue, 10 Jul 2018 22:11:27 -0700, Savageduck wrote: Check this shot and a 100% crop of the top of the sail. https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-f5k8TQh/0/9ebe2259/O/i-f5k8TQh.jpg Now that's better. https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-xJ9w5gP/0/a2225efd/O/i-xJ9w5gP.jpg ... and that's interesting ... umm. ...and what exactly did you find interesting? I was thinking that the edges look slightly fuzzy and the contrast is soft. Here by way of comparison is a photograph I took some years ago when I first got my D300 https://www.dropbox.com/s/usuksr9zjd...C1038.jpg?dl=0 and here is a 100% crop of the same image. https://www.dropbox.com/s/s6v6tu0sin...8-100.jpg?dl=0 Now I am somewhat baffled that you find my windsurfer shot above in anyway comparable to your postage stamp size kite shot. Here is a different example from the same shoot, with a 100% crop. https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-sFT2N6g/0/2fd7f912/O/i-sFT2N6g.jpg https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-mRpmjJz/0/6d12881d/O/i-mRpmjJz.jpg ....and if it is a kite shot you need, there were kite surfers there, so here is one which can provide a more meaningful comparison with a 100% crop. https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-qGmChmc/0/c22cf6b3/O/i-qGmChmc.jpg https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-87wst94/0/84a9ac51/O/i-87wst94.jpg No processing has been done other than converting from NEF to JPG. Would it have mattered, given that the original target was so small? -- Regards, Savageduck |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
The new 100-400mm seems to work.
On Thu, 12 Jul 2018 22:41:48 -0700, Savageduck
wrote: On Jul 12, 2018, Eric Stevens wrote (in ): On Tue, 10 Jul 2018 22:11:27 -0700, Savageduck wrote: Check this shot and a 100% crop of the top of the sail. https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-f5k8TQh/0/9ebe2259/O/i-f5k8TQh.jpg Now that's better. https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-xJ9w5gP/0/a2225efd/O/i-xJ9w5gP.jpg ... and that's interesting ... umm. ...and what exactly did you find interesting? I was thinking that the edges look slightly fuzzy and the contrast is soft. Here by way of comparison is a photograph I took some years ago when I first got my D300 https://www.dropbox.com/s/usuksr9zjd...C1038.jpg?dl=0 and here is a 100% crop of the same image. https://www.dropbox.com/s/s6v6tu0sin...8-100.jpg?dl=0 Now I am somewhat baffled that you find my windsurfer shot above in anyway comparable to your postage stamp size kite shot. Postage stamp? That is an artifact of Dropbox. You should be able to down load the file. When I do that I get a full height image. On my screen the 100% shot is 180 x 165. Here is a different example from the same shoot, with a 100% crop. https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-sFT2N6g/0/2fd7f912/O/i-sFT2N6g.jpg https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-mRpmjJz/0/6d12881d/O/i-mRpmjJz.jpg That is sharper. There is a fuzzy edge to part of the sail but I suspect that has been caused by highspeed flutter. ...and if it is a kite shot you need, there were kite surfers there, so here is one which can provide a more meaningful comparison with a 100% crop. https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-qGmChmc/0/c22cf6b3/O/i-qGmChmc.jpg https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-87wst94/0/84a9ac51/O/i-87wst94.jpg I picked the kite photo because the way the camera was able to resolve the full length of what was not a particularly large cord, which was probably less than 1/3 of the diameter of the cords used by the kite surfers in your shot. No processing has been done other than converting from NEF to JPG. Would it have mattered, given that the original target was so small? I can't understand your comment about that, particularly because Dropbox seems to have removed the EXIF data. -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
The new 100-400mm seems to work.
