October 22, 2014, 01:29:33 AM

Poll

Appeal of Nikon Df.

Love the look/sensor combo, wish Canon had something like this.
Nice look but still not there and over priced
Interesting, but not for me.
Looks do not matter, not interested.
Butt ugly.

Author Topic: Photos from 200-400. Also any comments...  (Read 30292 times)

sanj

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1557
    • View Profile
Photos from 200-400. Also any comments...
« on: September 22, 2013, 12:19:49 AM »
Hoping to see some super photos from this versatile lens! Also any reviews.
Sanjay

canon rumors FORUM

Photos from 200-400. Also any comments...
« on: September 22, 2013, 12:19:49 AM »

sanj

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1557
    • View Profile
Re: Photos from 200-400. Also any comments...
« Reply #1 on: September 22, 2013, 12:22:19 AM »
All of these were taken with 1dx. I did not notice the horrible banding on top right of the cheetah photo until I reduced the photo to web size. I guess I over darkened the mountain? Concerned enough to start a new thread on this right away...

Nirmala

  • PowerShot G1 X II
  • ***
  • Posts: 38
    • View Profile
Re: Photos from 200-400. Also any comments...
« Reply #2 on: September 22, 2013, 12:24:45 AM »
Really like the second one Sanjay regardless of the banding.. The third one is a little cheeky, some privacy please.....;)

sanj

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1557
    • View Profile
Re: Photos from 200-400. Also any comments...
« Reply #3 on: September 22, 2013, 12:50:07 AM »
:)

privatebydesign

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 2564
  • Ermintrude says "moo"
    • View Profile
Re: Photos from 200-400. Also any comments...
« Reply #4 on: September 22, 2013, 01:01:50 AM »
You are choosing too low a value in quality at your save as jpeg step.

It is called posterization and is very common, it has nothing to do with camera settings or your other processing. Do it again but save the jpeg at over 80% quality, sometimes you even need to use 100%.

http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/posterization.htm
The best time to plant a tree is twenty-five years ago. The second best time is today.

Jim Saunders

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 894
    • View Profile
Re: Photos from 200-400. Also any comments...
« Reply #5 on: September 22, 2013, 01:21:14 AM »
That s***-eating grin on the lion's face made me laugh.  A lot.

Jim
See what I see: 6500K, 160 cd/m^2, ICC 2, gamma 2.2.

retina

  • PowerShot G1 X II
  • ***
  • Posts: 38
    • View Profile
Re: Photos from 200-400. Also any comments...
« Reply #6 on: September 22, 2013, 03:26:38 AM »
You are choosing too low a value in quality at your save as jpeg step.

It is called posterization and is very common, it has nothing to do with camera settings or your other processing. Do it again but save the jpeg at over 80% quality, sometimes you even need to use 100%.

http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/posterization.htm

+1

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Photos from 200-400. Also any comments...
« Reply #6 on: September 22, 2013, 03:26:38 AM »

MonteGraham

  • Rebel SL1
  • ***
  • Posts: 81
    • View Profile
    • MonteGrahamPhotography
Re: Photos from 200-400. Also any comments...
« Reply #7 on: September 22, 2013, 02:59:56 PM »
Hoping to see some super photos from this versatile lens! Also any reviews.
Sanjay

Nice

Menace

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1372
  • New Zealand
    • View Profile
Re: Photos from 200-400. Also any comments...
« Reply #8 on: September 23, 2013, 05:20:42 AM »
All lovely photos Sanj - as always
1Dx | 5D III
85 1.2L II | 100 2.8 | 400 2.8L IS II 
24-70 2.8L II | 70-200 2.8L IS II

Northstar

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1484
    • View Profile
Re: Photos from 200-400. Also any comments...
« Reply #9 on: September 23, 2013, 07:48:28 AM »
You are choosing too low a value in quality at your save as jpeg step.

It is called posterization and is very common, it has nothing to do with camera settings or your other processing. Do it again but save the jpeg at over 80% quality, sometimes you even need to use 100%.

http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/posterization.htm

Private... are reducing file size and lowering IQ the only reasons why someone might choose to save at less than 100%? 

Just wondering if I'm missing something...


Sport Shooter

1dX and 5d3... 24-70 2.8ii, 70-200 2.8ii, 1.4xiii and 2xiii, 85, 40mm, 300 2.8L IS....430ex

privatebydesign

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 2564
  • Ermintrude says "moo"
    • View Profile
Re: Photos from 200-400. Also any comments...
« Reply #10 on: September 23, 2013, 08:23:50 AM »
You are choosing too low a value in quality at your save as jpeg step.

It is called posterization and is very common, it has nothing to do with camera settings or your other processing. Do it again but save the jpeg at over 80% quality, sometimes you even need to use 100%.

http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/posterization.htm

Private... are reducing file size and lowering IQ the only reasons why someone might choose to save at less than 100%? 

Just wondering if I'm missing something...

For the vast majority of images, nearly all of them, anything more than 80% is just a waste of space. I have my "Save For Web" defaulted to 80% because it is very rare for images to need more and the size over 80% expands very fast, but will often use it much lower. Effectively you gain nothing for much more space.

