inohuri

inohuri

Joined on May 3, 2012

Comments

Total: 30, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »
In reply to:

halfwaythere: The penultimate shot, the one with the dog, is quite horrendous image quality wise: very noisy to the point of asking myself is this was shot at ISO 3200 or higher and the CA in the tree is quite "spectacular".

I see the appeal of a camera like this but I don't understand the hype.

I looked for tutorials on Lightroom CA correction and they just desaturate color.
I do that with Hue/Saturation.
It is a global correction or requires selection. I selected the upper part above the grass and when the cyan CA was desaturated the color in the trees was spotty or gone. Too blue and the sky posterized. There was also magenta which might have been easy to fix.
Check this video to see this problem. At 1:38 the purple stuff (not CA) at the top of the screen is complete. After editing it is spotty. This is why I compare before and after to see if anything I don't want changed winks in and out.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YQ-BnvjPd-o

Lateral CA correction just makes this image worse.
I did check the samples for the camera and the one similar shot had purple fringing which usually is easy to desaturate.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 25, 2015 at 03:38 UTC
In reply to:

halfwaythere: The penultimate shot, the one with the dog, is quite horrendous image quality wise: very noisy to the point of asking myself is this was shot at ISO 3200 or higher and the CA in the tree is quite "spectacular".

I see the appeal of a camera like this but I don't understand the hype.

What is the method please? I would love to know.

Have you downloaded and corrected this?

Direct link | Posted on Dec 24, 2015 at 00:29 UTC
In reply to:

halfwaythere: The penultimate shot, the one with the dog, is quite horrendous image quality wise: very noisy to the point of asking myself is this was shot at ISO 3200 or higher and the CA in the tree is quite "spectacular".

I see the appeal of a camera like this but I don't understand the hype.

I don't mind correctable lens faults. I'm used to CA and fringing.

I downloaded and tried to correct the dog shot with my usual tools and could not.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 23, 2015 at 03:02 UTC

To all of you who say Canon must build more EF-M lenses:

They did. A long time ago. You use an adapter.

Seriously if you want to make honest comparisons compare to a similar sensor size like the APSC Sony. Little sensors allow little lenses.

On a large, really large, lens I would be using live view any way and a mirror really gets in the way.

My biggest is 3Kg. Roger has bigger.

"EOS-M First Impressions
Roger Cicala
"My favorite part of today's tests, though, weren't the lenses. It was the EF-EOS-M adapter. No one has done adapters better. No one."

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/10/eos-m-first-impressions

Direct link | Posted on Feb 11, 2015 at 21:46 UTC as 144th comment
In reply to:

ADSinger: The history of photography is a study in miniaturization. Cameras and negative/sensor size have been shrinking for two hundred years. Every new technological advance is met with derision by the supporters of the status quo. We saw this within the past couple of years as smart phones decimated the P&S market. The DSLR users view is no different than that of the Rollieflex owners faced with the 35mm Leica. MILC cameras will supplant DSLRs for all but professionals with specific needs. Canikon are faced with adapting or becoming niche products, i.e. Hasselblad, Leica M, etc.

In other words a 1D will do a better job than a gopro on a drone.

Which envelope?

Sounds like we should all be shooting 8x10.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 11, 2015 at 21:12 UTC

I have been wanting to build a proper tilt/shift rig and the flange focal distance for EF is just too big. This was pushing me to Sony which for me isn't really viable. M4/3 sensor is too small and has thicker glass over the sensor.
I bought the camera and sure enough I can now use 35mm SLR lenses for tilt/shift. The old 20mm Nikkor will give me 32mm equiv. That 72mm filter size looks odd on the tiny body. Don't know how much tilt yet but on EF with enlarger lens I got 30 degrees through old film camera finders.
The adventurous might peek at ebay. Canon brand EF to EF-M adapters run around $50, third party cheaper. There is a tilt/shift adapter but the few reviews knock the quality and it's $300. Adapters to Nikon, Pentax etc. Even Minolta and FD adapters without a lens to reach infinity.
Magic / Tragic Lantern is available.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flange_focal_distance

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2014/06/sensor-stack-thickness-when-does-it-matter

Direct link | Posted on Feb 11, 2015 at 20:08 UTC as 167th comment
On article Quick Tour of the Article Editor (13 comments in total)

"Who owns the content that users create?"
This deserves an answer. Where's the contract?

What's in this for me? I'm not greedy, I just want a fair exchange for hard work well done.

Can I copyright my work? Can I withdraw the article whenever I choose to?

I could write articles for Amazon for free that would bring me what?

Direct link | Posted on May 16, 2014 at 04:32 UTC as 4th comment
On article First Impressions Review: Using the Canon PowerShot G16 (354 comments in total)
In reply to:

skytripper: In the comparisons between jpeg and raw, the raw images have obviously been tweaked but it appears that the jpeg images have not been. A much more meaningful comparison would be between tweaked jpeg and tweaked raw. While it's true that one can get more out of a raw image than a jpeg, jpeg's can most certainly be substantially improved with minimal tweaking.