On Jul 13, 2018, Eric Stevens wrote
(in ): On Thu, 12 Jul 2018 22:41:48 -0700, Savageduck wrote: On Jul 12, 2018, Eric Stevens wrote (in ): On Tue, 10 Jul 2018 22:11:27 -0700, Savageduck wrote: Check this shot and a 100% crop of the top of the sail. https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-f5k8TQh/0/9ebe2259/O/i-f5k8TQh.jpg Now that's better. https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-xJ9w5gP/0/a2225efd/O/i-xJ9w5gP.jpg ... and that's interesting ... umm. ...and what exactly did you find interesting? I was thinking that the edges look slightly fuzzy and the contrast is soft. Here by way of comparison is a photograph I took some years ago when I first got my D300 https://www.dropbox.com/s/usuksr9zjd...C1038.jpg?dl=0 and here is a 100% crop of the same image. https://www.dropbox.com/s/s6v6tu0sin...8-100.jpg?dl=0 Now I am somewhat baffled that you find my windsurfer shot above in anyway comparable to your postage stamp size kite shot. Postage stamp? I was refering to the kite, which is less than postage stamp size regardless of your crop. That is an artifact of Dropbox. I don’t seem to get DB artifacts which shrink kites. Strangely enough I don’t get any DB introduced artifacts of any type. You should be able to down load the file. Yup! When I do that I get a full height image. On my screen the 100% shot is 180 x 165. Strange? Your original downloads as a 6MB, 2848x4288 @ 300dpi, jpg. Your 100% crop downloads from DB as a 656KB, 1056x1152 @ 300 dpi jpg. ISO200, f/11, 1/400, 16-85mm Here is a different example from the same shoot, with a 100% crop. https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-sFT2N6g/0/2fd7f912/O/i-sFT2N6g.jpg https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-mRpmjJz/0/6d12881d/O/i-mRpmjJz.jpg That is sharper. There is a fuzzy edge to part of the sail but I suspect that has been caused by highspeed flutter. ...and if it is a kite shot you need, there were kite surfers there, so here is one which can provide a more meaningful comparison with a 100% crop. https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-qGmChmc/0/c22cf6b3/O/i-qGmChmc.jpg https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-87wst94/0/84a9ac51/O/i-87wst94.jpg I picked the kite photo because the way the camera was able to resolve the full length of what was not a particularly large cord, which was probably less than 1/3 of the diameter of the cords used by the kite surfers in your shot. ....and that makes for a nice abstractish line in the sky. No processing has been done other than converting from NEF to JPG. Would it have mattered, given that the original target was so small? I can't understand your comment about that, particularly because Dropbox seems to have removed the EXIF data. Nope! All the EXIF data was complete DB removed nothing. Here is what I got after downloading your 100% crop. https://www.dropbox.com/s/vui0lq9vhhjghr0/screenshot_338.jpg? I considered your target to be the kite, and that was resolved so small in both the original, and the 100% crop that determining sharpness of that kite image to be near impossible. Therefore my thought that no amount of post processing would have made a difference. -- Regards, Savageduck |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
The new 100-400mm seems to work.
On Fri, 13 Jul 2018 17:52:25 -0700, Savageduck
wrote: On Jul 13, 2018, Eric Stevens wrote (in ): On Thu, 12 Jul 2018 22:41:48 -0700, Savageduck wrote: On Jul 12, 2018, Eric Stevens wrote (in ): On Tue, 10 Jul 2018 22:11:27 -0700, Savageduck wrote: Check this shot and a 100% crop of the top of the sail. https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-f5k8TQh/0/9ebe2259/O/i-f5k8TQh.jpg Now that's better. https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-xJ9w5gP/0/a2225efd/O/i-xJ9w5gP.jpg ... and that's interesting ... umm. ...and what exactly did you find interesting? I was thinking that the edges look slightly fuzzy and the contrast is soft. Here by way of comparison is a photograph I took some years ago when I first got my D300 https://www.dropbox.com/s/usuksr9zjd...C1038.jpg?dl=0 and here is a 100% crop of the same image. https://www.dropbox.com/s/s6v6tu0sin...8-100.jpg?dl=0 Now I am somewhat baffled that you find my windsurfer shot above in anyway comparable to your postage stamp size kite shot. Postage stamp? I was refering to the kite, which is less than postage stamp size regardless of your crop. I misunderstood you. I thought you were referring