Sorta pissed w/17-55 2.8

xsquiggy

Yesterday I rode my small bike and took a photo using my Koday 4MP DX-6490 P&S camera. Here's the result:






Today I returned to the same place with my other bike, shot another pic, this time using my new D-50 with the 17-55 2.8 lens. As I recall, the aperature used was f/10 with a shutter speed about 1/60. Here's the result:




Either this lens sucks, or I suck and need more practice. I welcome your feedback.

DavidTO

P&S cameras usually will produce a more vivid image, by design. They're designed to make a poppy image out of camera, while most DSLRs are designed to get an accurate and safe exposure. Looks to me like a little post work, and you should be fine. Unless there's something else you're seeing?

xsquiggy

IMHO, everything about the second image is soft. I'm debating whether or not to remove the $130.00 Nikon clear filter I bought in hopes of getting sharper images. Doesn't make logical sense though. Every shot I've taken with this camera appears to be soft so far, with the possible exception of this one shot wide open @ f/2.8:




I find it acceptable, but not as sharp as I expect from a $1200 lens.

Bob Bell

1/60 is rarely going to give you a sharp image with anything that slaps a mirror up. There are harmonics involved in that movement which translates itself into images around 1/30 or 1/60.

Also, if you configured your DSRL correctly, it will be 0 for sharpness, color, contrast, etc... so you get a clean image and can make it pop in post. I took your image, I hope you don't mind, and made some changes in LAB to see what could be done.

xsquiggy

Thanks for your reply Bob .

Life's too short for post processing . Mine is, anyway .

Hell, I didn't even know my camera could be set to 0 for color, sharpness, contrast, etc. Maybe I need to read the manual .

Harryb

xsquiggy wrote:

Thanks for your reply Bob .

Life's too short for post processing . Mine is, anyway .

Hell, I didn't even know my camera could be set to 0 for color, sharpness, contrast, etc. Maybe I need to read the manual .

That's the problem. A DSLR shots shine with a little bit of processing especially with RAW shots (the only way to go IMHO). They take a little bit more time to learn and for the post work but its well worth the effort.

USAIR

Harryb wrote:

That's the problem. A DSLR shots shine with a little bit of processing especially with RAW shots (the only way to go IMHO). They take a little bit more time to learn and for the post work but its well worth the effort.

And that's the fun part

Fred

xsquiggy

I can still smell fixer on my fingers from the good ole days,,,,,not interested in post processing,,,,,maybe I should stick to point and shoot,,,,

Harryb

xsquiggy wrote:

I can still smell fixer on my fingers from the good ole days,,,,,not interested in post processing,,,,,maybe I should stick to point and shoot,,,,

Honestly if you don't want to do a minimal amount of post work then a DSLR is a waste of $. If you want shots right out of the camera a high end digital might serve you better.

You could play around with the in-camera settings of your DSLR to maximize the camera's processing of the jpeg image but the you are going against the strength of the camera.

Either way you go is fine. There's no law that says you have to have a DSLR. Go for the one that suits your needs and wants the best.

colourbox

You can still have the best of both worlds with your dSLR. If you want to shoot in JPEG mode, follow the above suggestion and fine-tune your camera's onboard sharpness, color, and contrast controls. If you want to shoot in Raw, fine-tune your Raw converter's default sharpness, color, and contrast so that you get the Raw conversions you want. You sure can alter a Raw converter to reproduce the look of a point-and-shoot, but that look is generally regarded as too contrasty compared to real life, with too much clipping.

Using a point-and-shoot is like buying a plane ticket, while using a dSLR is like getting in the pilot's seat. Yes, you can now fly the plane the way you want...but you darn well better know how to fly a plane. :

xsquiggy

colourbox wrote:

You can still have the best of both worlds with your dSLR. If you want to shoot in JPEG mode, follow the above suggestion and fine-tune your camera's onboard sharpness, color, and contrast controls. If you want to shoot in Raw, fine-tune your Raw converter's default sharpness, color, and contrast so that you get the Raw conversions you want. You sure can alter a Raw converter to reproduce the look of a point-and-shoot, but that look is generally regarded as too contrasty compared to real life, with too much clipping.

Using a point-and-shoot is like buying a plane ticket, while using a dSLR is like getting in the pilot's seat. Yes, you can now fly the plane the way you want...but you darn well better know how to fly a plane. :

That's good stuff!

xsquiggy

Harryb wrote:

Honestly if you don't want to do a minimal amount of post work then a DSLR is a waste of $. If you want shots right out of the camera a high end digital might serve you better.

You could play around with the in-camera settings of your DSLR to maximize the camera's processing of the jpeg image but the you are going against the strength of the camera.

Either way you go is fine. There's no law that says you have to have a DSLR. Go for the one that suits your needs and wants the best.

Well, I guess I better ante up a (hopefully) small investment in post processing education, since I'm not a trust fund baby, and I've already spent $2 grand on DSLR stuff,,,,,:D

MarkM6

LAB Adjustments

Bob Bell wrote:

I took your image, I hope you don't mind, and made some changes in LAB to see what could be done.

