Photos from 200-400. Also any comments...

[sanj]

Hoping to see some super photos from this versatile lens! Also any reviews.
Sanjay

 

[sanj]

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]

Really like the second one Sanjay regardless of the banding.. The third one is a little cheeky, some privacy please.....

 

[sanj]

 

[privatebydesign]

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

 

[Jim Saunders]

That s***-eating grin on the lion's face made me laugh. A lot.

Jim

 

[retina]

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

 

[MonteGraham]

Hoping to see some super photos from this versatile lens! Also any reviews.
Sanjay

Nice

 

[Menace]

All lovely photos Sanj - as always

 

[Northstar]

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...

 

[privatebydesign]

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.

 

[Sella174]

Looks like photos taken with basically any good-ish lens. Number 1 & 3 are, sorry, badly composed/cropped/angled. Number 2 is OK.

 

[sanj]

Agree with you Sella. Entirely, Totally. But there will be more coming here and things will keep improving.

 

[Sella174]

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."

 

[Northstar]

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.

 

[privatebydesign]

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."

That is the dumbest "reason" I ever heard. When you shot film did you make one print then burn the negative?

Good info Private, thanks.

Northstar, you are very welcome. Jpegs are very useful and as a standard have long outlived their time, which means they work, but they were never designed as a lossless archive.

 

[Sella174]

That is the dumbest "reason" I ever heard.

My apologies for attempting a witty, sarcastic joke ... oh, well ...

 

[bchernicoff]

Regarding the JPEG banding/posterization... If you are saving to JPEG from Photoshop, always use Save for Web. you get a nice little preview of what the end result will look like once colorspace, resizing, compression, etc. are applied.

 

[privatebydesign]

That is the dumbest "reason" I ever heard.

My apologies for attempting a witty, sarcastic joke ... oh, well ...

Don't apologise, there is none needed, but you gave no context of sarcasm (normally sarcasm tags) and none of humour (normally smilies) so I took your comment seriously and I am sure I am not the only one.

All is good...........

 

[eml58]

Hi Sanj, Found it.

Here's a couple of shots for your 200-400 thread, I particularly liked your Cheetah shot & Happy to hear your enjoying the Lens.

Sella174 ?? Feel free to be yourself, witty, sarcastic & critical.