xt kit lens samples

[funpix]

the image on the left is only cropped and resized
the image on the right is adjusted in saturation first, then levels adjusted using the white of the waves.

[Jackal]

The kit lense does surprise me sometimes. It's very good up close and for indoor flash I say. I've taken some mighty detailed and sharp macro shots of things using the 420ex and the images are super clean.

Outside though...is another story. Things that are far will lack sharpness. The many leaves on a tree like 50 feet away won't be sharp. I've tested to see how the 50mm 1.8 does with this leaf thing and it does ALOT better.

[Hellashot]

Looks like you should have done spot metering instead of evaluative, and I noticed you didn't so sharpening.. all digital images need more sharpening than one would think, even a scanned image.

[griff2]

The pictures have that typical kit lens fuzzy softness (fuzzyness), some USM would have helped to disguise this somewhat.

[jfred]

here's a 100% crop (http://www.john-fredrickson.com/eos20d/kit_lens.jpg) from a picture I took while "out and about" to test the sharpness of the kit lens.

Extracted from Raw file. No post processing at all. Exposure was f8 and 1/320, ISO 100

Not too bad... (the full image sharpened up nicely with a small amount of USM in photshop)



http://http://www.john-fredrickson.com/eos20d/kit_lens.jpg

[jfred]

another sample - 100% crop. f4 with built-in flash, no sharpening or USM

http://www.john-fredrickson.com/eos20d/nyala_eyes.jpg

If I add some USM to the above shot, it gets even better. Here's what the same crop looks like with 100/0.5/0 (http://www.john-fredrickson.com/eos20d/nyala_eyes_usm.jpg)

[mr.photoguy]

Have you tried another 100 shot of USM... or in that area of amount.

[jfred]

Have you tried another 100 shot of USM... or in that area of amount.

I'm still playing around with the image to see what I like best. Looking at the whole picture (and not just the crop of the eyes) I think overall something around 300/0.5/0 works best.

Still wearing Photoshop L-Plates, I'm afraid! I always like to see un-photoshopped images in any case, to see what raw materials went into the processing mix!

[mr.photoguy]

I'm still playing around with the image to see what I like best. Looking at the whole picture (and not just the crop of the eyes) I think overall something around 300/0.5/0 works best.

Still wearing Photoshop L-Plates, I'm afraid! I always like to see un-photoshopped images in any case, to see what raw materials went into the processing mix!

I used to say the same thing.. and didn't really want to process my images to much, but a fellow photographer friend has been working with me, and helping me with a lot of my images. Through using shadow/highlights she has showed me how to get that extra flare, and punch out of the images. Then hitting contrast, and brightening the images up a bit, just adds that pop..
There is really no way around post processing. I guess it all makes sense because with film they do the same there.. So we are basically the photographers, and the developers all in one.

[jfred]

I used to say the same thing.. and didn't really want to process my images to much, but a fellow photographer friend has been working with me, and helping me with a lot of my images. Through using shadow/highlights she has showed me how to get that extra flare, and punch out of the images. Then hitting contrast, and brightening the images up a bit, just adds that pop..
There is really no way around post processing. I guess it all makes sense because with film they do the same there.. So we are basically the photographers, and the developers all in one.

Can I borrow your friend for a lesson or two? I'm amazed at some of the things you can amend in photoshop.. there are just so many options!

I do still believe that you should have reasonable quality images as "raw material" to work on though!

[mr.photoguy]

Can I borrow your friend for a lesson or two? I'm amazed at some of the things you can amend in photoshop.. there are just so many options!

I do still believe that you should have reasonable quality images as "raw material" to work on though!

Indeed, your right. I have found myself working more on composition, placement of leading elements, size aspect ratios, and other things like that.

Are you on pbase.com?

http://www.pbase.com/brucescott/white_on_white

Look on there..