The one other subject is saving the jpeg after editing. I now save at the highest resolution. I know that I could probably not see a difference higher than 10 (Adobe) but what can the printer see?
Also I may want to do a quick edit for something I missed and at 12 I should lose less opening and saving. Storage is cheap. The edited file may be bigger than the original but that is fine with me. For cameras under 8 megapixels (love the Fuji S6000 shot in raw at ISO 100) I double the resolution right after opening from Camera Raw (x1.5 in dimensions) as they edit a little better. Fuji's software for Super CCD did that too.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 28, 2013 at 00:08 UTC
On article First Impressions Review: Using the Canon PowerShot G16 (354 comments in total)
In reply to:

skytripper: In the comparisons between jpeg and raw, the raw images have obviously been tweaked but it appears that the jpeg images have not been. A much more meaningful comparison would be between tweaked jpeg and tweaked raw. While it's true that one can get more out of a raw image than a jpeg, jpeg's can most certainly be substantially improved with minimal tweaking.

Many of my cameras will not shoot in raw or shoot too slowly in raw for some situations. I edit the jpegs in Camera Raw and they seem to me to get better. Sometimes much better.

Must I do what others do?

"I said the file size makes no difference, and that does not refer to the compression being used."

I don't understand this.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 27, 2013 at 18:34 UTC
On article First Impressions Review: Using the Canon PowerShot G16 (354 comments in total)
In reply to:

skytripper: In the comparisons between jpeg and raw, the raw images have obviously been tweaked but it appears that the jpeg images have not been. A much more meaningful comparison would be between tweaked jpeg and tweaked raw. While it's true that one can get more out of a raw image than a jpeg, jpeg's can most certainly be substantially improved with minimal tweaking.

I apologize. I didn't think to click on the jpeg and when I did the large file came out, probably the original, I didn't check.

I opened it in Camera Raw and got nowhere with the White Balance Tool on his shirt. Then I saw a bit of white in the upper right and one click did what I thought could be done. Better but not as good as the raw as usual.

Was the camera set to AWB? If it estimated the shirt to be white this could have thrown it off. The exif seems to have been stripped (which is what I would do, my name and phone are in there for security).

Direct link | Posted on Sep 27, 2013 at 06:45 UTC
On article First Impressions Review: Using the Canon PowerShot G16 (354 comments in total)
In reply to:

skytripper: In the comparisons between jpeg and raw, the raw images have obviously been tweaked but it appears that the jpeg images have not been. A much more meaningful comparison would be between tweaked jpeg and tweaked raw. While it's true that one can get more out of a raw image than a jpeg, jpeg's can most certainly be substantially improved with minimal tweaking.

Also editing a jpeg in 16 bit will do a better job. Try it, it shouldn't hurt. Adobe doesn't know best, they just think they do.

I use Elements because I can afford it and know the workarounds. That means I open in Camera Raw even if I do no changes there just to force 16 bit editing. I would probably go minus one or two in Clarity because it looks better to me when at 100 per cent or higher.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 27, 2013 at 05:41 UTC
On article First Impressions Review: Using the Canon PowerShot G16 (354 comments in total)
In reply to:

skytripper: In the comparisons between jpeg and raw, the raw images have obviously been tweaked but it appears that the jpeg images have not been. A much more meaningful comparison would be between tweaked jpeg and tweaked raw. While it's true that one can get more out of a raw image than a jpeg, jpeg's can most certainly be substantially improved with minimal tweaking.

" The size of the JPEG reveals absolutely zero about how much it can be tweaked." As it makes no difference I should reset all my cameras to the highest compression / smallest file size.

Didn't I say "hint"? Of course this is not an absolute. With similar scenes at the same ISO I believe I am correct. You can go shoot black walls all you want. The quality of compression also does indeed vary from camera to camera. For reasons of my own I almost always set the camera to the largest file size.

"A RAW file can be processed to look exactly like the JPEG." Uh, isn't that turned around bacKwards from what was intended? We want the best tweaked jpeg compared to the best tweaked RAW.

I often compare the full size least compressed jpeg to the raw when the camera will shoot raw + jpeg. If the jpeg is better I'm doing something wrong (again). I open the jpeg in DPP and compare side by side with what I (am attempting to) edit in Camera Raw.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 27, 2013 at 05:06 UTC
On article First Impressions Review: Using the Canon PowerShot G16 (354 comments in total)
In reply to:

AbrasiveReducer: Interesting that Nikon and Canon are going to battle it out to see who can make the best camera with a sensor that's too small. Although I didn't care for the Sony, assuming the G16 is the same price, I'd definitely take the Sony.

Please Canon, give us an updated G1X. The image quality is already there; it just needs the computer stuff.

Sensor that is too small for what?
This is my favorite size, small enough for deep depth of field, just big enough for quality. My A640 has too often outdone my Xsi/450D with prime Nikkor or Canon lenses especially if shot in dng raw with CHDK.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 26, 2013 at 21:44 UTC
On article First Impressions Review: Using the Canon PowerShot G16 (354 comments in total)
In reply to:

skytripper: In the comparisons between jpeg and raw, the raw images have obviously been tweaked but it appears that the jpeg images have not been. A much more meaningful comparison would be between tweaked jpeg and tweaked raw. While it's true that one can get more out of a raw image than a jpeg, jpeg's can most certainly be substantially improved with minimal tweaking.

The point was tweaking the jpeg for a more level comparison, not how much you can tweak.
I find in practical application, especially with Camera Raw 7, jpegs can be tweaked quite a bit. The file size is a hint as to how far you can push.
File:Open As:Camera Raw for those who don't know. PS Elements 11 Camera Raw will bring up shadows just the same as PhotoShop or Lightroom as far as I know. Be sure to open in 16 bits, the latest Camera Raw 8 setting looks like a web link, I didn't want to go on the web so didn't click there until I searched the internet. It also sets to 8 bit by default. Another "What were they thinking?" The setting is at the bottom center left.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 26, 2013 at 21:33 UTC
On photo IMG_0245 in dpreview review samples's photo gallery (1 comment in total)

Why F2.8? The four photos I looked at were shot at large apertures. My experience with sensors of this size is that they are at their best around F4 or F4.5.
I want to see the best the camera will do. I stayed with the A640 from 2006CE because the G series shots I have seen (except the G15 studio shot) seemed only slightly better to me.
Is this the better camera? I can't tell here. I know the A640 will do better than this.
I live in Seattle, I don't have image stabilization and I routinely shoot around F4.5 at ISO 80.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 26, 2013 at 20:16 UTC as 1st comment
On a photo in the Canon PowerShot G16 Samples Gallery sample gallery (1 comment in total)

Why F2.8? The four photos I looked at were shot at large apertures. My experience with sensors of this size is that they are at their best around F4 or F4.5.
I want to see the best the camera will do. I stayed with the A640 from 2006CE because the G series shots I have seen (except the G15 studio shot) seemed only slightly better to me.
Is this the better camera? I can't tell here. I know the A640 will do better than this.
I live in Seattle, I don't have image stabilization and I routinely shoot around F4.5 at ISO 80.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 26, 2013 at 20:16 UTC as 1st comment
On article Bad Weather = Good Photography (77 comments in total)
In reply to:

ironcam: Watch Josef Hoflehner''s work to see some amazing bad weather photos.

http://www.josefhoflehner.com/patience/33.html

I went and looked. Very good stuff.

But I didn't see anything that I would call "bad weather".

Direct link | Posted on Aug 20, 2013 at 20:33 UTC
On article Bad Weather = Good Photography (77 comments in total)
In reply to:

Create: Why all the expensive equipment, can't we get nice images with lower end cameras and lenses, that the normal person shoots with, what about waterproof cameras, can't we get just as nice images with some basic equipment. Show the once in a while photographer how to get the results of a pro, i know it's possible.

"once in a while photographer" wants pro results. Not likely to happen. Study and practice are what work for any craft.
Have you studied the manual for your camera and know it's shooting features well? Can you push the right buttons in the dark or with the camera tilted?
There are many websites and books that will try to help you. But "once in a while" doesn't cut it. It takes practice and honest self criticism.
Carry a camera with you always, even if it is a cell phone. Learn how to get the most out of it by actually using it.
I get my best hit rate with older compact cameras. I'm willing to take them with me and they get good results.
I have what should be adequate DSLR stuff, but I don't use it unless I know it will get a better photo and it often won't.
Most shots are with a Canon A640 using CHDK .dng raw at ISO 80.
Second best is the big Fuji S6000FD for higher ISO or wide and telephoto. Usually shot at ISO 100 in raw.
These smaller sensors are sharpest between f4 and f5.6.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 20, 2013 at 07:39 UTC
On article Bad Weather = Good Photography (77 comments in total)

What a buncha party poopers. The author did OK. Can you do better? Or do you just give up and leave your camera at home?

For those concerned about expense some of my favorite photos were shot with an old Fuji S6000FD on an overcast Seattle day at ISO 100 in raw. In the late evening, hand held, leaning against whatever was handy.

Saturation? Contrast? These are issues? Tastes vary. Easy to change. Oh that's right, you are shooting .jpg aren't you? Learn about raw. Elements 11 has ACR7.

There is also the waterproof case for the classic Fuji F30/F31FD which is intended for diving. Roughly file out a 49 to 52mm filter adapter and it will press fit on the outside. Add a collapsing rubber lens hood to keep the rain off. You can get out and shoot in salt spray without worries. Just soak the whole thing in water then dry it off before opening.

Note to author: Add a rubber lens hood to a polarizer to keep off the rain and make a large grip. Rotate the hood itself to adjust.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 20, 2013 at 04:27 UTC as 24th comment
On article Adobe announces Photoshop Elements 11 (68 comments in total)

Elements 11 Tool Options

Kills the gross screen hog at the bottom. Click on Tool Options lower left to get it back temporarily.

Between ?/HELP! and down chevron at the lower right when Tool Options is open: click on Auto Show to uncheck.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 2, 2012 at 03:27 UTC as 7th comment
Total: 30, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »