Lot's of fun experimenting with this lens

:o

which lens?

oh i see from the EXIF .. 28-70 F2.0 .. had me excited there for a second

I have the RF 50 and intend to buy more fast RF primes, following the (old?) rule that primes are always having better IQ than zooms. But it has been reported that the RF 28-70 f2 is like having several primes. Can you confirm? Do you have comparison with RF 50?

joenj

User8099023266 wrote:

Swan Falls Dam built in 1901 (Idaho)

How did you get those double branches in the upper left corner???

User8099023266 wrote:

Good catch, it's a bracketed shot, looks like my image alignment in the upper left missed my eye. Makes for a interesting affect. LoL.

That shot has lots of artifacts. Just look at the water. If you were trying to do HDR then the water is a very bad subject. And the grass is also a total mess, probably because of the wind.

It's also very soft generally, I wonder if f/16 or processing have something to do with that.

User8099023266 wrote:

As a reader pointed out, the original shot was posted with a huge alignment error. I redid the shot and photoshopped out the dead branches. Oh well just again having fun, with lens.

Hmmm... though this post is not about editing... perhaps you can just upload a file edited from one image? At ISO 160, I think a lot of the shadows would still be recoverable to an acceptable degree. And if you really want to HDR it a little bit, then do a composite from 1 image but with different exposure settings. I have found that especially when water/wind is involved it is the surest way of getting the intended outcome without artifact issues (especially around high contrast areas (like at the fence/water transition points).

Either way, this second one looks a lot better aligned as the windows are now charm rather than soft.

Not sure if you can edit the error but part of the confusion people have had with this post is that you identified the lens as the RF24-70/2.8LIS but are talking about the RF28-70/2L.

User8099023266 wrote:

Swan Falls Dam built in 1901 (Idaho)

Just like everybody, I'm still learning and just wanted to share this is a very sharp lens in my opinion. I hear many complaints about the lens being heavy. It's true if you don't have a battery grip, or hold it with both hands after a while. But it's a small price to pay for very sharp images. Low light seems to have very little noise, and makes experimenting fun. If you have the $$ I would highly recommend this lens.

One shot out of three is @f2. The 2470/2.8 L II is just as sharp, still pretty big, but less expensive and easier to handle. Me, I would hardly ever use the one advantage the lens offers: It is speed.

Lost99999 wrote:

He Lawny,

can you also post one of the shots with shawdows perhaps mildly pulled up ?

i think the bracketing does not help to show off sharpness, color tone, rendering, etc of your top quality lens.

Also, to my taste, this bracketed and photoshopped picture is a bit over the top... colors are no longer real and texture of different surfaces is gone.

Myself i find it very difficult to ‘edit’ pictures in post processing and still keep them ‘real’.

Regards,

But it is not my image, so I don’t have the originals to do this with either. But it is a rather simple ordeal.

Take the original image and adjust exposure for the highlights, and being the shadows up a bit to compensate.

Make a virtual copy of the original, and adjust exposure for the shadows (realistically, approximately how you might think it should be in an image, so we are not aiming for a flat obvious HDR image). Bring down the highlights.

Export the two images to PS and do a HDR combination. Tweak the image further.

The above can can be done with multiple virtual copies with varying exposure tweaks. For a scene like this I would to at least 3 virtual copies to give PS more to work with (so one for shadows, one for highlights and one for microbes). 2 additional ones around the midtones might also improve things ending up with a total of 5 images.

End of the day you just need to play around. Remember though we seem to have better DR than a camera, the fact is we have a pretty powerful computer attached to our eyes (the brain) and we are constantly scanning what we see. We don’t see the world in a static way. For this reason we see the world in higher DR as well as a contrasty way. So when we look at a high DR scene with our eyes, sure we see detail in the shadows and they appear to be brighter than in our images, but if you look at a scene as a whole the contrast still comes across. That is what one should aim for when doing HDR. A certain level or realism when looking at a scene as a whole rather than focusing on an image in parts. iMHO