Just a new 5D sample pic of mine :-)
Directly out of the camera with Neutral Picture Style with +2 Sharpness (sharpening level). Everything at default: P mode, ISO 100, evaluative metering: f/11, 1/250th second. Lens used: 24-105L at 24mm.
(Warning: Large file of 4.4 MB!)
Or, downsized one at 1280 x 853 here:
I find that the exposure is quite right (especially considering the difficult lighting condition and scene like this), resolution is very high, brightness and contrast just right, colours are very faithful to what my eyes can see, dynamic range is good, and, even more, I found that this picture is quite 3d! (So, someone's theory for suggesting about shallow DoF yielding strong 3d feel is not substantiated by my this example! (with great DoF)
What do you think?
p.s. You can always use any EXIF viewer (browser plug-in recommended to view all others shooting info details).
I have viewed the pic on two different desktop monitors (a higher and newer EIZO model Vs a older and lower grade one) and my Toshiba Laptop. I find that the highlights and details for the boats are seen to be lost except on the best and latest EIZO model, which is capable to reproduce extreme highlights tones and shadows as well.
So, when some people do often talk about blown highlights by Canon DSLRs, would it be possible that it is a "blown highlight" problem by our monitors actually, instead?
Afterall, I have found that my Canon 5D preserves highlights very well, even for just shooting straight jpegs, although the recorded tonal levels are a bit close to the extreme and near the 255, but, they are not clipped! There are a lot of my new shots show the same and the recorded highlights do even brighter than the boats in this pic - still, the pic data are still there!
You should look at the histogram if you want to determine if you have blown highlights. The histogram shows no blown highlights. So it sounds like one of your monitors is overly bright.
RiceHigh C wrote:
very high, brightness and contrast just right, colours are very
faithful to what my eyes can see, dynamic range is good, and, even
more, I found that this picture is quite 3d!
Well, what I think... this is one scene where perhaps one of the more creative (and thus not general purpose) PictureStyles (e.g., Emerald) may have yielded a more intriguing photo.
Question: ought a photo show colors that are "faithful to what my eyes can see" ?
RiceHigh C wrote:
So, when some people do often talk about blown highlights by Canon
DSLRs, would it be possible that it is a "blown highlight" problem
by our monitors actually, instead?
Yes. I've experienced that with a work LCD that doesn't have a decent contrast ratio. I've embarassed myself by commenting on exposures while sitting at this monitor (as opposed to what I see, in comparison, on my own at home).
You'll have to ignore the gallery's collection of bad compositions, improper exposures, and amateurish post processing.
This is a very nice scene. However I would suggest:
1. Straighten the horizon.
2. Lose the guy with the umbrella on the right edge - very distracting.
3. Punch up the saturation a bit. Natural? Probably not, but for the average Joe it will make the picture more appealing.
Most LCD monitors have a much more limited color space than even cheap CRT monitors. They are getting much better but only the very expensive ones appear to be high enough quality to accurately do photo editing. Therefore it is entirely possible for a photo to appear clipped or blown out on an LCD monitor which is not a problem with the actual photo. Using good color calibration can help, but it is always good to remember that LCD monitors still have their limitations.
|The Engineer by EXX|
from Steam Trains
|Madrid subway by MAGMATCICO62|
from Your City - Public Transport
|Incandescent Bulb by Kukla|
from Illuminate- Macro only
|Curiousity by PERCY2|
from Macro - Your Best Macro Ever
|Hoar Frosted Trees by sabishiT3T|