Azazello1313 Posted June 30, 2008 Share Posted June 30, 2008 (edited) OK I think I am going to have to purchase adobe lightroom. downloaded the trial version this weekend, and the very first picture I fooled around with convinced me I need to buy this or something very much like it. I'll show you what I mean. this is the picture out of the camera -- kind of a nice view from the beach in isla mujeres, mexico. I dig skies like that, sunsets right before they start turning red. so here is the picture after fiddling with the raw file a bit in picasa -- just made the sky a little more contrasty, which of course turned the shoreline into pure silhouette, but that's ok. here it is after a bit of tinkering in lightroom -- hugh improvement, IMO. you can see everything on the shore. the sky is just as interesting if not more, brought forward some other subtle colors in addition to the blue. simply could not have achieved that kind of development with a free program. Edited June 30, 2008 by Azazello1313 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keggerz Posted June 30, 2008 Author Share Posted June 30, 2008 OK I think I am going to have to purchase adobe lightroom. downloaded the trial version this weekend, and the very first picture I fooled around with convinced me I need to buy this or something very much like it. I'll show you what I mean. this is the picture out of the camera -- kind of a nice view from the beach in isla mujeres, mexico. I dig skies like that, sunsets right before they start turning red. so here is the picture after fiddling with the raw file a bit in picasa -- just made the sky a little more contrasty, which of course turned the shoreline into pure silhouette, but that's ok. here it is after a bit of tinkering in lightroom -- hugh improvement, IMO. you can see everything on the shore. the sky is just as interesting if not more, brought forward some other subtle colors in addition to the blue. simply could not have achieved that kind of development with a free program. the picasa pic is actually "out of camera" too Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted June 30, 2008 Share Posted June 30, 2008 the picasa pic is actually "out of camera" too thanks for catching that, link fixed above. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cunning Linguist Posted June 30, 2008 Share Posted June 30, 2008 OK I think I am going to have to purchase adobe lightroom. downloaded the trial version this weekend, and the very first picture I fooled around with convinced me I need to buy this or something very much like it. I'll show you what I mean. this is the picture out of the camera -- kind of a nice view from the beach in isla mujeres, mexico. I dig skies like that, sunsets right before they start turning red. so here is the picture after fiddling with the raw file a bit in picasa -- just made the sky a little more contrasty, which of course turned the shoreline into pure silhouette, but that's ok. here it is after a bit of tinkering in lightroom -- hugh improvement, IMO. you can see everything on the shore. the sky is just as interesting if not more, brought forward some other subtle colors in addition to the blue. simply could not have achieved that kind of development with a free program. Nice pic Az. The changes are subtle but make the image more interesting. The control you have in LR for White Balance, Exposure, Tone Curves & HSL are worth the cost, not to mention all the other tools If i can get out from under the workload i'm strapped with, ill try to post some of my stuff so you all can fire away Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keggerz Posted June 30, 2008 Author Share Posted June 30, 2008 thanks for catching that, link fixed above. np and i forgot to say nice shot too oh and i am trying to figure out which MACRO lens to buy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keggerz Posted July 1, 2008 Author Share Posted July 1, 2008 Canon-EF-S-60mm-f-2.8-Macro-USM-Lens $450 Sigma-105mm-f-2.8-EX-DG-Macro-Lens $360 Sigma-28-300mm-f35-63-DG-Macro $270 would love any feedback or comments on the above 3 (i am itching to buy a Macro and want to do so quickly) fwiw, my current lens (i know they aren't anything special) Canon EF 75-300mm 1:4-5.6 III Canon EFS 18-55mm and both have 58mm UV Haze Filters I guess I am just not sure if the extra $$ for the Canon EF-S 60mm is really worth it at this level I tried to win that "fantastic plastic" promaster on ebay and lost out on a last millisecond bid Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted July 1, 2008 Share Posted July 1, 2008 Canon-EF-S-60mm-f-2.8-Macro-USM-Lens $450 Sigma-105mm-f-2.8-EX-DG-Macro-Lens $360 Sigma-28-300mm-f35-63-DG-Macro $270 would love any feedback or comments on the above 3 (i am itching to buy a Macro and want to do so quickly) fwiw, my current lens (i know they aren't anything special) Canon EF 75-300mm 1:4-5.6 III Canon EFS 18-55mm and both have 58mm UV Haze Filters I guess I am just not sure if the extra $$ for the Canon EF-S 60mm is really worth it at this level I tried to win that "fantastic plastic" promaster on ebay and lost out on a last millisecond bid the third one is not a "real" macro lens, it's basically probably a walkaround zoom that allows fairly close focusing. sounds like a very versatile lens with that zoom range, but it's not going to get near the image quality as a true macro lens. here is a new "plastic fantastic" for $125. I'm sure the canon is a very nice lens. I heard good things about the sigma and also the 90mm tamron when I was looking at macros. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keggerz Posted July 1, 2008 Author Share Posted July 1, 2008 thanks here is a new "plastic fantastic" for $125. and Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cunning Linguist Posted July 1, 2008 Share Posted July 1, 2008 Since you already have a 300mm lens, i would go with the 105mm. This would be best suited for close ups etc. Sigma makes very good lenses for the money. I have 4 in the bag and have had great luck with them. I would also stay away from cheap lenses and off brands. The price is right but they're cheap for a reason. The glass in those suck and most are soft at different f-stops. When deciding what to buy, don't box yourself in with filter ring size either! Filters are cheaper than a lens, so get whats best for you and pickup a couple more filters. The 4 lenses i shoot with: sigma 18-200 Sigma 70-300 Sigma 28-70 Sigma 10-20 The 10-20mm is the bomb for outdoor landscape shots, but my favorite everyday lens is the 18-200. With Canons 1.5 magifier, it makes that lens equal to 27-300mm. It's great for standard to long lens shots and the image stabilizer is pretty good too for low light. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted July 1, 2008 Share Posted July 1, 2008 I would also stay away from cheap lenses and off brands. The price is right but they're cheap for a reason. The glass in those suck and most are soft at different f-stops. in general that is true, but I'm telling you the plastic fantastic is a sharp, sharp lens. it's primary detriment is the slow, clunky auto-focus, and that its max aperture is 3.5 versus 2.8. but in sharpness and overall image quality, it really does rival the lenses that cost several times as much. I just think it makes a great, cheap entry point into macro photography. here are the lenses I have minolta 50mm f1.7 - what a fantastic little lens, 50 bucks on ebay. brilliant low light performer, and sharp as a tack. every photographer should have a fast, cheap 50mm prime -- the image quality to price ratio is just off the charts. minolta 28-75mm f2.8 - pretty good fast zoom. paid the most for this one (about $350 used on ebay). it's a good lens, but too soft wide open at f2.8. it gets nice and sharp stopped down a bit, but I have other lenses that surpass it there. I might try and unload this one at some point. minolta 28-135mm f4-4.5 - a legendary big, heavy old lens (72mm front element) allegedly designed by leica. a really nice outdoor lens. I find it to be a good range on digital for outdoor stuff. minolta 70-210mm f4 - another legendary old minolta lens, the "beercan". I've had some nice shots with it, but i think my copy is not as sharp as some. constant f4 is nice. a good telephoto zoom, but I kinda want to replace it with something that has more reach, out to 300mm. maybe the sigma 70-300. promaster 100mm f3.5 macro - already spoken about this one what I really lack is a wide angle lens, I'd love to have a sony/minolta copy of that sigma 10-20 CL has, that would be perfect. these are not cheap lenses, however I'd also like a longer tele zoom. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
major-tom Posted July 1, 2008 Share Posted July 1, 2008 Nice pictures and the black & white "You are clear for a landing" is really cool. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
loaf Posted July 1, 2008 Share Posted July 1, 2008 I thought they were excellent Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keggerz Posted July 1, 2008 Author Share Posted July 1, 2008 Nice pictures and the black & white "You are clear for a landing" is really cool. 1st, thanks 2nd it's not a black and white fwiw, i saw the hawk and when I decided to take his pic he took off so I started shooting and he pretty much turned me in a circle(lucky to even get any photo in focus)...i know its far from a great pic but I did think it was pretty cool looking. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cunning Linguist Posted July 1, 2008 Share Posted July 1, 2008 (edited) what I really lack is a wide angle lens, I'd love to have a sony/minolta copy of that sigma 10-20 CL has, that would be perfect. these are not cheap lenses, however I'd also like a longer tele zoom. bought the 10-20 for around $475, not the retail $730 on the Sigma site buydig I'ts a big mo-fo, kinda heavy and the ring is 77mm, but it takes great shots. It's a bit tough in low light hand-held. My new favorite filter is The Moose's a Warm 81-A + circular polarizer. I highly recommend getting one of these for outdoor shots Edit to fix link Edited July 1, 2008 by Cunning Linguist Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted July 1, 2008 Share Posted July 1, 2008 My new favorite filter is "The Moose" a Warm 81-S + circular polarizer. I highly recommend getting one of these for outdoor shots yeah, I love those circular polarizers, they make for such great light, even middle of the day....got a couple b+w filters to fit my 28-135 and 70-210. would be interesting to compare them with one of the "warm" ones. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keggerz Posted July 1, 2008 Author Share Posted July 1, 2008 Since you already have a 300mm lens, i would go with the 105mm. This would be best suited for close ups etc. Sigma makes very good lenses for the money. I have 4 in the bag and have had great luck with them. I would also stay away from cheap lenses and off brands. The price is right but they're cheap for a reason. The glass in those suck and most are soft at different f-stops. When deciding what to buy, don't box yourself in with filter ring size either! Filters are cheaper than a lens, so get whats best for you and pickup a couple more filters. The 4 lenses i shoot with: sigma 18-200 Sigma 70-300 Sigma 28-70 Sigma 10-20 The 10-20mm is the bomb for outdoor landscape shots, but my favorite everyday lens is the 18-200. With Canons 1.5 magifier, it makes that lens equal to 27-300mm. It's great for standard to long lens shots and the image stabilizer is pretty good too for low light. ordered the Sigma-105mm-f-2.8-EX-DG-Macro-Lens and it should be here by the 4th, can't wait Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keggerz Posted July 18, 2008 Author Share Posted July 18, 2008 Ok, I officially have been bitten....Should I be talked off the ledge on this possible purchase? Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS USM fwiw, most of what I enjoy photographing is Nature/Wildlife (including macro but I have the new Sigma for that). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted July 18, 2008 Share Posted July 18, 2008 Ok, I officially have been bitten....Should I be talked off the ledge on this possible purchase? Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS USM fwiw, most of what I enjoy photographing is Nature/Wildlife (including macro but I have the new Sigma for that). that is a pretty big time lens, bro. that is gear like the dudes on the sideline at the football games carry around. you could satisfy that whim for a whole lot cheaper in a similar range/speed, like the sigma 70-300 APO. but I know how it is....I am officially pining for this lens, which is probably more than I need to spend. but once you start down that road, no matter how good and serviceable your gear is, you can't stop thinking about upgrading. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keggerz Posted July 21, 2008 Author Share Posted July 21, 2008 that is a pretty big time lens, bro. that is gear like the dudes on the sideline at the football games carry around. you could satisfy that whim for a whole lot cheaper in a similar range/speed, like the sigma 70-300 APO. but I know how it is....I am officially pining for this lens, which is probably more than I need to spend. but once you start down that road, no matter how good and serviceable your gear is, you can't stop thinking about upgrading. for the moment i have come back to my senses and am gonna pass on this lens but I really want a longer reach then my 75-300 gives me Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keggerz Posted July 22, 2008 Author Share Posted July 22, 2008 that is a pretty big time lens, bro. that is gear like the dudes on the sideline at the football games carry around. you could satisfy that whim for a whole lot cheaper in a similar range/speed, like the sigma 70-300 APO. but I know how it is....I am officially pining for this lens, which is probably more than I need to spend. but once you start down that road, no matter how good and serviceable your gear is, you can't stop thinking about upgrading. maybe we can chip in on this one : it is BIG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keggerz Posted August 12, 2008 Author Share Posted August 12, 2008 2) try shooting in RAW format. RAW gives you an image that is virtually a photo negative where you do not just lighten/darken a pic, but actually change it's exposure/lighting, etc.! Believe me it's a different world, and eventhough it eats up a memory card, I rarely shoot in JPG anymore. JPG is compressed and throws pixels away. RAW captures it all! Attempted to shoot and post process in RAW for the first time today...here are a few shots(room for improvement for sure): http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showpo...amp;postcount=1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rocknrobn26 Posted August 12, 2008 Share Posted August 12, 2008 Attempted to shoot and post process in RAW for the first time today...here are a few shots(room for improvement for sure):http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showpo...amp;postcount=1 Nice stuff! You have to admit that RAW is the way to go. I just got back from Ontario and I shot all RAW. 400 pics around +5Gb. It will take some time to process all of that, but it's the only way to go! Welcome to the world of RAW!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted August 12, 2008 Share Posted August 12, 2008 Attempted to shoot and post process in RAW for the first time today...here are a few shots(room for improvement for sure):http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showpo...amp;postcount=1 wow, that is looking like a very nice little macro lens really sharp and nice color, beautiful out-of-focus area. I think you had a speck of dust on your sensor though. I am thinking I would bring out the lights and highlights a little more in some of those shots in LR. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keggerz Posted August 12, 2008 Author Share Posted August 12, 2008 wow, that is looking like a very nice little macro lens really sharp and nice color, beautiful out-of-focus area. I think you had a speck of dust on your sensor though. I am thinking I would bring out the lights and highlights a little more in some of those shots in LR. thanks and YES i have DUST on my sensor Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cunning Linguist Posted August 12, 2008 Share Posted August 12, 2008 thanks and YES i have DUST on my sensor Nice Keg! very cool, now i want one For snerds, i use these little babies (dry ones). They work great on my Canon sensor. The people that run the site are great. I ordered a tin and when it arrived, it was missing the little plastic tool. I called and they refunded me full and sent me two more tins! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.