Kitesurfing at 10mm

gus · April 16, 2005

Well i have PS'ed the dust out but do i ever have some dust on the sensor ! Nothing like good light & small ap to show it. I actually thought i didnt have any in there :lol4

Whats all the 'noise' looking stuff ? You can see it in the blue sky. Is it over processing ? Ie too much sharpening & detail.

Im quite impressed with the minimal flare here...i was really expecting lots more. Nothing other than the dust was PS'ed out.

There was 10 up at once but with a short lens they were not even specs at 200 yards.

I walked out to get some under shots & was really a bit worried about standing on a stonefish when i nearly copped this bloke (blue swimmer)...man he was upset. Without doubt the sweetest meat you will ever eat.

Yeah i know the joke "....well bring me the winner then"

wxwax · April 16, 2005

Man, I love that lens.

gus · April 16, 2005

wxwax wrote:

Man, I love that lens.

I'll give you the good oil mate...you have to be VERY carefull when you are getting in close to something as it (this case was an exposed rusty old steel frame in the bay) will appear 2-3 feet from you in the view finder when in fact you may only be 3-4 inches from it.

I wonder how many people have run the lens into something looking for angles ?

bfjr · April 16, 2005

Like them all

, except last one didn't get what that is

Really like the tans, blues, reds, did you saturate in PS or is that out of camera?

That wide look very dramatic when used well, and you did all that here

gus · April 16, 2005

bfjr wrote:

Like them all , except last one didn't get what that is
Really like the tans, blues, reds, did you saturate in PS or is that out of camera?
That wide look very dramatic when used well, and you did all that here

Its a crab.

Saturated to hell ...im still in the honeymoon period with RAW & playing with it. You can see distortion in some of the sky (2nd in particular) which i think is maybe from over procesing.

What the hell...im having a ball with it.

mgound · April 16, 2005

Love the wides! Especially this one. Great colors. You surfin or just shootin?

Andy · April 16, 2005

mgound wrote:

Love the wides! Especially this one. Great colors. You surfin or just shootin?

DoctorIt · April 16, 2005

wxwax wrote:

Man, I love that lens.

Gotta agree. Great set Gus

takes a tough guy to shoot right into the sun and pull it off like that

Steve Cavigliano · April 16, 2005

Gus,

These are all very good

As others have pointed out, that wide ROCKS

Geeze, I'm going to be forced to buy another lens I think

Glad you cleared up what was in that last shot. It looked like a rusty piece of metal to me

Even knowing you're tough, I didn't think you would call a metal pipe "sweet meat"....lol

So what ISO were you using? That crap in the sky looks like noise. Could be from a few places. From lightening/brightening an under exposed area, or adding saturation or contrast, or as you mention from over sharpening.

I sympathize with you on the sensor cleaning. I just rolled over my counter yesterday (back to Img 0001) and haven't cleaned mine yet :uhoh As much as I change lenses, it must be filthy

I wish I could get it cleaned before Yosemite. I really wanted to pop my digital F16 cherry there.....

Guess, I'll be limited to scenes with little or no clear sky

Really nice set, thanks for sharing,
Steve

gus · April 16, 2005

mgound wrote:

Love the wides! Especially this one. Great colors. You surfin or just shootin?

Tks..No...mate i would really like to give it a go. Its been a bit of a 'sport of kings' with prices but the ones i was talking to yesterday said equipment has come down nearly 1/3 in the past 18 months.

These 2 guys were speaking a lingo ...maybe russian. He was clearly a pro. He was doing stuff that no-one else came close to. He had several people there doing stuff for him.

Believe it or not i was maybe only 4 feet behind them on the ground to get this shot....the bloke on the left turned & saw me so i photographed him but i am yet to process it to see his expression. They got a fright but decided to smile & ignor me anyway.

gus · April 16, 2005

DoctorIt wrote:

Gotta agree. Great set Gus

takes a tough guy to shoot right into the sun and pull it off like that

Ta mate...Its easy when you dont know the rules to begin with.

gus · April 16, 2005

Steve Cavigliano wrote:

Gus,

These are all very good As others have pointed out, that wide ROCKS Geeze, I'm going to be forced to buy another lens I think

Glad you cleared up what was in that last shot. It looked like a rusty piece of metal to me Even knowing you're tough, I didn't think you would call a metal pipe "sweet meat"....lol

So what ISO were you using? That crap in the sky looks like noise. Could be from a few places. From lightening/brightening an under exposed area, or adding saturation or contrast, or as you mention from over sharpening.

I sympathize with you on the sensor cleaning. I just rolled over my counter yesterday (back to Img 0001) and haven't cleaned mine yet :uhoh As much as I change lenses, it must be filthy I wish I could get it cleaned before Yosemite. I really wanted to pop my digital F16 cherry there..... Guess, I'll be limited to scenes with little or no clear sky

Really nice set, thanks for sharing,
Steve

Tks steve...i might get andy to give me a crash course on cleaning at yos...im a bugger for wrecking stuff thats fragile.

gus · April 16, 2005

Late entry...you can see the island i walked out to in the very middle of the shot under that kite. There is a land bridge at low tide on the left...got to watch the tide though or be a good swimmer/shark fighter !

ian408 · April 16, 2005

Gus, I loved seeing your WA shots! Especially those shot into the sun.
When I try, pft

Keep it up and let's see some more!

ian

gus · April 16, 2005

Tks ian...i found another. I ditch a lot of shots then go back & rethink them.