to the image as a whole. I picked the kite image as as a convenient example, as the string was a single sharply delineated object so narrow that any blurring of the edges would be immediately visible. I included the full image only to show where 100% crop came from. The point I was trying to make was that the unprocessed kite image seemed to be sharper than top of the sail in your image. That is an artifact of Dropbox. I don’t seem to get DB artifacts which shrink kites. Strangely enough I don’t get any DB introduced artifacts of any type. You should be able to down load the file. Yup! When I do that I get a full height image. On my screen the 100% shot is 180 x 165. Strange? Your original downloads as a 6MB, 2848x4288 @ 300dpi, jpg. Your 100% crop downloads from DB as a 656KB, 1056x1152 @ 300 dpi jpg. ISO200, f/11, 1/400, 16-85mm Here is a different example from the same shoot, with a 100% crop. https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-sFT2N6g/0/2fd7f912/O/i-sFT2N6g.jpg https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-mRpmjJz/0/6d12881d/O/i-mRpmjJz.jpg That is sharper. There is a fuzzy edge to part of the sail but I suspect that has been caused by highspeed flutter. ...and if it is a kite shot you need, there were kite surfers there, so here is one which can provide a more meaningful comparison with a 100% crop. https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-qGmChmc/0/c22cf6b3/O/i-qGmChmc.jpg https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-87wst94/0/84a9ac51/O/i-87wst94.jpg I picked the kite photo because the way the camera was able to resolve the full length of what was not a particularly large cord, which was probably less than 1/3 of the diameter of the cords used by the kite surfers in your shot. ...and that makes for a nice abstractish line in the sky. At the time I was most interested in the curve in the line caused by the wind shear. No processing has been done other than converting from NEF to JPG. Would it have mattered, given that the original target was so small? I can't understand your comment about that, particularly because Dropbox seems to have removed the EXIF data. Nope! All the EXIF data was complete DB removed nothing. Here is what I got after downloading your 100% crop. https://www.dropbox.com/s/vui0lq9vhhjghr0/screenshot_338.jpg? Here is what I got when I tried to access the EXIF of the Dropbox image using Firefox. https://www.dropbox.com/s/cy1csuvrm2s8k8k/Kite.jpg?dl=0 Normally I get the full EXIF. I considered your target to be the kite, and that was resolved so small in both the original, and the 100% crop that determining sharpness of that kite image to be near impossible. Therefore my thought that no amount of post processing would have made a difference. And still it was sharp. -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
The new 100-400mm seems to work.
On Jul 13, 2018, Eric Stevens wrote
(in ): On Fri, 13 Jul 2018 17:52:25 -0700, Savageduck wrote: On Jul 13, 2018, Eric Stevens wrote (in ): On Thu, 12 Jul 2018 22:41:48 -0700, Savageduck wrote: On Jul 12, 2018, Eric Stevens wrote (in ): On Tue, 10 Jul 2018 22:11:27 -0700, Savageduck wrote: Check this shot and a 100% crop of the top of the sail. https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-...O/i-f5k8TQh.jp g Now that's better. https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-...O/i-xJ9w5gP.jp g ... and that's interesting ... umm. ...and what exactly did you find interesting? I was thinking that the edges look slightly fuzzy and the contrast is soft. Here by way of comparison is a photograph I took some years ago when I first got my D300 https://www.dropbox.com/s/usuksr9zjd...C1038.jpg?dl=0 and here is a 100% crop of the same image. https://www.dropbox.com/s/s6v6tu0sin...8-100.jpg?dl=0 Now I am somewhat baffled that you find my windsurfer shot above in anyway comparable to your postage stamp size kite shot. Postage stamp? I was refering to the kite, which is less than postage stamp size regardless of your crop. I misunderstood you. I thought you were referring to the image as a whole. The microscopic kite was lost in that sea of blue. I picked the kite image as as a convenient example, as the string was a single sharply delineated object so narrow that any blurring of the edges would be immediately visible. I included the full image only to show where 100% crop came from. The point I was trying to make was that the unprocessed kite image seemed to be sharper than top of