Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Daytrip to Cornwall

Reply
Thread Tools

Daytrip to Cornwall

 
 
embee
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-04-2006
I recently went on a daytrip to north Cornwall with the folks and got these:
http://www.pbase.com/midie/padstow

Thanks for looking!


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Adrian Boliston
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-04-2006
"embee" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:edhb44$4c9$(E-Mail Removed)...

>I recently went on a daytrip to north Cornwall with the folks and got
>these: http://www.pbase.com/midie/padstow
>
> Thanks for looking!


You were very lucky to get decent cloud formations during your trip to
Padstow. I must make a point to visit as one of my work collegues does
regular day trips there and recommends it. One comment I would make is
that you seem to have used quite a lot of sharpening, so they have a
"sharpened" look.

Hopefully you did not have the problem I encountered on my trip to the
seaside yesterday - being covered in salt spray due to the high winds. I
was trying to keep the spray off the camera as much as possible, but the
lens got pretty well coated.

Cheers - Adrian

http://www.pbase.com/boliston/portland


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
embee
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-04-2006

"Adrian Boliston" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> "embee" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:edhb44$4c9$(E-Mail Removed)...
>
>>I recently went on a daytrip to north Cornwall with the folks and got
>>these: http://www.pbase.com/midie/padstow
>>
>> Thanks for looking!

>
> You were very lucky to get decent cloud formations during your trip to
> Padstow. I must make a point to visit as one of my work collegues does
> regular day trips there and recommends it. One comment I would make is
> that you seem to have used quite a lot of sharpening, so they have a
> "sharpened" look.


I agree about the sharpening! I've been using PhotoWiz's Focal Blade for
sharpening my most recent pictures after using Photoshop's Unsharp Mask for
years, and I'm finding it quite difficult to master. It seems to give more
control (especially over edges) but at the expense of being a bit on the
aggresive side. I'm also very new to editing pictures for the web and I'm
overestimating how much sharpening is needed on a smaller image - my printed
pictures don't have the same problem, Focal Blade does a pretty good job on
them.

I'm planning a trip back to the drawing board with Focal Blade - I like what
it can do, I just need to control myself a bit I think

>
> Hopefully you did not have the problem I encountered on my trip to the
> seaside yesterday - being covered in salt spray due to the high winds. I
> was trying to keep the spray off the camera as much as possible, but the
> lens got pretty well coated.
>


There wasn't a puff of wind at Padstow that day, thankfully. But the Cornish
coast can be a scary place at times, so if I ever go there during a storm
I'll take lots of care. What do you do about salt water on a lens? I've just
bought the Canon 24-105L and I really don't want to see that get damaged

Thanks


 
Reply With Quote
 
Derek Fountain
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-05-2006
embee wrote:
> I recently went on a daytrip to north Cornwall with the folks and got these:
> http://www.pbase.com/midie/padstow


I think you need to work on your post processing. They're over saturated
and over sharpened. The lobster pots one in particular is a lesson in
how not to post process. Plus you seem to have a tendancy to hold the
camera at a slight angle, left side up.
 
Reply With Quote
 
David J Taylor
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-05-2006
Derek Fountain wrote:
[]
> I think you need to work on your post processing. They're over
> saturated and over sharpened.


I found that, when I switched from a CRT monitor to an LCD monitor, many
of my images which were previously fine, then looked somewhat
over-sharpened.....

David


 
Reply With Quote
 
Derek Fountain
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-05-2006
>> I think you need to work on your post processing. They're over
>> saturated and over sharpened.

>
> I found that, when I switched from a CRT monitor to an LCD monitor, many
> of my images which were previously fine, then looked somewhat
> over-sharpened.....


Me too! And I noticed JPEG artifact banding in skies that are not
visible on my CRT...
 
Reply With Quote
 
Stephen
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-05-2006
Derek Fountain wrote:
>>> I think you need to work on your post processing. They're over
>>> saturated and over sharpened.

>>
>> I found that, when I switched from a CRT monitor to an LCD monitor,
>> many of my images which were previously fine, then looked somewhat
>> over-sharpened.....

>
> Me too! And I noticed JPEG artifact banding in skies that are not
> visible on my CRT...


Was probably display artifacts - many computer LCDs have a much lower
dynamic range than glass crts an introduce much more pixelation
 
Reply With Quote
 
embee
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-05-2006

"Derek Fountain" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:44fd2f47$0$97274$(E-Mail Removed) reenews.net...
> embee wrote:
> > I recently went on a daytrip to north Cornwall with the folks and got

these:
> > http://www.pbase.com/midie/padstow

>
> I think you need to work on your post processing. They're over saturated
> and over sharpened. The lobster pots one in particular is a lesson in
> how not to post process. Plus you seem to have a tendancy to hold the
> camera at a slight angle, left side up.


Points taken - thanks Derek. I'm very new to editing for the web and I
accept I'm over sharpening a lot of my images at the moment (my prints are
fine, honest!)

Cheers.


 
Reply With Quote
 
ColinD
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-05-2006
embee wrote:
> I recently went on a daytrip to north Cornwall with the folks and got these:
> http://www.pbase.com/midie/padstow
>
> Thanks for looking!
>
>

An interesting set of images for a NZer to view.

But your maths are wildly astray on your 35mm equivalents, e,g a shot at
84mm you quote the 35mm eq. as 461mm, and a shot at 24mm you quote as
132 mm.

The crop factor for a 1D MK II is about 1.25, so a shot at 84mm is eq.
to 84 x 1.25, or 105mm, and for a shot at 24mm the eq. is 30mm, and so
on for all your shots.

Otherwise, good work. I am reluctant to criticize the sharpening etc.
as it is very dicey to try to evaluate that on a monitor.

Colin D.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

 
Reply With Quote
 
Derek Fountain
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-06-2006
> Points taken - thanks Derek. I'm very new to editing for the web and I
> accept I'm over sharpening a lot of my images at the moment (my prints are
> fine, honest!)


That makes sense. Standard editing procedure is to slightly oversharpen
on screen for images that will be printed.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Laptop Question from Cornwall.... Hushup Computer Security 3 09-29-2005 07:01 PM
Fax help please... Cornwall UK Hushup in Cornwall Computer Support 2 05-24-2004 07:05 PM



Advertisments