File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
ISO 800? NO WAI

Supposedly this picture was taken at ISO 800. I can't believe that. There's like no noise. What sort of sorcery is this!?
>> Anonymous
It's called 600x482 pixels.
>> Anonymous !dMYYvF5Blo
Its also called a decent camera that doesn't pick up much noise
>> Anonymous
It's called STILL
>> Anonymous
This is poor trolling. My XTi can do that. Enjoy your sage.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
It's only surprising if it was taken with a P&S digital. Was it taken with a P&S digital?
>> Anonymous
Not exactly...

Lens Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM

Camera Canon 20D
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
Enjoy your 6400 ISO.
>> Anonymous
I wish my camera did ISO 800 that well...
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
     File :-(, x)
>>112624
Yep. APS-C sensor, plus the resize.

Attached is an ISO800 shot from my Rebel XTi. Looks about the same as the OP image, noisewise, at least to my eyes. Most of that was from the resize. Smidgen of noise reduction in the RAW conversion, but not enough to really be noticeable. Not like Noise Ninja or something.

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon EOS DIGITAL REBEL XTiFirmware VersionFirmware 1.0.5Owner NameunknownSerial Number0420104373Lens Size18.00 - 55.00 mmImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandImage Created2008:01:13 20:17:37Exposure Time1/80 secF-Numberf/3.5Exposure ProgramManualISO Speed Rating800Lens Aperturef/3.5Exposure Bias0 EVFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length18.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width3888Image Height2592RenderingNormalExposure ModeManualScene Capture TypeStandardCamera Actuations-255655872Color Matrix129Color Temperature5200 KExposure ModeManualFocus TypeAutoMetering ModeCenter-WeightedSharpnessUnknownSaturationNormalContrastNormalShooting ModeManualImage SizeUnknownFocus ModeOne-ShotDrive ModeSingleFlash ModeOffCompression SettingUnknownMacro ModeNormalSubject Distance1.820 mWhite BalanceAutoExposure Compensation3Sensor ISO Speed256
>> Anonymous
>>112629
Is the APS-C sensor especially good at low light or is that pretty standard performance for a digital SLR?
>> Anonymous
>>112630

It's just Canon. And Nikon if you want to be generous.

Sony/Pentax/Olympus is fail for noise.
>> Anonymous
>>112629

Do you use Noise Ninja? I've been meaning to get it but where exactly in the workflow does it fit?

You can't import the RAW directly and can only import the processed image, like a JPG.

So what the hell is the point? Any changes I make in ACR are affected by the noise already.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>112630
Most digital SLRs have APS-C sensors. That's just the term given to sensors that are around 1.5-1.6x crop.

>>112632
Sony and Pentax have the same 1.5x crop factor that Nikons do.

Also, I'm confused by the "And Nikon if you want to be generous", since Nikon's 1.5x-crop sensors are actually a little bigger than Canon's 1.6x crops. Canons tend to have slightly better high-ISO noise performance, historically, but not really enough to make a significant difference (and I think Nikon's pulled ahead with the D300).

The 2x crop sensors in Four Thirds cameras do suck, though.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>112635
Nope. I'm a Linuxfag. No Noise Ninja for me.
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
>>112632
oh that would be the sony sensor in that nikon, wait what gibberish fanboy nonsence were you saying?
>> Anonymous
>>112637

I never said anything about the sensor.

"Canons tend to have slightly better high-ISO noise performance"

This is what I meant.
>> Anonymous
What does the terminology in the crop sensors mean? I see that all over the place but haven't seen a explanation.
>> Anonymous
>>112641

http://digital-photography-school.com/blog/crop-factor-explained/
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>112637but not really enough to make a significant difference

>>112639

Christ, Butterfly, you're a fucking retard sometimes. Just because Sony makes their sensors doesn't mean it's the same thing.
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
>>112645
I dont really care, you were spouting out of date made up info i thought id join in.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>112641
A frame of 35mm film is 36mm by 24mm. Most digital sensors are smaller than that. The result of which is that the image that gets projected on that smaller sensor is the same as you'd get if you took the shot on 35mm and then cropped out the center.

