Quake3World

ForM wrote:

Doombrain wrote:Another image test.

All at 50 iso @ 97mm
RAW auto setting in PS3
x2 unsharp mask at 25% and 0.8%

I think you could have done your "test" with 100% crops a whole lot easier than what you are trying to impress us with. After all, those that have DSLR's know the full file size is gonna be 8 to 12 megs. You seem to have a joy with posting either a tiny image, or going full sized file. Neither which impress me. (Not to mention you have yet to post anything that is interesting.

And as far as Mint and Free? I call bullshit.

Take a real pic and lets see what that Sigma 70-200 can do. And please, include the EXIF data, even if you do do some post processing.


Love the second pic Dave.

wtf's you problem? I posted a full size link to each image moron. Can you work out to open them? The fucking EXIF data's also there, do you need help on how to get that as well? or are you a moron?...

I know the owner off the biggest Sigma distributor in the UK, we sell him millions of pounds of stuff every year. I did 60" x 30 meters of banner advert printing for a show called Focus on Imaging for him. It's the biggest photographic show in Europe. It was my b'day on the 26th, the show finished on the 27th. He gave it me as a thank you because the printing would have cost him over £3000. I only mentioned it because I knew it would upset you fucking bandwagon momos

mrd wrote:DB, your window is fucking filthy. I can also read the UPC code on your bottle of cleaner.

man i know. we had get the sand from north africa washed down on us in rain storms from time to time.

ForM wrote:Canon 70-300mm IS USM

Example from with EXIF data included.





While not 100% crop Doombrain, I am trying to show you that you can compress an image to a point to just before it degrades.



Show us how that Sigma preforms.

What the point here? I know how to handle an image, and I'm betting better than you.

At least i offered a thumbnail for reference and the original to view and take EXIF from. We all have high speed internet, unless you're a moron.

that's a bird. on a stick.

Just gone back through the topic. I think the bitterness goes back to some B&Ws and me posting large files.

Plus I do come across as a cunt sometimes. Well, all the time.

+JuggerNaut+ wrote:that's a bird. on a stick.

Not just a bird on a stick, a horribly over sharpened bird on a stick with halo.

cunt, etc.

might have

Doombrain wrote:Another image test.

All at 50 iso @ 97mm
RAW auto setting in PS3
x2 unsharp mask at 25% and 0.8%

WARNING links are large files!!!

Do you want us to comment the impact of different apertures on the sharpness or something.

jesus christ

well, do tell

it was just a few pictures at three different f/stops. ok?

See if this works...




Fireworks:


Puppy - can't decide for sure which I like better:

2nd one
and the fireworks shot is cool

imo, the first puppy photo is better. The b&w grass would be ok if the dog wasn't black.

Although I don't know why you took out the brown from the dog's muzzle/paws

two reasons:
1) If he was in color, then the only thing b&w in the photo would have been the sidewalk, which isn't exactly what i was going for, although it might look okay now that you mention it.
2) I only know how to make hue/saturation adjustments to the whole image, unfortunately - not just certain parts.


Thanks Fender.

Well, learn how to adjust a part of the image first, because tbh, I really don't like any of the 2 dog pictures. There is no point processing them in the way you are doing them now. It doesn't "add" to the pictures.

I like them quite a bit - that seems like a good enough reason to me. I don't know why you say it doesn't "add" to the pictures. You haven't even seen the originals.

Either way, I'm always learning how to do new stuff - these pics were a learning process too. It's not like I'm averse to adjusting just a part of the image.

Lighten up.

I was not even beeing "heavy". In the first picture you fade out the dog making the grass the central theme, in the 2nd picture your bring out the brown of the foreground, which still takes away the focus on the dog.

I understand what you are trying to do, but the only way it would work - for me that is - is to highlight the dog and keep everything else in the background faded. But then again, the dog is black and only has a few brown stops, that's why my opnion is that there is no point processing them in that way, because it would not turn out great anyway.

I wasn't beeing rude, sorry if I was abrupt..

hate wrote:go ahead and try to guess which one db shagged that night

here's a hint

L L

ROFL...

MaCaBr3 wrote:I was not even beeing "heavy". In the first picture you fade out the dog making the grass the central theme, in the 2nd picture your bring out the brown of the foreground, which still takes away the focus on the dog.

I understand what you are trying to do, but the only way it would work - for me that is - is to highlight the dog and keep everything else in the background faded. But then again, the dog is black and only has a few brown stops, that's why my opnion is that there is no point processing them in that way, because it would not turn out great anyway.

I wasn't beeing rude, sorry if I was abrupt..

Thanks for the advice.

ForM wrote:Canon 70-300mm IS USM

Example from with EXIF data included.





While not 100% crop Doombrain, I am trying to show you that you can compress an image to a point to just before it degrades.



Show us how that Sigma preforms.

my bird on a stick with 100% cry baby crop. with exif and sigma. boo hoo.



100%




100%


Now fuck off and concentrate on someone else.

Also

[edited out for bigger version below]

Like the last two.

I just ordered a Fuji Finepix s5700! I can't wait to start taking pictures again! Ever since i broke my last one i've really missed having one...

And before you say it's shit, i know... i only expect it to help me make fine pix, not stunning ones. Anyway, pix somewhere next week i guess

no, it's a good P&S. you always get good greens and blues with a fuji.