Nice tulip photos, Digi; though they look a bit over-processed: uncharacteristic for you.
I thought at first that the tulip photos must have come from the Netherlands!
After freezing temperatures here at the weekend, we are moving up to > 70F next week!
David
Photobygms,
Thanks. The old 8 megapixel Oly did well on that sunny day. The highest acceptable ISO level is 500, even though it could go as high as 800. So often if I was taking pictures with that camera in cloudy weather, I'd have to use relatively slow shutter speeds.
David,
Thanks. These all were straight out of the camera JPEGs. The only additional out-of-the-ordinary processing I did was add a small bit of green to the Oly photos (but I wondered if I should have reduced that some). All the colors looked bright or saturated to me (if that is what you mean by over-processed), but all four cameras produced that equally about the same. So I did not try to reduce the saturation of the colors. That day we had bright sun. Previously we had some rain which kept the tulip flowers clean. So the conditions were nearly perfect for this. I have quite a bit more pictures that I took at this tulip festival, mostly from the Canon R8. I had the Canon RF 24-105mm F4/7.1 lens "glued" to that camera, which was my favorite lens for this festival.
I would love to see other people's tulip flowers, taken on a sunny day. I wonder if they would look any different, if they just took them as SOOC JPEGs. Or if they took them as RAW and processed them to suit their own taste etc.
David,
That's great you will be having some warm weather. It's so nice this time of year when we finally start to get away from the freezing cold. We have had a mixture of temperatures too, from very cold (but above freezing) to temperatures as high as low 80s F.
Digi,
I think was not what you did, but the in-camera jpeg conversion. For instance, the people in nos. 4 & 5 look detached from the background. It looks like perhaps over-sharpening, but I dont see any edge artefacts. I will fire up my RP and see if I get the same effect.
David
David,
I don't know if anything is distorted for you during resizing either. I resize my images so that they can be viewed quickly. I typically show so many of them, that it is only done to give you all a general view of the photograph. When I print out any images, I use the originals and do very little post processing...perhaps some straightening, cropping, or light enhancement or reduction...but never sharpening. Also each of our monitors can show images differently. I haven't checked the latest and greatest technology for monitors. I bought mine a few years ago. Recently we also got a curved monitor.
Thank you for wanting to check out the images with your old Canon RP. I like that camera a lot, although I find the Canon R8 to be better. I'm tempted to get another one, but maybe I should get an R7 instead. Or I may wait for other ones offered for us in the future...there's rumors of a Canon R7 Mark II to be released this year. I have a tendency to use my equipment for a long time, before upgrading, but there's always that temptation. 😀
Digi,
As I wrote, I dont think you are doing anything wrong with your processing, but if you are starting from jpeg files, damage may have already been done by the camera’s compression process in making them. I only make jpegs as a final step, and always choose maximum quality (11 in Photoshop).
I like both the R6 and RP: their only problem is that I have to carry more weight with them. The Leica Q3 has a sharper lens (even wide open at f/1.7) than the Canon RF lenses that I can afford, and I can cover 28mm to an effective 150mm satisfactorily with it by cropping to simulate the longer focal lengths (see the stone eagle photo in the “My town...” thread). I gladly admit that on rare occasions, my 10mm and 15mm shift lens, or the EF70-300mm lens are more useful. But the RF24-200 is also excellent and extremely versatile in good light. Again, weight is the only negative parameter. The RF16 is much lighter and incredible value for money.
I tend not to buy new cameras very often.
David
This is the best shot I have seen of one of these birds. I used to love seeing them by the road on trips in the US Midwest.
David
David,
Thanks. I'm glad you liked the male Red-winged Blackbird photo.
David,
Generally, the newer Canon cameras make very good JPEG files in camera. I was reading from some comments from people at Dpreview that they are so good, that some no longer feel that RAW is worth it (for the extra time it takes to make them). Without any distinct artifacts, blurriness or banding etc. I think the photos are fine. Yes, other camera and lenses are better than what I use, but most people would not have any complaints about them. I do have to be careful with sharpening in post, although. I have found that the full frame Canon RP and R8 are so good that sometimes any light sharpening in post is too much. I noticed that with the crop sensor Canon cameras that light sharpening during resizing is OK, especially on cloudy days. But again the resized images are only a general idea of what we could expect when making a print. I remember once making a letter sized print of my 3 megapixel Kodak image (in-camera JPEG) on a sunny day. I was blown away at the sharpness. It was of some waves crashing on some rocks at the beach. I'll never forget that...how good it looked with so few pixels.
Mocha used to post photos at here on this thread many months ago. He suggested that I try using one of the Canon ink tank printers. That has worked out very well. Other printers all failed for one reason or another. But this one, has given me dozens of nice images. The model no. is G7020. It sips ink from the tanks. Do you make prints also? You should try making prints from your Leica and Canon cameras of the same thing. Would you see any differences?