In practical terms, lower crop factor means larger sensor. And the crop factor lets you compare the angle of view of a given lens relative to a standard baseline. I.e., on a camera with a 1.6x crop, a 50mm lens acts like an 80mm lens would on a 35mm camera or a full-frame digital (50 * 1.6 = 80)
>> Anonymous
>>112646I dont really care, you were spouting out of date made up info i thought id join in.

Uh, what? How the fuck is it out of date info when Sony has only been selling SLRs since last year?

It's common fucking knowledge the A100 has poor high ISO performance compared to similar cameras from Canon and Nikon.

"Made up info", christ. Canon has always had better, not miles better, noise control than other companies. Followed by Nikon and the rest of them duking it out at the bottom.

Now you'll post that I just got trolled.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>112645
They have about the same noise, just different noise-reduction algorithms. The EOS400D examples look a little sharper, the D80 examples look a little less noisy. The D80 smears the noise around a bit to make it less noticeable, the EOS400D compromises between preserving fine details and noise, and the A100 prioritizes details and lets the noise fall where they may.

If you read the description of the tests, those were all examples of the out-of-the-camera JPEG. If they were processed RAWs with the same processing software, they'd look a lot closer.

In fact, from the page where you got that image:
>As you can see there is no discernable difference between the EOS 400D, D80 and DSLR-A100 up to ISO 400 (except for slightly better sharpness from the EOS 400D image). The EOS 400D continues this sharp detail all the way up to ISO 1600 but does have noticeably more chroma noise than the D80 which employs better chroma noise reduction. At higher sensitivities the EOS 400D delivers more detail but with slightly more chroma noise, the D80 less detail but a cleaner more 'film like' appearance to noise grain, the DSLR-A100 has the noisiest image although has good detail at ISO 800.
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
>>112650
Huh oh sorry nikon dont use sony sensors any more? I must be really out of it. Its not like i went ahead and boldly stated the A100 had monster high iso performance, infact who brought up models again?
>> Anonymous
Fucking ouch... after reading that Crop Sensor explanation and doing some research it appears my camera has a 4x crop sensor... : (
>> Anonymous
>>112651

I'm generalizing a lot and you can go in detail all you want. In the end, Canon > Nikon > everything else for noise performance, D3 excluded because it's just awesome.

>>112652

They are using Sony sensors. I'm merely responding to "wait what gibberish fanboy nonsence were you saying?"

The thing about you, Butterfly, is you like to state random bullshit and you like to believe what you say.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>112655
Right, but no. More like Canon ~= Nikon ~= Everyone else in the same sensor size and technological age. The D300 has better high-ISO performance than any APS-C Canons. I'm sure the next Canon APS-C models that come out will beat the D300. They leapfrog back and forth a bit, but never get really significantly far away from each other.
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
>>112655
http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Nikon_D300/noise.shtml

Its pretty much a draw and you would say one is better mostly depending on how you like your noise. Also note the A700s superior dynamic range.
>> Anonymous
>>112656

Okay, but no.

Canon has had the lead for a "long" time for ISO. Until the D3, there was no question about it.

"Canon ~= Nikon"

You're a Canonfag. If there is 'anything' a Canon user can say about their cameras is the better noise performance.
>> Blackadder !!bSWRwu/NqzQ
If you want a good dynamic range you should buy a Fuji, not a Sony. The Fuji is untouchable in its class for that.

I didn't see any "superior dynamic range" in the A700. Most DSLRs aren't much different in that aspect whatever the brand. Maybe the next generation will improve things.

The only clear winner was the 5D, but that's a larger sensor so I don't know if that is considered a "fair" comparison.
>> Anonymous
EXIF DATA OR IT DIDNT HAPPEN
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>112669
The old D70 and older were noticeably worse than anything Canon. Most recent Nikons have been around the same, until you get up to the 1.3x and 1.0x crop cameras. Hell, look again at that comparison image you posted--the D80's about the same as the 400D when you take into account the different NR algorithms. It's like that throughout the line.

And again, like you said, the D300 and D3 have upped the bar again.
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
>>112670
i was only jibing at the nikon camp, the range on the A700 is only marginally better than the D300 and the 5D slaughtered BOTH.
>> Anonymous
>>112672the D80's about the same as the 400D

I wanted to keep money out of this but you and I know it, sandwiched models.

The 400D is a good deal cheaper than the D80. By my rough estimates, 85% the camera for 60% of the price.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>112675
Okay. D40x is about the same price. D40x has about the same noise.
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond40x/page17.asp
>> Anonymous
>>112680

But then you have a D40x.
>> Jeremo !iKGMr61IHM
ITT:

PIXEL PEEPING and Rants about technology no one understands to a meaningful degree.

Go out and expose your shots correctly.

Good on you to those who at least tried to keep it civil and avoided trolling...eg. Not ButterTrap
>> Anonymous
>>112716

Remember that shot with the 3 banding stripes you had?

Better noise control affords me better pictures when processing them.

(I'm not saying the banding you had was a problem with noise by the way. Just saying that picture is one of the cases where better noise gives a better image.)
>> Jeremo !iKGMr61IHM
>>112717


>>(I'm not saying the banding you had was a problem with noise by the way. Just saying that picture is one of the cases where better noise gives a better image.)

Then why bother bringing it up? If it's not a noise issue then it's got nothing to do with noise. Duuuuh.

The problems with the photo were:

1. Monitor calibration = not everyone had the same calibration so it was more noticeable on some and others not at all

2. It would actually be a dynamic range issue since i left the raw processing on at +0.7 or +1.0 can't remember which.

And finally, again your final statement is wrong, i don't know where to begin... Better noise? What is better noise? what is worse noise?

Better noise control doesn't do nearly half as much as CORRECT exposure would do.

But again, since like you said, it wasn't to do with noise. Let's not bring it up again.
>> Anonymous
>>112720

Better noise control/performance/processing, how the fuck hard is it to understand? Has anyone ever said more noise = better? Sheesh.

I said the banding wasn't a problem with noise. You bumping or bumping by mistake the exposure to +1 accentuates the noise a lot more.

"Better noise control doesn't do nearly half as much as CORRECT exposure would do."

Your picture was dark as shit, still a good picture because it set the mood, but it was pushing the limits. Sometimes you just can't have the correct exposure. Having better noise control affords me the flexibility to push it back up later on.
>> Si
>>112720


Protip: Process into 16 bit then save as 8 bit in PS for Interwebs. That may solve your image problem.

It did seem like a processing problem and DR issue as opposed pushing luminance noise.
>> Jeremo !iKGMr61IHM
>>112726

Yeah, i really should get into the habit of that... i just need more Hard drive space... jesus i need more hard drive space. And more ram. 16 bit tiffs with CS 2 kill my PC sometimes. 1GB just aint enough these days.

>>112725

>>Better noise control/performance/processing, how the fuck hard is it to understand? Has anyone ever said more noise = better? Sheesh.

What the fuck are you on about? How hard is it to communicate in intelligent English. Did I say someone had commented that more noise = better?

Please learn some reading comprehension.

>>I said the banding wasn't a problem with noise. You bumping or bumping by mistake the exposure to +1 accentuates the noise a lot more.

Jesus... which is it dipshit? Is it a noise issue, or isn't it? You are saying in the same sentence IT'S NOT NOISE but then PUSHING ACCENTUATES NOISES which you're assoiciating with the banding issue by inference.
All i need from you is consistency, if you're going to say that the pushing brought up the noise then DON'T fuckin say it's not a noise issue.

How simple is that? Just avoid contradicting yourself.

>>Your picture was dark as shit, still a good picture because it set the mood, but it was pushing the limits. Sometimes you just can't have the correct exposure. Having better noise control affords me the flexibility to push it back up later on.

If it was pushing limits it was pushing DR limits because i was trying to capture the lights without blowing them whilst keeping the shadow details.

Because it is Dynamic RANGE that will help you more with the preservation of shadow detail or highlight detail.

>>Having better noise control

Lord... I swear you said in the begining that my photo banding wasn't a noise issue... why the fuck do you keep bringing it up?

Do me a favour. Go out, shoot your high ISO shots and just leave me alone with your better noise control. You're doing my head in.
>> Anonymous
>>112728Please learn some reading comprehension.

You: "What is better noise? what is worse noise?"

Me: "Better noise control/performance/processing"

>>112728Jesus... which is it dipshit? Is it a noise issue, or isn't it? You are saying in the same sentence IT'S NOT NOISE but then PUSHING ACCENTUATES NOISES which you're assoiciating with the banding issue by inference.

HOLY FUCKING JESUS CHRIST. What the fuck did you just say?

BANDING IN YOUR PICTURE = I don't know what the fuck made it, bad data from RAW, memory card, JPG. HOW THE FUCK AM I ASSOCIATING THE NOISE WITH THE BANDING BY INFERENCE, JESUS FUCKING CHRIST.

Your picture was NOISY. You pushed it at +1. Doing that INCREASES the noise, if there is some already. Who the fuck said anything about the banding being the noise?
>> Jeremo !iKGMr61IHM
>>112733

Fuckin hell, do i have to explain to you what you wrote?

You stated that the banding issue had nothing to do with noise, then in the same sentence stated that >>the picture is one of the cases where better noise gives a better image.

Implying that if the NOISE was BETTER in the image, the image itself would be better. Since the only problem you mentioned with the image was the banding issue you are thus directly inferencing that the solution to the problem of banding is BETTER NOISE control.

Or simply.

You = Noise was not issue, but noise control would have made the photo better.

What the fuck dude? If noise was not the issue with banding, how the hell would noise control make it better?

I appreciate your attempt at helping and i do apologise for being apprehensive. But you either have no idea what the fuck you're on about or you really need to communicate a little better*.

*oh the iron, coming from me, the most convoluted poster on 4chan.
>> Anonymous
>>112744Since the only problem you mentioned with the image was the banding issue

"Your picture was NOISY."

Ignore the fucking banding. "I'm not saying the banding you had was a problem with noise by the way." Jesus Christ, how the fuck hard is it to understand this?

"Your picture was NOISY." THAT'S THE ONLY THING I EVER SAID ABOUT YOUR PICTURE. READ THIS PART.

"Your picture was NOISY."

I've repeated it 3 times now. If your camera had better noise contorl, boosting it to +1 would show less noise.
>> Jeremo !iKGMr61IHM
>>112751

Well that wasn't so hard was it? You could have said the image was noisy in>>112717and made yourself clear.

You got there eventually though, good for you.

>>If your camera had better noise contorl, boosting it to +1 would show less noise.

yeah that's a pretty obvious statement, though i doubt other cameras would be able to do much. Non of the DSLRs on the market now handle luminance noise well when you push it.

Besides, i didn't consider the photo noisy. But enjoy your better noise control and pixel peeping.

Now go shoot some HIGH ISO and leave me alone already.
>> Si
>>112754

It's not only noise control but a property of dynamic range also. You cant push detail where is non. Hence the noise. DR stores that detail.
>> Anonymous
"Just saying that picture is one of the cases where better noise gives a better image."

It was out there in the first post. You were just a fucktard and INFERRED I'VE ASSOCIATED THE NOISE TO BANDING.
>> Anonymous
Wow I never meant for this thread to fucking explode like this. All I wanted was to shoot an awesome picture like that one at 800 ISO.
>> Anonymous
>>112759

I think we've all learned that you can do it with a Canon and a Canon only.
>> Jeremo !iKGMr61IHM
>>112757

No where in that post did you mention you thought the image was noisy you fuckin moron. Learn to use better sentence structures if you want to disassociate one idea with the next point.

But it's okay, i forgive you.
>> Anonymous
"Just saying that picture is one of the cases where better noise gives a better image."
>> Jeremo !iKGMr61IHM
>>112759

you can do it with any decent DSLR provided you get the correct exposure. Usually exposing slightly by .03 will cut down on luminance noise.
>> Si
>>112757

Noob for not asking if the shot was raw or jpeg, noise control would be very different for both.
>> Anonymous
>>112766
I would guess it was shot to RAW but I don't know. Not my picture sadly.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
ISO 800 YAY

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon PowerShot G9Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS3 WindowsMaximum Lens Aperturef/3.2Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color AreaImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution240 dpiVertical Resolution240 dpiImage Created2008:01:14 12:25:51Exposure Time1/13 secF-Numberf/3.2ISO Speed Rating800Lens Aperturef/3.2Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length12.73 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width600Image Height450RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandard
>> Anonymous
I don't know if anyone noticed or not but OP's image is titled Satchmo.jpg... Satchmo as in Louis Armstrong... That is not Satchmo... lol
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
>>112763
isnt it nice to be trolled by someone more intelligent after all that? :P
>> Anonymous
I want a digital SLR now... :( My camera is fun to play with for 200$ but... 4x Crop Sensor = Bad Image Quality and non modular lenses...
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
Just look at that awful Nikon noise :(

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeNIKON CORPORATIONCamera ModelNIKON D80Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS3 WindowsMaximum Lens Aperturef/1.0Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color AreaColor Filter Array Pattern707Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution300 dpiVertical Resolution300 dpiImage Created2008:01:13 19:51:14Exposure Time1/60 secExposure ProgramManualISO Speed Rating1600Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModeCenter Weighted AverageLight SourceUnknownFlashNo FlashComment(c) Antti HakkarainenColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width603Image Height900RenderingNormalExposure ModeManualWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandardGain ControlHigh Gain UpContrastNormalSaturationNormalSharpnessNormalSubject Distance RangeUnknown
>> Anonymous
>>112841

tiny web sized image with who knows what PP. FAIL.
>> Anonymous
>>112841
Damn that's nuts... My cameras 1600 ISO is like a webcam... : ((((((((((
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
Look at this it's totally unusable :(

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeFUJIFILMCamera ModelFinePix S5700 S700Camera SoftwareFinePixViewer Ver.5.3Maximum Lens Aperturef/3.5Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color AreaMaker Note Version0130Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2008:01:14 04:00:44Exposure Time1/10 secF-Numberf/3.5Exposure ProgramNormal ProgramISO Speed Rating1600Lens Aperturef/3.5Brightness-2 EVExposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternLight SourceUnknownFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length6.30 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width1280Image Height960RenderingCustomExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceManualScene Capture TypeStandardSharpnessNormalSubject Distance RangeUnknownSharpnessNormalWhite BalanceCustomChroma SaturationNormalFlash ModeOffMacro ModeOffFocus ModeAutoSlow Synchro ModeOffPicture ModeProgram AEContinuous/Bracketing ModeOffBlur StatusBlur WarningFocus StatusOKAuto Exposure StatusOK
>> Lynx !!KY+lVSl0s2m
>>112845
that pic is making my speakers screech. GTFO.
>> Anonymous
>>112847
Now do you see why I made this thread? Why I was amazed such clarity could be attained at 800 ISO? My camera has terrible noise...
>> Anonymous
>>112849

The larger sensor in a DSLR makes all the difference. With a 5D you can get nice shots at 3200.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
How's this for ISO 1600 on a point-and-shoot?

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon PowerShot G9Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS3 WindowsMaximum Lens Aperturef/2.8Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color AreaImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution180 dpiVertical Resolution180 dpiImage Created2008:01:14 13:21:30Exposure Time1/20 secF-Numberf/2.8ISO Speed Rating1600Lens Aperturef/2.8Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length7.40 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width800Image Height600RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandard
>> beethy
>>112851
G9 fucking rocks.

I think I'll buy one soon, could be handy when I don't feel like carrying a chunky ass dSLR with lenses around :]
>> Anonymous
>>112855

It even has a built-in mechanical ND filter!
>> Anonymous
>>112863
Optical ND filter > mechanical ND filter
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>112843

Is there someone except Ken Rockwell who doesn't PP his/her photos?

ACR had 25/100 color noise reduction.

Even it can't remove the color blotches, only B&W conversion can.

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeNIKON CORPORATIONCamera ModelNIKON D80Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS3 WindowsMaximum Lens Aperturef/1.0Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color AreaColor Filter Array Pattern707Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution300 dpiVertical Resolution300 dpiImage Created2008:01:14 13:02:14Exposure Time1/60 secExposure ProgramManualISO Speed Rating1600Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModeCenter Weighted AverageLight SourceUnknownFlashNo FlashComment(c) Antti HakkarainenColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width685Image Height856RenderingNormalExposure ModeManualWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandardGain ControlHigh Gain UpContrastNormalSaturationNormalSharpnessNormalSubject Distance RangeUnknown
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
>>112979
I dont really PP my photos, but then everyone either ignores them when i post ok ones or trys to tear me appart when they feel like it so i dont get any decent feedback...
>> Anonymous
>>112979
Ken Rockwell increases the saturation/contrast/whatever in-camera, which isn't any different from posprocessing shit in Lightroom.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
     File :-(, x)
>>112979
I didn't for a long time. Then I figured out that they look massively better when I do.
(Unprocessed pic related)

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon EOS DIGITAL REBEL XTiLens Size80.00 - 200.00 mmFirmware VersionFirmware 1.0.5Owner NameunknownSerial Number0420104373Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2007:12:01 15:41:30Exposure Time1/100 secF-Numberf/5.6Exposure ProgramAperture PriorityISO Speed Rating400Lens Aperturef/5.6Exposure Bias0 EVFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length200.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width3888Image Height2592RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoScene Capture TypeStandardExposure ModeAv-PriorityFocus TypeAutoMetering ModeEvaluativeSharpnessUnknownSaturationNormalContrastNormalShooting ModeManualImage SizeLargeFocus ModeOne-ShotDrive ModeSingleFlash ModeOffCompression SettingFineMacro ModeNormalWhite BalanceAutoExposure Compensation3Sensor ISO Speed224Camera Actuations-262799168Color Matrix129
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
     File :-(, x)
>>112983
(And the processed version)

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon EOS DIGITAL REBEL XTiLens Size80.00 - 200.00 mmFirmware VersionFirmware 1.0.5Owner NameunknownSerial Number0420104373Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2007:12:01 15:41:30Exposure Time1/100 secF-Numberf/5.6Exposure ProgramAperture PriorityISO Speed Rating400Lens Aperturef/5.6Exposure Bias0 EVFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length200.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width3888Image Height2592RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoScene Capture TypeStandardExposure ModeAv-PriorityFocus TypeAutoMetering ModeEvaluativeSharpnessUnknownSaturationNormalContrastNormalShooting ModeManualImage SizeLargeFocus ModeOne-ShotDrive ModeSingleFlash ModeOffCompression SettingFineMacro ModeNormalWhite BalanceAutoExposure Compensation3Sensor ISO Speed224Camera Actuations-262799168Color Matrix129
>> Anonymous
>>112985
I think you overdid it with contrast and saturation here.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>112981
No, postprocessing is significantly different. You're doing it afterwards when you have time to do things like flip back and forth between two versions and compare, rather than before you've even taken the shot. And there are some postprocessing things you can't do in-camera, like altering the levels to spread out the shot's dynamic range.

Of course, Ken Rockwell is the Chuck Norris of photography so he can do all of this stuff in-camera, but us mere mortals can't.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>112986
One could certainly make that argument. In my defense, though, that was like right after I'd started getting into the habit of postprocessing, so I wasn't at my best.

But even so, I still think the PP'd version looks better. Flipping back and forth between 'em, the straight-out-of-the-sensor version just looks dingy and gray.
>> Anonymous
>>112988
Are you shooting raw now, too, or still JPEG?
>> Butterfly !.MOyjl44as
very stupid post because im changing my tripcode after someone in /g/ finally got it.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>112990
RAW, unless I know I'll be shooting enough that space will become an issue.

Given how much larger the RAWs are, I anticipate needing to build myself a NAS RAID box pretty soon...
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>112991
Wait, how can we tell if you really changed your tripcode or if this is just some trolling with your...

Wait, nevermind, doesn't matter.
>> Anonymous
>>112992
1. Shoot RAW
2. Postprocess if needed and save as HQ JPEG
3. ???
4. PROFIT

This way you also save yourself from the sudden urges to redo processing on old photos.
>> Butterfly !.MOyjl44as
>>112994
sony rules, canons are for paedophiles, nikons (and pentax) are both sony chips therefore sonys and olympus doesnt have any lenses.

i can handold anything at any length for any exposure time with any body and get 0 blur, i can even compensate for noise.

ken rockwell is a dick.

know its me now? Besides you can tell if its really me from the exif if i get round to shooting sometime soon.
>> Anonymous
>>112991

LOL! OWNED, BITCH.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>112995
"Space becoming an issue" as in "I don't have enough CompactFlash cards to shoot RAW all night."

I have about 10GB total storage with me in my camera bag most of the time now, so it hasn't actually been an issue so far.

>This way you also save yourself from the sudden urges to redo processing on old photos.
Hey, Adams did it. I keep getting better at PP as I do it more, so I reserve the right to go back and fix up old photos if I so desire.
>> thefamilyman !!rTVzm2BgTOa
>>113004
i only ever have 1GB of storage and maybe 1 extra roll of film with me at most. (I only own 1 CF card)
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>113041
Yep. It was an issue back when I only had a 2G and a 1G card. If I were taking dirty pictures of a hot chick, I could fill those up with JPEGs easily. RAW means I'd get an order of magnitude less porn for my time.

But woot.com had 4GB microdrives a while back, and I think it was even a Two For Tuesday, so I'm doing pretty well for space now.
>> Anonymous
I have eight 4 GB CF cards. I worry about my batteries before I worry about not having space.

Thank god for 10$ batteries from SterlingTek.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)


Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakePanasonicCamera ModelDMC-FZ30Camera SoftwareVer.1.0Maximum Lens Aperturef/2.8Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color AreaFocal Length (35mm Equiv)77 mmImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2007:06:08 14:45:59Exposure Time1/6 secF-Numberf/5.6Exposure ProgramAperture PriorityISO Speed Rating400Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternLight SourceUnknownFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length16.40 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width1100Image Height600RenderingCustomExposure ModeAutoScene Capture TypeStandardGain ControlHigh Gain UpSaturationHighSharpnessHardImage QualityFineWhite BalanceAutoFocus ModeAutoSpot ModeUnknownImage StabilizerMode 2Macro ModeNormalShooting ModeAperture PriorityAudioNoFlash Bias0.00 EVColor EffectOffContrastStandardNoise ReductionLow
>> Anonymous
just fuckin shoot with iso400 in raw and shut up.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>112985

There are other ways to PP than to pimp the contrast & saturation to maxx.

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon EOS DIGITAL REBEL XTiCamera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS3 WindowsImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2008:01:14 21:23:24Exposure Time1/100 secF-Numberf/5.6Exposure ProgramAperture PriorityISO Speed Rating400Lens Aperturef/5.6Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length200.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width683Image Height1024RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandard
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>113060
I prefer mine.