the sail in your image. ....er, OK. That is an artifact of Dropbox. I don’t seem to get DB artifacts which shrink kites. Strangely enough I don’t get any DB introduced artifacts of any type. You should be able to down load the file. Yup! When I do that I get a full height image. On my screen the 100% shot is 180 x 165. Strange? Your original downloads as a 6MB, 2848x4288 @ 300dpi, jpg. Your 100% crop downloads from DB as a 656KB, 1056x1152 @ 300 dpi jpg. ISO200, f/11, 1/400, 16-85mm Here is a different example from the same shoot, with a 100% crop. https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-sFT2N6g/0/2fd7f912/O/i-sFT2N6g.jpg https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-mRpmjJz/0/6d12881d/O/i-mRpmjJz.jpg That is sharper. There is a fuzzy edge to part of the sail but I suspect that has been caused by highspeed flutter. ...and if it is a kite shot you need, there were kite surfers there, so here is one which can provide a more meaningful comparison with a 100% crop. https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-qGmChmc/0/c22cf6b3/O/i-qGmChmc.jpg https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-87wst94/0/84a9ac51/O/i-87wst94.jpg I picked the kite photo because the way the camera was able to resolve the full length of what was not a particularly large cord, which was probably less than 1/3 of the diameter of the cords used by the kite surfers in your shot. ...and that makes for a nice abstractish line in the sky. At the time I was most interested in the curve in the line caused by the wind shear. ....and a pleasing curve it was. No processing has been done other than converting from NEF to JPG. Would it have mattered, given that the original target was so small? I can't understand your comment about that, particularly because Dropbox seems to have removed the EXIF data. Nope! All the EXIF data was complete DB removed nothing. Here is what I got after downloading your 100% crop. https://www.dropbox.com/s/vui0lq9vhhjghr0/screenshot_338.jpg? Here is what I got when I tried to access the EXIF of the Dropbox image using Firefox. https://www.dropbox.com/s/cy1csuvrm2s8k8k/Kite.jpg?dl=0 Normally I get the full EXIF. Interesting. That must be a Firefox/Mozilla thing DB has removed nothing, and even you have been able to get full EXIF at some time or another. I had no problem using Safari on my Mac. Just for the Hell of it I also checked the full EXIF usinghttp://exif.regex.info/exif.cgi and it seems that processed, or not your image shows a definging correction applied: Defringe Purple Hue Lo: 30 Defringe Purple Hue Hi: 70 Defringe Green Hue Lo: 40 Defringe Green Hue Hi: 40 Then I guess there was sharpening applied in-camera to show: Sharpen Radius: +1.0 Sharpen Detail: 25 Sharpen Edge Masking: 0 Sharpness: 40 Color Noise Reduction: 25 I considered your target to be the kite, and that was resolved so small in both the original, and the 100% crop that determining sharpness of that kite image to be near impossible. Therefore my thought that no amount of post processing would have made a difference. And still it was sharp. The line was sharp, the kite was something less than sharp. -- Regards, Savageduck |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
The new 100-400mm seems to work.
On Fri, 13 Jul 2018 19:47:51 -0700, Savageduck
wrote: --- snip --- Just for the Hell of it I also checked the full EXIF usinghttp://exif.regex.info/exif.cgi and it seems that processed, or not your image shows a definging correction applied: Defringe Purple Hue Lo: 30 Defringe Purple Hue Hi: 70 Defringe Green Hue Lo: 40 Defringe Green Hue Hi: 40 Then I guess there was sharpening applied in-camera to show: Sharpen Radius: +1.0 Sharpen Detail: 25 Sharpen Edge Masking: 0 Sharpness: 40 Color Noise Reduction: 25 That's interesting. Can these be the camera default settings? I'm not concious of ever changing them in the camera and I don't think I ever bothered to check the EXIFs of the time to see what the camera was doing. -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
PSE6: Work-around when Help doesn't work under Windows | John Navas[_2_] | Digital Photography | 3 | January 14th 08 10:04 PM |
400mm IS | Eric Miller | Digital Photography | 7 | January 26th 06 12:14 AM |
400mm IS | Eric Miller | 35mm Photo Equipment | 7 | January 26th 06 12:14 AM |
400mm for 10D | b4 | Digital Photography | 8 | October 12th 04 01:01 AM |
400mm AF-S $6,200.00 | Pixuretakr | 35mm Equipment for Sale | 0 | December 2nd 03 08:43 PM |