I agree with David. Also prefer this one. I would brighten it up a little bit though:
The other shots are also very interesting - I would suggest the same though. I know that my screen is a little bit on the dark side, but I still think they could benefit from a little bit of extra processing, making the distinction between silhouette and background a little bit clearer and increase saturation a tiny bit where necessary. Either way - fascinating shots, well done!
Mocha,
A downside to that approach is that it is a full automatic mode, so you have no control of the settings, not even ISO.
Steve Thomas
Hi Steve,
There's always software that will do the trick, and many free ones out there if you decide to go that route. It can be a steep learning curve but you are then in control of the outcome not the camera.
My initial reaction was the same as simplejoy's; but on second thoughts, I was not sure...
David
David,
Thanks. Thanks for letting me know your favorites.
Steve,
Thanks. You might have noticed a lot of the people were also taking photos. But they were using cell phones. Cell phones are the most popular method to take photographs where I live. It's now becoming rare to see anyone with a camera.
Mocha,
Thanks. Yes, there's a lot I like about photo no. 7 also.
Simplejoy,
Thanks. Of all the silhouettes, that one with the tree could be brightened up a bit. All I have to do is push a button and it's done. 😀
Have seen more nice photos in this thread, nice work everybody, It's sometimes hard to keep up with the photos.
Right now we are in Luxemburg in the Mullerthal region and do not have the best connection but I'll try to post some photos
Today a short hike about 8km through the Hallerbach valley and forest close to our campsite.
Canon Eos RP - Canon RF 24-240mm F/4-6.3 IS USM:
Canon Eos R - Canon RF 24-240mm F/4-6.3 IS USM:
Canon Eos R - Canon RF 16mm F/2.8 STM:
David,
Thanks for your second thoughts about the tree silhouette. I think (looking at it again) I prefer it brightened up a little as suggested. But I suppose it's one of those things that it depends on how we view it on our monitors.
Photobygms,
I like seeing these photos, especially the ones around the rocks. I see you used slower shutter speeds in the darker conditions. Yes, that's fun to do. Two days ago I took some at slower than 1/4th of a second hand-held, but I was able to brace the camera/lens. I was taking pictures inside a lighted cave at an amusement park.
Hi Photobygms,
Those are super photos from your hike, the colours are stunning.
Photobygms,
How do you like the 24-240? It looks like it's taking pretty good pictures.
I wish Canon made a similar lens in the EF or EF-S line. I have the 55-250, but there are times I wish it would go wider.
Steve Thomas
Digi,
Yes, you are right. A great deal depends upon the monitor and the way it is adjusted (if there are adjustments!). I have two 21.5" Acer G215H monitors that I bought at the same time about 13 years ago. They are pretty well matched with each other. Then I upgraded my computer and added a graphics card with four outputs. I do a lot of work editing music and often need three or more files open (photos of the original ms, Dorico for notation, text files for making notes, etc). So a year or so ago I bought a 30" Dell P2723QE. It sits between the other two, and can be rotated to portrait format, which is useful for music. I did my best to match the brightnesses by eye, as I have no calibrating equipment. I recently noticed that the Acer monitors sometimes show photos lighter than the Dell -- depending on the photo. At the same time I found jpg files with colour and B/W bars that a friend had sent me ages ago, and that I had forgotten. When I compared these, the Dell definitely showed the difference between the different gray bars better than the Acers, so I now base my photo adjustments on the Dell. This is the closest I can get to any objective means of assessing my monitors and the results of my processing. It seems to work. But please (any of you!) dont hesitate to tell me if you find my photos consistently too bright or too dark.
David
Monitors......
I have an older HP Pavilion 23in Monitor and a newer BenQ 27inch monitor which was advertised as calibrated out of the box, when I sat them side by side they were totally different so much so that I bought a profiler, it turned out to be the BenQ that was way out. As the computer starts up you can see the native settings until the software kicks in and the monitors use the software profiles I've created. The HP hardly changes whilst the BenQ picture cools down significantly.
The brightness levels I use on both monitors is 90(cd/m2) which gives me a better feeling for my printed photos (How they will look once printed). Probably most monitors will be around 250-300(cd/m2).
I guess what I'm trying to say is that everyone will see the forum pictures differently, if I was using my uncalibrated BenQ to view them, all pictures would seem warmer than they should and even now they would definately look darker because of my brightness settings on both monitors.
Let me put it in this way, my better half did use her lens before I did, After I tried it a while ago, I did like it al lot.
It's a nice lens when hiking light with only one body and that 24-240
We bought a second one a while ago 😎 It's also a nice combi for hiking with the RF 16mm F2.8
Edit: for EF I have the Canon EF 28-300 L IS USM but that is a heavy lens
Today a more or less lazy day, visited the famous Schiessentümpel or Schéissendëmpel waterfall
We had some luck with the weather it was a nice day with even some sun.
And while is was a lazy day we went out with only the Eos R and RP and the RF 16, 24, 35 and 50mm lenses.
Canon Eos RP - Canon RF 35mm F1.8 MACRO IS STM:
Canon Eos RP - Canon RF 50mm F1.8 STM:
Canon Eos R - Canon RF 24mm F1.8 MACRO IS STM:
Canon Eos R - Canon RF 16mm F2.8 STM:
Photobygms,
These pictures look great on my Dell monitor, which indicates to me that it must be good! I particularly like the waterfall.
David