Quite a harsh process but i like the mood it puts into the shot. Its a good place to get some colours.

Date Taken:2005-04-15 15:25:03Date Digitized:2005-04-15 15:25:03Make:CanonModel: Canon EOS 20D Size: 3520x2346 Bytes: 490592 Aperture: f/11.0 ISO: 800 Focal Length: 10mm (guess: 8mm in 35mm) Exposure Time: 0.0003s (1/3200)Flash:Flash did not fire, compulsory flash modeExposure Program:Aperture priorityExposure Bias:-0.66666666666667ColorSpace:sRGB

pathfinder · April 17, 2005

Humungus wrote:

Tks ian...i found another. I ditch a lot of shots then go back & rethink them.

Quite a harsh process but i like the mood it puts into the shot. Its a good place to get some colours.

Date Taken:2005-04-15 15:25:03Date Digitized:2005-04-15 15:25:03Make:CanonModel: Canon EOS 20D Size: 3520x2346 Bytes: 490592 Aperture: f/11.0 ISO: 800 Focal Length: 10mm (guess: 8mm in 35mm) Exposure Time: 0.0003s (1/3200)Flash:Flash did not fire, compulsory flash modeExposure Program:Aperture priorityExposure Bias:-0.66666666666667ColorSpace:sRGB

Great series, gus. But why shoot at ISO 800 - so you can shoot at 1/3200th of a second at 10mm, where 1/100th should be more than adequate?

Some of the noise in the sky you are describing may be coming from overrexposure in the blue channel in the sky. Try a lower ISO and see if the noise isn't diminshed abit. Ya think, mate?

DoctorIt · April 17, 2005

pathfinder wrote:

Great series, gus. But why shoot at ISO 800 - so you can shoot at 1/3200th of a second at 10mm, where 1/100th should be more than adequate?

Some of the noise in the sky you are describing may be coming from overrexposure in the blue channel in the sky. Try a lower ISO and see if the noise isn't diminshed abit. Ya think, mate?

Good call PF - my grandma could handhold a 10mm in broad daylight at ISO 100!

:hide

gus · April 17, 2005

pathfinder wrote:

Great series, gus. But why shoot at ISO 800 - so you can shoot at 1/3200th of a second at 10mm, where 1/100th should be more than adequate?

Ummm...now that you mention it....

DOH !!!

Mate i dont worry about small things like that ...but since youve asked.

I was at a birthday party the night before shooting with the same lens without a flash & have totally forgotten to check the cameras settings.

Oh look...a dog with a funny tail !

Phil U. · April 17, 2005

Humungus wrote:

Whats all the 'noise' looking stuff ? You can see it in the blue sky. Is it over processing ? Ie too much sharpening & detail.

Hey Gus - cool stuff. I love the WIDE perspectives...

As for the crud in the sky - most of it looks like JPEG issues - at least the banding in the sky in the first and third are definitely. Try a higher quality level when you save out to JPEG. Since I don't know your workflow, I'll mention this - please excuse me if this is too elementary. As you are editing, make sure you save your working version in a lossless format (like Photoshop's PSD or TIFF) and keep going back to that as you are editing. Then when you're done save it out to JPEG when you're ready to post. Otherwise if you are saving to JPEG each time, it will re-compress each time and lose quality.

Your hosting service could also be recompressing your JPEGs after you upload - gotta look out for that.

Hope that helps!

Phil U. · April 17, 2005

Phil U. wrote:

Hey Gus - cool stuff. I love the WIDE perspectives...

As for the crud in the sky - most of it looks like JPEG issues - at least the banding in the sky in the first and third are definitely. Try a higher quality level when you save out to JPEG. Since I don't know your workflow, I'll mention this - please excuse me if this is too elementary. As you are editing, make sure you save your working version in a lossless format (like Photoshop's PSD or TIFF) and keep going back to that as you are editing. Then when you're done save it out to JPEG when you're ready to post. Otherwise if you are saving to JPEG each time, it will re-compress each time and lose quality.

Your hosting service could also be recompressing your JPEGs after you upload - gotta look out for that.

Hope that helps!

Ah!, I finished reading the thread and see that you were at iso 800 - that'll account for the speckles in the rest of them - just a little pushing with the saturation or levels or curves will really bring out the glorious noise.

I still stand behind the JPEG compression for the banding of the sky in the first and third.

gus · April 18, 2005

Phil U. wrote:

Ah!, I finished reading the thread and see that you were at iso 800 - that'll account for the speckles in the rest of them - just a little pushing with the saturation or levels or curves will really bring out the glorious noise.

I still stand behind the JPEG compression for the banding of the sky in the first and third.

Tks phil...i save them from RAW (9 meg) to Jpeg (about 3-5 meg) but what do you think about saving them & loading them to SmugMug in Tiff format ?

But yep...i did not check the ISO settings so i will run them through Noise Ninja.

Phil U. · April 18, 2005

Humungus wrote:

Tks phil...i save them from RAW (9 meg) to Jpeg (about 3-5 meg) but what do you think about saving them & loading them to SmugMug in Tiff format ?

Man, I don't know if it's necessary to go all the way to TIFF for the upload. Maybe some experimenting may be in order. I only noticed the banding in the first and third. Maybe go back and play around with those to see what you can get with different jpeg compression levels all the way up to TIFF.

Kitesurfing at 10mm

Comments