Long Lens comparison

[BigRed450]

I am debating whether to purchase the Canon Ef 100-400 AF IS or the Sigma 50-500. What are your opinions on these two lenses and which do you prefer?...

Thanks

Jeff

[PacAce]

I am debating whether to purchase the Canon Ef 100-400 AF IS or the Sigma 50-500. What are your opinions on these two lenses and which do you prefer?...

Thanks

Jeff

I personally went with the 100-400L for the following reasons:

1. It's lighter to carry around and hand-hold.
2. It's shorter and easily fits in my back-pack, even with all the other lenses in there.
3. The IS makes it easier to hand-hold and get "steady" pictures.
4. And it is Canon white! :mrgreen:

[chris.bailey]

I am debating whether to purchase the Canon Ef 100-400 AF IS or the Sigma 50-500. What are your opinions on these two lenses and which do you prefer?...

Thanks

Jeff

My name is Chris and I am an L-adict :cry:

I did look at the Sigma but it is immense. I also looked at the 100-200 L and 2x TC but ended up, after much trying and soul searching, with the 100-400.

[scottbergerphoto]

The Canon 100-400 IS L is a great lens. A little soft near 400, but still a great lens. Forget about using it with a 2x extender. The viewfinder gets too dark, AF is not available/erratic with the tape bypass. If you are interested here are some examples: http://www.pbase.com/scottbergerphoto/faces_in_the_park

http://www.pbase.com/image/20905204.jpg
One for the road,
Scott

[BigRed450]

Thanks All for your input. Looks like L glass is the way to go.

PS.. Nice work Scott

[Belmondo]

I also own the 100-400 and have gotten great performance from it.

That having been said, there are more than a couple Sigma EX zealots on this board, and you might want to hear what they say before making any decisions. I've seen some impressive work by them with the Sigma lens, so don't just rely on the word of the first two or three people to respond. The only conclusion you can draw from the replies you've gotten thus far is that Canon owners are faster typists.

We're not letting you off that easily.

:wink:

Tom.

[iwatkins]

Jeff,

Don't listen to these fashion victims, buy the Sigma 50-500 EX :wink:

Seriosuly, I looked long and hard at these two lenses. I almost went for the Canon (which would have been my first Canon lens) but couldn't really do without the extra 100mm as it will have wildlife usage. IS has never been an attraction for me as I'm a dab hand with a monopod/tripod.

Don't get me wrong, the Canon is a great lens, if a little soft at the long end (well, the one I tested was), but that extra reach without resorting to multipliers sold the Simga to me. Add to that that I was already happy with several other Sigma EX lenses and it was a done deal when you look at the costs.

Canon in white ? Pah, my Sigma looks like a weapon of mass destruction. :wink:

Cheers

Ian

[Jim_T]

The 50-500 has the advantage of a greater range and an extra 100mm at the long end.. I've seen lots of good reviews on it.

But... I like the 100-400IS.. The Image stabilization is a great thing. Unless it's pretty bright out, you really need IS to shoot handheld at 300mm and higher.. Especially at f/5.6 and higher..

Mandatory sample image :) --> http://www.pbase.com/image/20073134

[Jim_T]

Just looking at Pbase.. I see they've put lenses into their database.. This allows you to call up sample images taken with a specific lens..

Click on either link.. Keep hitting refresh on your browser to see a random batch of images created with the lens.. Click on the thumbnail to see the original image..

Canon
http://www.pbase.com/cameras/canon/ef_100400_45is

Sigma
http://www.pbase.com/cameras/sigma/50500_463_ex_apo_rf_hsm


This should help in making a lens selection.......

[CyberDyneSystems]

I have gotten a lot of great images with a 50-500mm EX :)

There is a big difference in weight to consider.. and of course a significant price difference.

If you are a birder or into wildlife at all, the 50-500mm is wonderfull on a monopod.

To me,. the weight was not an issue as I loved it on the monopod which takes the weight.

If you are thinking hand held shooting,. you'd best look closer at the 100-400mm IS. :)

[GenEOS]

:?
OK, its time for me to face my deamons.

My name is Daniel and I too am an L-glass addict.