Yes, you are right. I've heard the Canon 24-240mm lens is excellent. If I see one for a good price I may get it. I bought the refurbished Canon RF 100-400mm lens for only $399 (USD) last autumn. So that has given me some extra focal length range at the moment for my R series cameras. I also use my Canon DSLR cameras too with the Tamron 150-600mm lens for wildlife (giving me 960mm equivalent).
That's interesting that you mentioned the weight. Yes, that's a very good point. For me, I've found the Canon RP and R8 to be very light with the lenses I use. But that's relative to the more heavy Canon T7i (800D) camera that I use with the Tamron 150-600mm lens. With that telephoto lens I've learned to cradle it like a baby or keep it in my side camera bag. The first day I used that heavy lens, I was using it incorrectly. My wrists were sore. But soon after that, I learned to use it in a better way. It gets me so far out, that I love it. I tolerate the heavy weight because of the value I get from it. But the mirrorless systems (cameras and lenses) are much lighter, so we can appreciate why people may choose them.
Your Leica camera is wonderful. I love seeing your images from it. 😀
Oh...some other trivia...do you know that the Canon RF 100-400mm lens weighs 115g less than the Canon RF 24-240mm lens? That's per CameraDecision on the internet. The Canon RF 100-400mm lens only weighs 635g (1.4 pounds). On something like the Canon R7 or R10 that lens would give us 640mm equivalent at the long end.
Subject: Computer Monitors
OK, I reviewed the types of computer monitors this morning that I mentioned above. This could change how you all see the photos.
I found the types of resolution for these monitors are:
Full HD (1920x1080)
QHD (2560x1440)
4K (3840x2160)
8K (7680x4320)
The monitor that I'm using at the moment is the Full HD. What type of monitor are you using? Do you have a high resolution monitor or just the Full HD like I have? If you have a high resolution monitor, what type is that? Can you describe the improvements you are experiencing? What other monitors do you know about that could be better for us photographers? It all depends on the screen size too. I'm just starting to review this. I appreciate your comments, so that we all could better see each other's photographs.
Subject: Lower 4K Monitor Prices
I was surprised how low in cost the 4K monitors are today, after checking this morning. There's quite a few priced under $300 (USD). They used to cost quite a bit more than that a few years ago. Maybe we should consider a 4K monitor, if you all don't have one. What do you think? Have prices of these 4K monitors come down in price where you live? Of course the tariffs or trade wars going on now could affect us in that regard too.
I have three monitors on my desk. Two 21.5" Acer G215H, 1920x1080, either side of a 27" Dell P2723QE, 4k, 3840x2160. I must have bought the Acers around 2010, and I added the Dell in May 2022. I mainly use the Dell for judging picture quality and colour, but the Acers, while looking slightly different in colour are quite acceptable. The Dell is scaled 150%, but images still come out larger on the Acers.
One is urged to calibrate one's monitor, but I have never explored that particular rabbit hole!
I got the Dell because I transcribe a lot of music manuscripts in Dorico, and the monitor will rotate to portrait. I can put the manuscript on the Dell, the Dorico transcription on the left and write my editing notes on the right hand Acer. For editing photos in Photlab, the Dell is the main screen, with thumbnails on the right hand Acer, and my File browser on the left. When I use them, Photoshop comes up on the Dell, and Topaz sharpen on the left Acer.
This gives me a highly versatile setup: for general use I put the file browser on the left, Firefox in the middle and my email program on the right.
Here is a screenshot of the Photolab setup:
and a lousy photo of the mess that is my desk today. 😜
David
Thanks David. One computer setup I have is only with one monitor. On another computer I have two monitors side by side. I think I'll look into getting a 4K monitor. From what I read, it sounds like it's best to check them out at the store and see how they appear...to see if it's something that will be better for photos.
If you wan't to see images like they need to be seen, you either have to calibrate your monitor or buy a pro-grade monitor (factory calibrated) or both. FHD, QHD, 4/8K - resolution does not matter if colors and/or dynamics are wrong.
I have got a NEC PA series monitor - 27", QHD, wide gamut (100% AdobeRGB). Factory calibrated, likely needs to be recalibrated in some future.
Resolution and screen size are enough for me. One thing what I needed was low brightness - this narrowed range of possible monitors substantially.
Wide gamut was decided after I was sure that all my imaging and graphics software (and browser and video player) can use color profiles - Windows itself ignores them (at least for W10, don't know about W11), also Office applications show wrong colors - but this is not important.
On Mac this likely is not a problem.
Thanks ArvoJ. I think the monitors today are better, so I don't see large differences between the ones that I have. What I see on my monitors match pretty much to the prints I make, so I kind of rely on that. I read that Windows allows us to calibrate our monitors, so I tried it and did not notice any difference. I suppose it's OK.
