-
-
Re: Stilt and chicks 2
you've got two threads running with the same image I responded on the other:- Ian
5D Mk III, 24-105 / 70-200 f2.8 L / 100-400 Mk II / 100 macro / 16-35 L / 11-24 L / 1.4 & 2x converters and a bad back carrying it all ;o)
:- https://www.flickr.com/photos/fotosespana/ -
Re: Stilt and chicks 2
Same family but a different shot Ian...
At print size it looks OK but like the other the full size version shows the same grainy/grit appearance. I also suspect that this, like the other has been aggressively sharpened and maybe with to much detail slider applied to overcome a perceived quality issue.
What we need to see a more or less straight out of camera shot with minimal or no processing other than JPEG conversion. At the moment any lens issues are possibly being exacerbated by possible over-processing.
PS
Compositionally I prefer this to the other.
Last edited by El Sid; 30-06-2016, 17:10.Nigel
You may know me from Another Place....
The new ElSid Photogallery...
Equipment: Far too much to list - including lots of Nikon...Comment
-
Re: Stilt and chicks 2
oh sorry - ignore meOriginally posted by El Sid View PostSame family but a different shot Ian...
:- Ian
5D Mk III, 24-105 / 70-200 f2.8 L / 100-400 Mk II / 100 macro / 16-35 L / 11-24 L / 1.4 & 2x converters and a bad back carrying it all ;o)
:- https://www.flickr.com/photos/fotosespana/Comment
-
Re: Stilt and chicks 2
Don't tempt me you better jetski picture taking person you...Originally posted by Tigger View Postoh sorry - ignore me
Actually you're right, I hadn't spotted the duplicate post and thought you were talking about the original Stilt and Chicks pic...
Nigel
You may know me from Another Place....
The new ElSid Photogallery...
Equipment: Far too much to list - including lots of Nikon...Comment
-
Re: Stilt and chicks 2
dohhhhOriginally posted by El Sid View PostDon't tempt me you better jetski picture taking person you...
Actually you're right, I hadn't spotted the duplicate post and thought you were talking about the original Stilt and Chicks pic...
:- Ian
5D Mk III, 24-105 / 70-200 f2.8 L / 100-400 Mk II / 100 macro / 16-35 L / 11-24 L / 1.4 & 2x converters and a bad back carrying it all ;o)
:- https://www.flickr.com/photos/fotosespana/Comment
-
Re: Stilt and chicks 2
Hi Sid, thanks for your comments, I will look more closely, I admit I have been quick off the mark to see some kind of results, and I shall post another image taken with my , 70mm-200mm +2x converter , this may give a clue to what I am comparing with,
As for composition all again was a hasty post, I know better,
BenComment
-
Re: Stilt and chicks 2
I tested my 70-200 with x2 against the 100-400 and found the results identical:- Ian
5D Mk III, 24-105 / 70-200 f2.8 L / 100-400 Mk II / 100 macro / 16-35 L / 11-24 L / 1.4 & 2x converters and a bad back carrying it all ;o)
:- https://www.flickr.com/photos/fotosespana/Comment
- CHAT TO OTHER PHOTOGRAPHERS ON THE FRIENDLY FORUM
In these troubled times it is good to talk. If you want to stay in touch with other EOS photographers, this forum is here to help. In addition to the many photo categories, 'The New EOS Pub' is a safe space to post and read messages about anything (but please steer clear of religion and politics). The forum is free. Register now if you are not already a member.
If you are new to forums, details about how to post and other useful information can be found in the FAQ section
A LITTLE LIGHT READING
If you want to learn more about photography while isolated at home, click https://www.eos-magazine.com/Magazine/subscribe.html
This will show how you can access digital editions of every copy of EOS magazine back to 2006 - nearly 60 issues!
- If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
- The forum software has been updated, if you see any javascript errors, the suggestion from vBulletin is to clear your browser cache and try again.
Comment