I agree with the size, weight, stabilizer reasons for buying the Canon glass.
The extra 100mm FL would be nice, but I think the Canon lens is a better buy.

[defordphoto]

The 100-400 is an awesome lens and absolutely tack sharp at 400. Where it gets just a taste soft is at wide open aperture of 5.6. Other than that (and that's VERY minor) it's a killer lens. Get the extra warranty though as the AF mechanism can choke on it sometimes.

See the full gallery here: http://racefamily.racinglines.com/Galleries/2003/CART/Portland/3_Day/index.htm

http://racefamily.racinglines.com/Galleries/2003/CART/Portland/3_Day/img_4338_std.jpg

[Tom W]

That is tack-sharp, Jim. Was that at 400 mm?

[defordphoto]

That is tack-sharp, Jim. Was that at 400 mm?

Yes sir. It sure was. Not a whole lot of postprocessing either. Just a little white balance adjustment, a tick or two of color saturation and some USM.

[Tom W]

Yes sir. It sure was. Not a whole lot of postprocessing either. Just a little white balance adjustment, a tick or two of color saturation and some USM.

Very good job. I'm again impressed by your racing photos - perhaps partly because I like racing (though I admittedly haven't seen a good open-wheel race in several years). I know that there's already a thread tossing you kudos, but you have earned them. Both you and the 100-400 lens.

I need a second job. :)

[Flint350]

I tried both and came to the conclusion (like many reviews I've seen) that they are very close in optical quality with some subtle differences. I guess it comes down to aperture, weight, normal use of tripod or not, and desire for an "L" vs. a Bigma. I like the extra reach of the 50-500, can live with the weight (tripod) and the aperture. The price diff. is not insignificant (about $600) and I couldn't find that much diff to justify it - FOR MY NEEDS. I now have both "L" glass and Sigma for my 10D, depends on the need and the quality shown. It's a tough call. I made mine and wish you and others well with theirs as this comparo seems to come up a lot. Plus, the soon-come Sigma 80-400 OS glass is about to make it even more interesting.

[defordphoto]

I need to win the freaking lotto! I want the new 1Dx (or whatever they will call it. Definitely NOT the 1Dh) so bad I can taste it. We'll see here in a couple of weeks if I can afford it.

What does a kidney go for these days?

Anyway, those shots would not be possible without the fine Canon equipment I am so blessed to have. I shot the year before with my EOS650 and some Vivitar-POS 70-210 lens and the pics were total crap compared to these. The composition was there but the photo results had no wow-factor.

To say I am pleased with my equipment is a major understatement and I can hardly wait to get back at the track(s) again and start shooting.

Thanks for the comments, Tom. Nothing is more pleasing than to receive praise from another photographer.

[Tom W]

I need to win the freaking lotto! I want the new 1Dx (or whatever they will call it. Definitely NOT the 1Dh) so bad I can taste it. We'll see here in a couple of weeks if I can afford it.

What does a kidney go for these days?

Anyway, those shots would not be possible without the fine Canon equipment I am so blessed to have. I shot the year before with my EOS650 and some Vivitar-POS 70-210 lens and the pics were total crap compared to these. The composition was there but the photo results had no wow-factor.

I understand that. I was looking at some old slides that I took back around the early 1980's. I was at one of the first Cleveland 500 Indy-Car races with my Canon FT, a Tamron 135 mm f/2.8, and a Tokina 2X doubler. I must have 30 slides of panned shots, from which I might have created 3-4 keepers. None of them could match even the quality of my 70-210 non-L zoom, let alone the absolute crispness that you've captured with your lenses.

Of course, some of that is user-error. While I prefocused and preset the exposure on those shots, I was (and still am) rather inexperienced in panning and thus am not as smooth as I could be.

To say I am pleased with my equipment is a major understatement and I can hardly wait to get back at the track(s) again and start shooting.

Thanks for the comments, Tom. Nothing is more pleasing than to receive praise from another photographer.

I offer praise for your pictures because I know what it takes to create great action shots. Those cars are flying, particularly when you have zoomed or otherwise gotten close enough to have the vehicle filling so much of the frame. You have a certain creativeness and you enjoy vehicular sports enough that you can visualize good shots before you take them. I'll bet that your "dud" to "keeper" ratio is biased towards keepers.