Why does this matter? Well it isn't just for HDD space, many images are emailed, where even big companies put relatively small attachment limits on messages; uploading to websites like CR, don't forget not everybody has good download speeds so image optimisation is a very important factor then so others can see your images; also uploading to online print services, most people have much slower ADSL connections rather than SDSL, uploading takes much longer than downloading, those files to print can take forever to get sent to the printers and slow everything else down in the process.

If you have a workflow that involves you saving as jpeg then absolutely save at 100%, but there are few (none!) reasons I can think of where that is the most efficient option, for everything else jpeg compression, assuming you have finished your post processing, works very well and speeds up anything and everything you then do with that jpeg.

Jpeg is a lossy format, it is designed for you to take advantage of that and throw away everything you don't need to display the finished image accurately, it is not an archiving, storage or intermediate format where further work or more advanced processing from newer processes is used. Just look at Lightroom Process Versions over the years, 2003-2010-2012 dramatic differences in processing capabilities to lossless images, totally lost on jpegs.
The best time to plant a tree is twenty-five years ago. The second best time is today.

Sella174

  • 5D Mark III
  • ******
  • Posts: 714
  • So there!
    • View Profile
Re: Photos from 200-400. Also any comments...
« Reply #11 on: September 23, 2013, 08:32:47 AM »
Looks like photos taken with basically any good-ish lens. Number 1 & 3 are, sorry, badly composed/cropped/angled. Number 2 is OK.
Happily ignoring the laws of physics and the rules of photography to create better pictures.

sanj

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1557
    • View Profile
Re: Photos from 200-400. Also any comments...
« Reply #12 on: September 24, 2013, 05:30:37 AM »
Agree with you Sella. Entirely, Totally. But there will be more coming here and things will keep improving.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Photos from 200-400. Also any comments...
« Reply #12 on: September 24, 2013, 05:30:37 AM »

Sella174

  • 5D Mark III
  • ******
  • Posts: 714
  • So there!
    • View Profile
Re: Photos from 200-400. Also any comments...
« Reply #13 on: September 24, 2013, 06:12:08 AM »
Jpeg is a lossy format, ..., it is not an archiving, storage or intermediate format where further work or more advanced processing from newer processes is used. Just look at Lightroom Process Versions over the years, 2003-2010-2012 dramatic differences in processing capabilities to lossless images, totally lost on jpegs.

This is why I prefer JPEG's ... it means I don't keep on reprocessing my (ancient) photos of bushbucks and caracals, but have to go out into the field and take new pictures.

Bob: "Look, a fish eagle! Hey, aren't you going to take a picture?"
Sella: "Nah, I took a picture of a fish eagle in 2004 in RAW format ... I just keep reprocessing that everytime Adobe upgrades Lightroom."
Happily ignoring the laws of physics and the rules of photography to create better pictures.

Northstar

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1484
    • View Profile
Re: Photos from 200-400. Also any comments...
« Reply #14 on: September 24, 2013, 08:31:11 AM »
You are choosing too low a value in quality at your save as jpeg step.

It is called posterization and is very common, it has nothing to do with camera settings or your other processing. Do it again but save the jpeg at over 80% quality, sometimes you even need to use 100%.

http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/posterization.htm

Private... are reducing file size and lowering IQ the only reasons why someone might choose to save at less than 100%? 

Just wondering if I'm missing something...

For the vast majority of images, nearly all of them, anything more than 80% is just a waste of space. I have my "Save For Web" defaulted to 80% because it is very rare for images to need more and the size over 80% expands very fast, but will often use it much lower. Effectively you gain nothing for much more space.

Why does this matter? Well it isn't just for HDD space, many images are emailed, where even big companies put relatively small attachment limits on messages; uploading to websites like CR, don't forget not everybody has good download speeds so image optimisation is a very important factor then so others can see your images; also uploading to online print services, most people have much slower ADSL connections rather than SDSL, uploading takes much longer than downloading, those files to print can take forever to get sent to the printers and slow everything else down in the process.

If you have a workflow that involves you saving as jpeg then absolutely save at 100%, but there are few (none!) reasons I can think of where that is the most efficient option, for everything else jpeg compression, assuming you have finished your post processing, works very well and speeds up anything and everything you then do with that jpeg.

Jpeg is a lossy format, it is designed for you to take advantage of that and throw away everything you don't need to display the finished image accurately, it is not an archiving, storage or intermediate format where further work or more advanced processing from newer processes is used. Just look at Lightroom Process Versions over the years, 2003-2010-2012 dramatic differences in processing capabilities to lossless images, totally lost on jpegs.

Good info Private, thanks.
Sport Shooter

1dX and 5d3... 24-70 2.8ii, 70-200 2.8ii, 1.4xiii and 2xiii, 85, 40mm, 300 2.8L IS....430ex

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Photos from 200-400. Also any comments...
« Reply #14 on: September 24, 2013, 08:31:11 AM »