What about these....

[yogad]

I went hiking last weekend and took my new 10D. I am still learning how to make the shots come out right in dark slot canyons (it is a tricky business). I had formerly used a G1 and had gotten quite used to how it would perform and how the shots would come out under certain lighting conditions. When I got back, I was dissapointed with the results from the 10D while the G1 made great shots as usual (I took them both). Here is a side by side comparison of the same shot with the same settings (1/125, f4.5, about same focal length after ).

Why does the G1 look so much better? 10D is softer, colors not as vibrant, etc...Granted I can make the 10D shot look just as good in PS, but I would like to get better shots right out of the camera. Any tips?

I have read several other posts about this, but the situation seems a bit different here....

http://laxenterprises.com/compare/10d.jpg
http://laxenterprises.com/compare/g1.jpg

YogaD

[rdenney]

yogad wrote:
I went hiking last weekend and took my new 10D. I am still learning how to make the shots come out right in dark slot canyons (it is a tricky business). I had formerly used a G1 and had gotten quite used to how it would perform and how the shots would come out under certain lighting conditions. When I got back, I was dissapointed with the results from the 10D while the G1 made great shots as usual (I took them both). Here is a side by side comparison of the same shot with the same settings (1/125, f4.5, about same focal length after ).

Why does the G1 look so much better? 10D is softer, colors not as vibrant, etc...Granted I can make the 10D shot look just as good in PS, but I would like to get better shots right out of the camera. Any tips?

I have read several other posts about this, but the situation seems a bit different here....

http://laxenterprises.com/compare/10d.jpg
http://laxenterprises.com/compare/g1.jpg

YogaD

Frankly, I prefer the 10D version as a starting point.

The G1 is, I think, post processing the image to a greater extent than the 10D. The same information seems to be in both images, but the G1 image has more contrast.

I have found that I routinely bump up the contrast on my 10D images using the Curves command in Photoshop. I'd always rather add than have to subtract, so I like Canon's conservative contrast post-processing. But there is an image setting for contrast in the menus that you can turn up, and that will probably solve your problem to some extent. You can turn saturation up a bit, too, but I think these images are more a contrast issue than a saturation issue. But you have to use the sRGB color space to make use of it.

Come to think of it, the color space might be an issue, too. If you are using the AdobeRGB color space, then it will look flatter with display software calibrated to sRGB, which includes most browsers outside of Photoshop. Try viewing the image in PS with the "Windows RGB" preview mode, and you'll see the color flatten out. If you convert the color space back to sRGB (only for the image that you put on the web), you'll get some of that saturation back. But I find that images corrected for good Windows display in the sRGB color space tend to be too saturated in Epson prints, so I only do it for the images targeted for the web.

By the way, the color looks more natural to me in the 10D shot, too. The G1 image seems too magenta, though I realize you can get all sorts of strange colorations in slot canyons when the sun is shining on one wall.

I like your G1 image composition, by the way. I always like bringing the foreground into the picture like you did, and the specular highlights on the water really add to the drama of the image. I'm looking forward to my 14mm lens getting back from Sigma with a new chip so it will work on my 10D.

I have some work (not with Canon cameras) at http://www.rickdenney.com/the_american_west.htm that you may enjoy. They are made with medium format and film, and then scanned, but I had the same issues to deal with after scanning. I was surprised after correcting the first batch of images for my calibrated PS monitor and Epson printer that when I put them up on the web they were horribly flat. I had to correct the color on all the web-targeted images and upload them again.

Rick "who loves the canyon country" Denney

[Yavor75]

Greetings-
Yes, indeed th G1 is a great consumer camera. I took your 10D canyon picture and did my normal processing routine in Photoshop. I did a quick auto-levels and then my Fred Miranda Custom sharpen Pro. It results in a better picture than either of your original samples. This is no where as good as taking the original from the 10D and doing the same processing on it.
Your G1 original looks more like a magazine print. What you want is a nice flat and natural image that actually represents the sight as it appeared.

http://www.esb.utexas.edu/nagy/10dmodded.jpg


Have fun-
Bob

[DVWarrior]

In my opinion what you are experiencing is the following...
The 10D is known for it's softness especially with certain lenses, while your G1 has it's dedicated lens which will perform to it's optimum because it never leaves the camera.
Most of these replys are from "blinkered" canonites who see all these soft pictures with rose coloured specs. It's an attitude..."Oh the 10D is a semi Pro camera so it must be better"...crap. Sadly you have exposed the 10D once again as producing inferior digital pictures that are excelled by an older 3MP camera. So many of these replys have the word "Photoshop" all you are doing is adding noise every time you footer with the original picture. I am now waiting longer for a full frame D-SLR which does not have the same problems as the 1.6 converted D-SLRs. Mean time I have just bought a G5 and the results are mind blowing.

[slejhamer]

DVWarrior has some interesting points (I am a G1 user so I may be biased ... :) )

However, in the above examples, we know nothing about the camera settings so it is difficult to compare the images directly. The G1 picture looks oversharpened and perhaps oversaturated - and yes, there seems to be evidence of the infamous G1 magenta shift. The brighter colors appear to be clipped as well. What were your in-camera settings, yogad? And how does what you really saw there compare to Bob's processed 10D image? It certainly looks natural to me, but I wasn't there...

[rdenney]

DVWarrior wrote:
So many of these replys have the word "Photoshop" all you are doing is adding noise every time you footer with the original picture. I am now waiting longer for a full frame D-SLR which does not have the same problems as the 1.6 converted D-SLRs. Mean time I have just bought a G5 and the results are mind blowing.

What makes you think that the G1 isn't applying exactly the same processes to the sensor information that Photoshop would to a 10D raw file? Do you think the images were contrastier coming off the sensor? (Hint: they weren't.) What makes you think those in-camera processes that you can't control won't degrade the sensor information just as much as what Photoshop would do?

The difference with Photoshop is that I get to control the post-processing with some precision, rather than using the camera's simplified processes. The 10D was made for people who want that control, and the G1 was made for people who don't.

Also, consumers have been programmed by minilabs to appreciate prints with jumped-up colors and excessive contrast, often completely obliteration shadow detail as well as blowing out the highlights. You can always add contrast, but if the highlights are all 255,255,255 and the shadows are all 0,0,0, then there isn't much you can do from there. The G1 is probably geared at least to some extent to those consumer expectations. Personally, I like have an 8 or 9-stop range, rather than making my wide-latitude sensor look like Velvia all the time. (I must admit that I like bright colors, too. But I want to be the guilty party if they are too bright:)).

Rick "whose visualization of an image is more important than accuracy, making control more important than camera automation" Denney

[DVWarrior]

Hey my new G5 produces RAW pics if I can be bothered with all that hassel... No sir...the reason I use digital is to kick the mini lab in the ass for all those duff prints that I knew were...exposed, in focus and good !
I want the same pleasure as I got from my old EOS-5 but without the middle man or should that be mini man !
No longer do I have to wait 3 WORKING days to see my results and yes I want my pics to appear out of the camera as they were intended...SHARP, WELL EXPOSED,
CORRECT COLOUR and GOOD...I got this from film and I damed well expect this from digital...!!!

[rdenney]

DVWarrior wrote:
Hey my new G5 produces RAW pics if I can be bothered with all that hassel... No sir...the reason I use digital is to kick the mini lab in the ass for all those duff prints that I knew were...exposed, in focus and good !
I want the same pleasure as I got from my old EOS-5 but without the middle man or should that be mini man !
No longer do I have to wait 3 WORKING days to see my results and yes I want my pics to appear out of the camera as they were intended...SHARP, WELL EXPOSED,
CORRECT COLOUR and GOOD...I got this from film and I damed well expect this from digital...!!!

You can get it from the 10D, too. Just crank up the sharpness, contrast, and saturation in the image processing menu.

Rick "or, stick with your G5" Denney

[diyjoe]

DVWarrior wrote:
I want the same pleasure as I got from my old EOS-5 but without the middle man or should that be mini man !
No longer do I have to wait 3 WORKING days to see my results and yes I want my pics to appear out of the camera as they were intended...SHARP, WELL EXPOSED,
CORRECT COLOUR and GOOD...I got this from film and I damed well expect this from digital...!!!

You didn't get that from film - you got that from the minilab man who looked at your negatives and made an objective decision about the contrast, colour balance and saturation to apply during the printing process.

Now that you have put the minilab guy out of a job, you will need to learn his skills yourself.

;-)

[CyberDyneSystems]

And may I add that you most certainly DID NOT get ACCURATE color,.. you got rich deep and saturated color as has been the increasing trend with film in the last 25 years or so...

... it is entirely exagerated color, it grabs the attention, it is attractive, but it is anything but accurate.

[DVWarrior]

Thats what I like about you SLR snobs if you can't replace the duff bit of glass with a bigger duff bit of glass then the camera must produce "UNTRUE DUFF PICS".
Lets set the picture straight...
1. Mini labs, chemist, Walmart etc. served a purpose...you got to see your efforts within 3 days or 24 hours...nothing they produced was true to life...as we all know...thats what the pro lab is for.

2. Home printing via computer and inkjet is fine but expensive but you do have control and if you get the parameters correct before you press the tit then the "Mini lab" skills are pre produced.

3. Photography is not about "what camera" but how to use the camera to produce the picture that you want.

Hey I got the gear 20 years ago...enlarger, developing drum the lot and spent many a happy night enlaring my photos...today I touch up as little as possible on the computer not due to the lack of skill but more to the fact I have a business to run and deadlines to meet.
I work in the field of graphics and video so I think I am more that competent with digital media.

[rdenney]

DVWarrior wrote:
Thats what I like about you SLR snobs if you can't replace the duff bit of glass with a bigger duff bit of glass then the camera must produce "UNTRUE DUFF PICS".
...
3. Photography is not about "what camera" but how to use the camera to produce the picture that you want.

Hey I got the gear 20 years ago...enlarger, developing drum the lot and spent many a happy night enlaring my photos...today I touch up as little as possible on the computer not due to the lack of skill but more to the fact I have a business to run and deadlines to meet.
I work in the field of graphics and video so I think I am more that competent with digital media.



No doubt. But why so defensive?

Some people don't like high production. They prefer to work their images one at a time. Is that wrong? Is it being a snob? I hope not. We each have our own way to reach your Number 3 above. If Canon's engineer did it for you, then you should be proud.

Like I said, the G cameras were made for people who just want to stick their card in the printer and punch "go." If that's what you want to do, then blessings upon your house. Other people have different objectives.

Besides, the guy asked why the 10D image was flatter than the G-1 image, and we told him, rather than using it as an opportunity to look down on a bunch "non-SLR snobs."

Rick "who will happily take a whole hour setting up one view-camera shot and who doesn't care much about production or deadlines when it comes to photography" Denney

[yogad]

Thanks for clearing that up for me. I suspected that the G1 was doing a lot for me. I guess you can get the same things out of both cameras if you want to just point and shoot. Me, I like control. I like to be able to "not do" somthing if I want. I want to be able to produce a "ready to go image" (which I found I can by playing with the in camera settings) or one that I can tinker with.

In my opinion, there are very few "as is" images in the world. Even the great Ansel Adams himself was a master in the darkroom. He just did it the hard way. I'm sure if he had photoshop, he would have been in heaven. Regardless of how you do it, you still need to have a good eye to make your shots look good. I don't think that photoshop is "cheating" or "faking it" as long as you don't over do things.

On another note, when you see the sight, you are blown away. That's why you took a picture of it. But the picture never does it justice. You can only capture a small portion of what you saw. Making the photo such that it conveys what you felt, and perhaps not necissarily what you saw is a whole other school of thought.

At any rate, I think I will keep my 10D and use my G1 as backup :)

[Stoneh]

this is what was puzzling me and promted me to post this message

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=12127

BTW: I dont think DSLR user's are snobs at all..... been very helpfull and not all opinions have been biased. I love the G2, and I will be keeping that as backup and use it in places where a SLR would be too cumbersome :)

Got some news... my 28-135 UIS lens has arrived but no 10D!!!

me waits.......