And yes, your choice of equipment is excellent.

BTW, although I appreciate the label of photographer, I'm more inclined to settle for the title of "weekend duffer". I don't do this professionally, and I still have much to learn. :)

[timmyquest]

I need to win the freaking lotto! I want the new 1Dx (or whatever they will call it. Definitely NOT the 1Dh) so bad I can taste it. We'll see here in a couple of weeks if I can afford it.

What does a kidney go for these days?

Anyway, those shots would not be possible without the fine Canon equipment I am so blessed to have. I shot the year before with my EOS650 and some Vivitar-POS 70-210 lens and the pics were total crap compared to these. The composition was there but the photo results had no wow-factor.

To say I am pleased with my equipment is a major understatement and I can hardly wait to get back at the track(s) again and start shooting.

Thanks for the comments, Tom. Nothing is more pleasing than to receive praise from another photographer.

I've been leaning towards canon glass more then sigma, if i had known oyu took that picture (which i've admired for weeks now) i would have made my mind up a while ago.

[defordphoto]

I offer praise for your pictures because I know what it takes to create great action shots. Those cars are flying, particularly when you have zoomed or otherwise gotten close enough to have the vehicle filling so much of the frame. You have a certain creativeness and you enjoy vehicular sports enough that you can visualize good shots before you take them. I'll bet that your "dud" to "keeper" ratio is biased towards keepers.

And yes, your choice of equipment is excellent.

BTW, although I appreciate the label of photographer, I'm more inclined to settle for the title of "weekend duffer". I don't do this professionally, and I still have much to learn. :)

I have been shooting since I was a teenager. Been a race fan longer than that. I have taken no formal training in photography. So, yes, it takes loads of practice and experimentation. Now, when we experiment, we can see immediately what the results are, make changes and shoot again. That also helps alot.

Last summer we went out and shot the windsurfers. Lots to learn there. So many surfers to shoot. And then we shot girls soccer. Another learning experience.

I have found the alot of the experience you need to shoot a sport properly is to study the sport itself. Our first soccer shoot was a disaster. I was so dissappointed. The next game we went without cameras and just watched the game. The next shoot was like two completely diferent photographers.

Yes, my keeper ratio is actually quite high and it becomes so, so difficult to select photos for the galleries. I have so many ideas I am looking forward to playing with this year. And I'm hoping I'll have the new 1Dx before the race season starts. We'll see...

Weekend Duffer? LOL! Yeah well, we've all been there. I do not shoot professionally. I do have a few clients, but by no means is photography putting a roof over my head.

The neat thing about these forums is being able to share so much information with so many people. We'll all learn and the learning process in photography is never ending. After 30-plus years I still learn something each and every time I shoot. If you stop learning then it's time to pack it up and find something else to do.

Anyway, I guess we kinda hijacked this thread eh? Long lenses. Yeah. Hmm well, I have never used an long Sigmas. We have a low-cost 70-300 Sigma APO lens but man that thing is so soft and the color rendition and contrast are mushy. I do know they make better lenses than this one, but since going to Canon's L-glass, I'm hooked. It is worth the price.

[morenoar]

Dear RFM (dang is this formal or what).

Great shots on this forum and your site. AWESOME. Reading your thread about taking Soccer Shots, I understand your feeling. I have been out at the fields (not in the last 3 weeks) almost every weekend since I got my 300D and I still can't figure out where to be for those GREAT SHOTS (action of course). Just seems like I move one place, the action goes to the other side and vice versa. I am shooting with a Canon EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III Zoom Lens and my pictures come out so-so. Some are nice some are bad(HMM might be me, but I don't think so :lol: ). I think a lot has to do with not being patient enough and just staying in one area, at least that is what a few people have told me to do (but I am stubborn). But going out everyweekend has taught me at least 1 thing. I can take the shots easier with MF than with AF. They seem to come out better. By the way, SOCCER is a GREAT SPORT TO WATCH, so at least you have that to look forward to. I do have a question for you, after all this rambling, how are the pictures with the 100-400L on a cloudy day? This is where I have the problem with the lens that I have. Any suggestions? I am saving up for either the 100-400 or the 120-300. Any suggestions on speed, aperture would be appreciated, I ask this because I am not patient and use that wonderful Sports mode. Thanks

[KennyG]

Better contrast, IS, lighter, shorter and despite what you hear they are sharp at 400mm. I have both the Canon and Sigma and have compared both with a 10D and a 1D.