Do you prefer the LAB over the RGB? Or am I asking a wrong question here to "pop" the color in RAW exposures?

Thanks,
Mark

Bob Bell

MarkM6 wrote:

Do you prefer the LAB over the RGB? Or am I asking a wrong question here to "pop" the color in RAW exposures?

Thanks,
Mark

Well I shoot in Adobe RGB, but I do things like USM, Color, Contrast when in LAB Mode. I have a few actions made for what I need and I have a few from others.

I don't have great skills in PS. I sharpen, color correct, do B&W conversions in LAB. Everything else I am usually in RGB. When I am done, CMYK for commercial printing, RGB for personal stuff.

There are have some great info on this site about LAB and I'm sure many many people are a lot better at it than me

That example I posted was about 1 minute in PS. The tree on the right is too blue but I pushed the colors of the trees. The cool thing about sharpening in LAB is that you don't get Halos like you do in RGB.

Hope this helps.

DavidTO

Bob Bell wrote:

Well I shoot in Adobe RGB, ...

I just want to say for the benefit of others, Bob: do not shoot in aRGB unless you're really clear about why you're shooting in it and how you're going to handle your workflow. It will cause nothing but problems, for example, when you upload to smugmug. Smugmug files should be in sRGB. So I shoot and work in sRGB. Yes, there can be some added benefit for some in shooting aRGB, but in my opinion, it's pretty esoteric and useless to the common shooter. Not that it shouldn't be used, it's just that you really need to know why and how you're using it!

Bob Bell

DavidTO wrote:

I just want to say for the benefit of others, Bob: do not shoot in aRGB unless you're really clear about why you're shooting in it and how you're going to handle your workflow. It will cause nothing but problems, for example, when you upload to smugmug. Smugmug files should be in sRGB. So I shoot and work in sRGB. Yes, there can be some added benefit for some in shooting aRGB, but in my opinion, it's pretty esoteric and useless to the common shooter. Not that it shouldn't be used, it's just that you really need to know why and how you're using it!

David, I don't know of any disadvantages to use AdobeRGB. It is recommended by some wire services and Sports Illustrated and AdobeRGB's green and cyan is supposed to be closer to what our eyes see.

Additionally, a lot of pro nature photographers recommend AdobeRGB over sRGB because adobe is capturing more color detail than sRGB. sRGB is rather old and was designed when monitors, printers, etc... could not handle the color gamut that modern equipment can.

Aside from SmugMug, which I don't use, why is there any issue with it?

DavidTO

Bob Bell wrote:

David, I don't know of any disadvantages to use AdobeRGB. It is recommended by some wire services and Sports Illustrated and AdobeRGB's green and cyan is supposed to be closer to what our eyes see.

Aside from SmugMug, which I don't use, why is there any issue with it?

sRGB is the standard for the services I use. If you upload aRGB to those services (most printing services like smugmug, shutterfly, etc.), you'll have bad color. Ask Andy, he sees it all the time. It's just that aRGB requires that you have an understanding of color theory and why and when to use it. sRGB is kind of idiot proof, and the loss of colors is negligible. Both have the same number of "crayons", but in aRGB they're more spread out and cover more ground. So if you're ending up with a service that uses sRGB you'll actually have a degredation in color, because you're throwing some out.

Tom Vervaeke

DavidTO wrote:

sRGB is the standard for the services I use. If you upload aRGB to those services (most printing services like smugmug, shutterfly, etc.), you'll have bad color. Ask Andy, he sees it all the time. It's just that aRGB requires that you have an understanding of color theory and why and when to use it. sRGB is kind of idiot proof, and the loss of colors is negligible. Both have the same number of "crayons", but in aRGB they're more spread out and cover more ground. So if you're ending up with a service that uses sRGB you'll actually have a degredation in color, because you're throwing some out.

David:

Your comments above with regards to using Adobe RGB and Smugmug hold a lot of interest for me. Having just gotten a new Nikon DSLR I set it to Adobe RGB as my reading shows that this produces the most accurate colors. I normally have my camera output both RAW and fine, large jpegs. Since I am a longtime Smugmug customer, I plan on sending the Jpg's up to smugmug on a regular basis as I travel around. I will post-process the RAW files using (don't laugh now) PS Elements when I have the time.

Are you saying that Smugnug will NOT show the colors accurate for the online photos?

Tom

Harryb

DavidTO wrote:

sRGB is the standard for the services I use. If you upload aRGB to those services (most printing services like smugmug, shutterfly, etc.), you'll have bad color. Ask Andy, he sees it all the time. It's just that aRGB requires that you have an understanding of color theory and why and when to use it. sRGB is kind of idiot proof, and the loss of colors is negligible. Both have the same number of "crayons", but in aRGB they're more spread out and cover more ground. So if you're ending up with a service that uses sRGB you'll actually have a degredation in color, because you're throwing some out.

I shoot in aRGB and do my post in aRGB. For pics I post to Smugmug I just convert the downsized shot for the net to sRGB. Its not that difficult.

Andy

Tom Vervaeke wrote:

David:

Your comments above with regards to using Adobe RGB and Smugmug hold a lot of interest for me. Having just gotten a new Nikon DSLR I set it to Adobe RGB as my reading shows that this produces the most accurate colors. I normally have my camera output both RAW and fine, large jpegs. Since I am a longtime Smugmug customer, I plan on sending the Jpg's up to smugmug on a regular basis as I travel around. I will post-process the RAW files using (don't laugh now) PS Elements when I have the time.

Are you saying that Smugnug will NOT show the colors accurate for the online photos?

Tom

The web ONLY knows sRGB. Period. In addition, our lab requires sRGB files for accurate printing. It's all explained really well here:

http://www.smugmug.com/help/srgb-versus-adobe-rgb-1998

aRGB is a great color space, but if your workflow is web, and print via SmugMug - then sRGB is your best bet.

I'm here to help if you need it, anytime!

pathfinder

As Andy and David have alluded to - IF you upload to smugmug, or most other web hosting sites, a file that is tagged with an aRGB ICC profile, it WILL be ignored and your images will look flat. Most web browsers are not color profile aware, so they will display the file as if it is sRGB, and the image WILL look flat.

Try it yourself - upload two files of the same image to your smugmug account - one tagged as sRGB, the other tagged as aRGB, and then look at the files and compare them to how they look in Photoshop which is color space aware. The sRGB file will look they way it is supposed to look, as sRGB is the assumed color space of the web.

I import my files into Photoshop in ProPhotoRGB, but convert them to sRGB before saving for the web. Kinda like HARRY said!!

aRGB is a bigger color space than sRGB ( both are significantly larger than CMYK can usually print ) and hence the spacing of the bands of color is farther apart in aRGB than sRGB as they both have 256 levels of grey per color channel.

DavidTO

Harryb wrote:

I shoot in aRGB and do my post in aRGB. For pics I post to Smugmug I just convert the downsized shot for the net to sRGB. Its not that difficult.

No, it's not, for those that understand it. But if you don't, it'll trip you up every time.

Andy

In all examples, aRGB on your left, sRGB on your right. I have a milion of these...

gus

Ok...thats cool. Now how do i ensure they are sRGB ?

Andy

Humungus wrote:

Ok...thats cool. Now how do i ensure they are sRGB ?

Set your 20D to sRGB.
In Photoshop, set your colorspace to sRGB.
Also when you convert from RAW, Gus, convert to sRGB.

Boom, done.

gus

Andy wrote:

Set your 20D to sRGB.
In Photoshop, set your colorspace to sRGB.
Also when you convert from RAW, Gus, convert to sRGB.

Boom, done.

cool...ta

Tom Vervaeke

Andy wrote:

The web ONLY knows sRGB. Period. In addition, our lab requires sRGB files for accurate printing. It's all explained really well here:

http://www.smugmug.com/help/srgb-versus-adobe-rgb-1998

aRGB is a great color space, but if your workflow is web, and print via SmugMug - then sRGB is your best bet.

I'm here to help if you need it, anytime!

Andy:

Thanks much. It is posts like these that save beginners like me from making mistakes and wasting time trying to figuring out why. I just switched my camera back to sRGB.

Now, if a picture wasn't being sent to the web, but instead just printed out on a local color printer, would it THEN make any difference? Example: If I took 2 exact pictures of the same subject, one in each colorspace, printed them to my canon i950 or i9100 color photo printers, will they look different? If yes, which will look better and why?

Tom

Andy

Tom Vervaeke wrote:

Andy:

Thanks much. It is posts like these that save beginners like me from making mistakes and wasting time trying to figuring out why. I just switched my camera back to sRGB.

Now, if a picture wasn't being sent to the web, but instead just printed out on a local color printer,

Answer: it depends. Local on your desk? Probably aRGB, together with a print profile for that device. The local lab or drugstore? Likely sRGB. But some us aRGB. Oh, and you are very welcome. We're here to help any time

gus

Next big dummy question....any chance of smuggy putting in a 'gus button' to change the 15000 shots i have taken & stored in the wrong colour space ?

mr peas

pffft.. i know why, its because you took a different bike!

okay on the serious note, all it will take is a little post processing. some slrs take the safe route in exposuring the photograph while some p&s just work darn good on their own. also, since you took two different trips, the lighting may have changed from the time you took the original and the one afterward. try bringing both cameras next time and take the difference then. also, your settings, such as setting the white balance makes a big difference. carry a clean white piece of paper and do a white balance on the spot where you take the photo. go shoot some more!!

Ric Grupe

Good examples.

One thing I didn't notice while reading this thread was, monitor calibration and the importance of it. Until I finally got my monitor right a couple of months ago, I was wasting my time with post work. If you can't see your files properly, how can you edit them properly?

Although there are many things to consider in post, in my case oversharpening was my biggest mistake due to having a monitor that wasn't set with enough contrast.