I just love this lens - :D

http://www.stiuk.dial.pipex.com/muller-lr.jpg

[PacAce]

Jim and Kenny,

Your photos are absolutely stupendous. Makes me wish I could shoot racing photos like that!

Would either one of you happen to have any pictures from an AMA or a GP motorcycle race. too?

[Tom W]

Yes, they are. Capturing a fast-moving object is very difficult. Capturing it with such clarity is fantastic.

I will consider this lens some day, but its not in the cards right now. The camera body is next on the list.

[Canuck]

I would add that the Sigma 120-300 F2.8EX is a great lens, and it is $1900,
approx. Now stick the 2x TC for $180 and you have to 600 at F5.6 and add in the crop factor and it is 960mm at F5.6 too! Can't shake a stick at that! I have the 120-300 Sigma lens aforementioned. Please feel free to get ahold of me thru the forum.

I am also an L-caholic having the Canon 16-35 F2.8L. It is wild, somehow I felt like the first time I started shooting with it and looking at the result, my ability jumped dramatically. I can't explain it. Maybe someone else can and the keeper to junker has gone way up for the keeper side. I think it may force you to be a much better photographer and the 2.8 aperature allows you to, in certain circumstances, cheat the lack of light. Been there, done that. I have the pic to prove it!

[Canuck]

Yes, they are. Capturing a fast-moving object is very difficult. Capturing it with such clarity is fantastic.

I will consider this lens some day, but its not in the cards right now. The camera body is next on the list.

I wonder how this compares to the shots of aircraft going just under the speed of sound, at an airshow? There is one that is no more that I got clocked at between 250 and 300 knots. Takeoff speed is about 240 knots. Catching it landing is equally difficult, as it landed about 150% faster than the rest. I can remember after it, catching 747s and the like and they seemed to linger forever, comparatively speaking.

[Tom W]

Yes, they are. Capturing a fast-moving object is very difficult. Capturing it with such clarity is fantastic.

I will consider this lens some day, but its not in the cards right now. The camera body is next on the list.

I wonder how this compares to the shots of aircraft going just under the speed of sound, at an airshow? There is one that is no more that I got clocked at between 250 and 300 knots. Takeoff speed is about 240 knots. Catching it landing is equally difficult, as it landed about 150% faster than the rest. I can remember after it, catching 747s and the like and they seemed to linger forever, comparatively speaking.

Me, I prefer to catch them when they aren't moving:

http://home.comcast.net/~trwilk3/Images/Medium_Escape.jpg

Seriously, though, I guess it depends on how much the moving object fills your field of view. I would think that the more it fills your field of view and/or the faster it is moving, the harder it would be to capture it.

[PacAce]

Yes, they are. Capturing a fast-moving object is very difficult. Capturing it with such clarity is fantastic.

I will consider this lens some day, but its not in the cards right now. The camera body is next on the list.

I wonder how this compares to the shots of aircraft going just under the speed of sound, at an airshow? There is one that is no more that I got clocked at between 250 and 300 knots. Takeoff speed is about 240 knots. Catching it landing is equally difficult, as it landed about 150% faster than the rest. I can remember after it, catching 747s and the like and they seemed to linger forever, comparatively speaking.

Me, I prefer to catch them when they aren't moving:

...

Seriously, though, I guess it depends on how much the moving object fills your field of view. I would think that the more it fills your field of view and/or the faster it is moving, the harder it would be to capture it.

It also depends on how far away the fast moving subject is from the camera. The farther away it is, the slower the perceived speed.

Nice picture, Tom. Now THAT's the kind of picture I'd be able to manage myself. :)

BTW, Tom, if you had set the camera on a slow shutter speed, say, 1/15 and then let off on the hand brakes, you could have had your SUV slowly roll down your drive way. Then, if you pan the camera to follow the car, you'd get a great in-focus shot of the car with a blurred background. And you'd still have had time to get back in the car to keep it from rolling all the way down into the street! :mrgreen:

[Tom W]

It also depends on how far away the fast moving subject is from the camera. The farther away it is, the slower the perceived speed.

Nice picture, Tom. Now THAT's the kind of picture I'd be able to manage myself. :)

BTW, Tom, if you had set the camera on a slow shutter speed, say, 1/15 and then let off on the hand brakes, you could have had your SUV slowly roll down your drive way. Then, if you pan the camera to follow the car, you'd get a great in-focus shot of the car with a blurred background. And you'd still have had time to get back in the car to keep it from rolling all the way down into the street! :mrgreen:

Somehow, I'd end up in front of it and I'm not sure I could outrun it, even on flat ground. I suspect I'd be taking pictures of the undercarriage in short order. :)

[nucki]

take a look at this topic : http://www.photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=23097

best regards
Peter

[mjordan]

I wonder how this compares to the shots of aircraft going just under the speed of sound, at an airshow? There is one that is no more that I got clocked at between 250 and 300 knots. Takeoff speed is about 240 knots. Catching it landing is equally difficult, as it landed about 150% faster than the rest. I can remember after it, catching 747s and the like and they seemed to linger forever, comparatively speaking.

Canuck,

Here is one I took at an air show in 2002. This was taken with my 70-200 4.0L on a D30. I can't wait to try my 10D and 70-200 2.8L IS lens on the next air show.

http://www.sitnprettyphoto.com/airshow/f18_0927.jpg

Jim, I know what you mean about the wind surfers. I started taking pictures of them and kite boarders a couple of years ago. All the shots I'd taken of dog agility (your boats and cars might be fast, but just try to keep up with a fast running dog jumping obsticals :D ) helped with timing. I did learn that position of the surfer as well as objects behind them were important. Although I still forget in the rush of the moment, I mostly remember to look back behind them to make sure some other surfer isn't messing up the background. And you have to get out on the sand bar at Hood River if you want to get good shots.

They cancelled the Gorge Games last summer so there wasn't as much activity along Hood River and The Dallas as there was the year before. And the wind didn't blow as constant either. I'm hoping this summer will be better... plus I hope to have a 100-400 or a 300 or 400 prime. I'm also thinking of getting the 1.4 converter to go with my 70-200 for now.

If you want to try agility, there is a show going on this weekend at the Exposition Center. It was a 4 day show that started on Thur but I couldn't go. But I should be there tomorrow and maybe Sun. It's indoors but better lit than some of the places I've been.

Mike

[PacAce]

Here is one I took at an air show in 2002. This was taken with my 70-200 4.0L on a D30. I can't wait to try my 10D and 70-200 2.8L IS lens on the next air show.

...

Mike

That's an awesome picture of the F18 Hornet! Very nice! :D

[Tom W]

I agree - that is an awesome picture. Absolutely.

[defordphoto]

Mike- Great shot! I might have to check out the air show this year. I'll be at the ALMS race, the ChampCar race, if that ever happens, some matorcycle races with FramerPDX (he races) and a slew of SprintBoat races in Woodland (along with the rest of their season scattered across Washington State).

I can imagine the a dogshow being a challenge. Definitely. They're quick and squirrely. Tough to follow. There's a dogshow this weekend?

We're going to a wheelchair rugby tournament today. My wife knows a guy that plays and I hear the action is incredible so that should be fun. I have been imagining shot angles and lighting all week in anticipation so I already know what kind of shots I want to go for to start, and then go from there. Lighting will be tough. We'll use the flash if we can and utilize the 70-200L f2.8 and 50 f1.8 and see how it goes. I doubt I can make use of the 100-400 at all indoors, but with the 550EX, who knows -- I'm still learning that flash.

And yes, when shooting the windsurfers you have to be at the water's edge, which I was for sure. We shot on the WA side down from the bridge about a mile or so where the pros and semi-pros practice. We were down on the rocks right where they put in.

Maybe we ought to hookup sometime. FramerPDX and I met here and have been out at Woodland MX Park for shoot there and we're supposed to meet up today too.

Feel free and email...

[defordphoto]

PaceAce: No motorcycle shots yet. I do plan on getting some this season.

Morenoar: Most of the ChampCar shots were on a cloudy day. As long as it's cloudy and bright you're okay. If not then you have to shoot slower and be real good with your pans.

Shooting motorsports you (of course) have to have the equipment and skill, and then you have to be at the right-place and the right-time. And then practice, practice, practice.

Some folks this it's easy shooting motorsports as you can anticipate where the cars are going to go. That's true, but it's not that easy panning and getting it right.

I usually shoot in TV, but switch around constantly. As for speeds, it varies. But I like the 1/250 to 1/500 range. I also shoot high speed and as low as 1/15 for some interesting pans when you can nail it good.

It's fun and always a challenge.

KennyG: Great shot. I hope to shoot more sports cars this year too.

[Canuck]

mjordan:

Cool, great shot. I will have to post some aircraft pics as I get a minute to play with them. Yes, even I screw up pics, and I will post it, and would like to know if there is a way to fix it. I have found that given the weirld lighting we get here in the UK, it is hard to get the underside of the jet properly exposed w/o blowing out the topside. Examples to follow...It may get posted tonite, but not likely. I have a few pics to e-mail to some family of the Christmas tree inside Ely Cathedral which was no kidding 40-45 ft tall. Seveal people have been bugging me for some time for those pics and I have no had the time to sort them!

[KennyG]

KennyG: Great shot. I hope to shoot more sports cars this year too.

I love working the circuits, particularly following the British Touring Cars where there is always some action. I have two commissions (so far) this year, one for a team running a couple of single seat racing cars and the other is a first for me - a motorcycle racing team.

One of my favourites is the Porche Carrera GT3 series. Great cars to photograph in action with a lot of lean and wheel lift on corners.

Roll on spring.....

The driver who won the 2003 series -

http://www.stiuk.dial.pipex.com/bhorne.jpg

PS: Taken with a 10D and 100-400L at 400mm

[timmyquest]

that 100-400mm looks amazing, i'm glad you guys are showing me these pictures...keep 'em coming

[Canuck]

Just wondering what you think, taken handheld...
Here is one from the Sigma 120-300 F2.8 EX lens:
http://images.fotopic.net/?id=2422644

[defordphoto]

Canuck: Sorry bud. That shot looks a little soft. Did you post process it at all? It lacks snap IMO. White balance looks off and it could use some USM.

[Canuck]

Canuck: Sorry bud. That shot looks a little soft. Did you post process it at all? It lacks snap IMO. White balance looks off and it could use some USM.

Nope, haven't used any USM. I posted it really quickly. I did play with the levels in Elements 2.0. It is a JPG and only an 80K one at that. I'll get it righ one of these days. I am a little unclear about this soft look. It's not like it isn't in focus, right?

[defordphoto]

It's in focus. Just needs a little pizazz. Let me play with your sample...Be right back.

[Tom W]

Jim, when you're done, please describe what you did. I have PS-Elements and I'm only beginning to experiment with it. Right now, it seems infinitely flexible. :)

[Canuck]

Canuck: Sorry bud. That shot looks a little soft. Did you post process it at all? It lacks snap IMO. White balance looks off and it could use some USM.

Jim, hopefully this is better, I have added a sprinkle of USM and this could make for some interesting comparisons later. White balance has not been touched. That is for another day.
Take 2...
http://images.fotopic.net/?id=2425737

[Tom W]

Canuck, edit your link. Its incomplete.

Whoops - Never mind. You've got it. :)

Edit #2 - Looks better. Unsharp seems like the wrong name for it, but that's what they call it...

[Canuck]

Canuck, edit your link. Its incomplete.

fixed, No worries, I was playing with some stuff that's why. LOL!

[Tom W]

This forum isn't quite as quick as a chat room. :) We keep crossing posts.

[defordphoto]

Another thing to take into consideration is that sometimes these photo servers alter your files too. I prefer not to use them as then I know exactly what is posted to my own personal server. Anyway, keep in mind that I was working with a file that was already heavily compressed and then I altered it and recompressed.

What I did was (Photoshop Pro) go to Image/Adjustments/Levels and then set thw white and black points. I set the white point by clocking on the eye dropper and then right at the nose of the plane. That accomplished 50% of what I intended. The whites perked right there. I then set the black point by clicking on one of the left tires (screen right) and that perked the color (what color there is there) back up. I did not increase saturation at all as the colors that are there seemed okay. I then set USM to 125/0.5/1 and that was it.

A very simple change. Again, I didn't have the original to work with and the washed sky makes that photo tough anyway, but if you look at the plane and the details, you'll see how it's perked it up a bit.

http://racefamily.racinglines.com/MiscPhotos/BA_jet.jpg

[Canuck]

This forum isn't quite as quick as a chat room. :) We keep crossing posts.

It's the 5 hr time difference between the East coast of the US and here in England. It is a good laugh, though.

I'm wondering what magic Jim can do with the pic there. I'm all for him showing me the way ti really great pics. I can always stand to improve!

[defordphoto]

Canuck: You went a little too far on the USM. See how setting the white and black points made the plane look more natural?

[defordphoto]

Also, I am by no means anything close to an expert on Photoshop. What I know about PS you could fit in a thimble. I'll be learning that thing for quite some time to come! ;)

[Canuck]

Canuck: You went a little too far on the USM. See how setting the white and black points made the plane look more natural?

Yes I see that. It is really obvious now. I'm was playing wit the USM to see how it all ties together. Very interesting. I see what you mean about soft pics now. This will be good for the forum in the future, soft pics, over USMming and correct (or more natural USMming. I am working on setting whitepoint in Elements 2.0. I see, cool! I set the whitepoint on the very dark blue to see what happens. Interesting! I think I got the hang of this. This is a lot easier than I thought.

Thank you very much Jim, I really appreciate the instruction! Add another person to your following.

[Tom W]

Jim, thanks for the explanation. I'm not sure how much of that is available with PS-Elements, but I'm going to read up on it.

So many manuals, so little time. :)

I'll have to say, the second image (Canuck's) was a good improvement over the first, though it may have had a little too much sharpening. Edges looked "grainy". The third picture is pretty crisp, but without the slight jaggedness that shows up in the second.

Post-processing is artwork in itself, it seems.

[defordphoto]

Tom/Canuck: PS, whether it be Elements or Pro takes alot of practice. There are so, so many different methods to sharpening and white balancing. You can sharpen using layers and masking and more. I prefer to keep it simple, but it's an ever learning process and as I learn more I will certainly employ different USM techniques.

Over-processing is very common and the same USM that works for one subject will be miles off for another. I've learned what little I know about USM just from reading from the experts on the forums and the various websites and experimenting.

Good luck! And there are many people here that know waaaaay more than I about Photoshop.

[Belmondo]

I've used a few different sharpening techniques, and they all have strong/weak points. I much prefer doing it initially while the image is in RAW format using PS CS or C1LE. Later, I'll do additional sharpening in TIFF format if necessary using one of the other techniques I've developed a liking for. Rarely do I use the basic USM filter in Photoshop.

I find that there is a great tendency to over-sharpen, especially among newer users---at least for my taste. I've read or otherwise been told that to properly sharpen an image, it has to be done at 100% screen resolution, and in some cases, that does work best. Other times, though, I've found it most helpful to look at the entire image before and after sharpening, and tune for an effect. I've even created multiple prints at different sharpening settings to see which looks best on paper. Rarely is it the same setting that looks best on the monitor. Other times, I'll select areas of a picture for USM sharpening and not the entire image. Sometimes, I'll even go the other way---soften a portion of an image with a touch of gaussian blur. Another 'trick' I like to do is to create a mask with the gradiant tool and blend the sharpening into areas of the image.

Like a great many of you, I'm still learning and experimenting. When I read something that sounds promising, I try it. If it works, I make a note of it, and it becomes another arrow in the quiver.

Did I say 'quiver?'

Interesting thread, and a couple nice pictures, gang!

Tom :wink: