-= 7D2 owners unite! Discuss and post photos!

ahhh ok...

They have always destroyed my Images in the past, raw, jpeg what ever. they tend to crop cut over sharpen.. what ever they see fit. The day they print what I PP I will,....... well you get the idea.

I came across the beaver I shot last march at my place and looked through to see if a sharp image jumped out at me. I PP'd one like this last spring but I like this one better. Its one of the first bunch with this 7DII

shooz wrote in post #18196483

So cute. Great shots Shooz.

Peter2516 wrote in post #18197628

Hosted photo: posted by Peter2516 in
./showthread.php?p=181​97628&i=i187674683
forum: Canon Digital Cameras

Peter, not sure what is going on with your shot. I am seeing a lot of noise even in the dark crescent of the moon. You may need to figure out how to bring down the brightness and noise of the background to get rid of it. Otherwise, it looks like stars and is very distracting, not to mention unrealistic.

Scrumhalf wrote in post #18197636
Peter, not sure what is going on with your shot. I am seeing a lot of noise even in the dark crescent of the moon. You may need to figure out how to bring down the brightness and noise of the background to get rid of it. Otherwise, it looks like stars and is very distracting, not to mention unrealistic.

Thanks for the advised Sam. I moved the clarity all the way to the right so I can have that noise or stars. Sorry if it destruct you but I like it like that.

Peter2516 wrote in post #18197647
Thanks for the advised Sam. I moved the clarity all the way to the right so I can have that noise or stars. Sorry if it destruct you but I like it like that.

and that is what matters. we set things how we like. Not everyone will see it that way. I thought it looked different and can live with that.

OK maybe a Pine Marten Then

Pondrader wrote in post #18197451
I agree with that Mike, I mean asking is the answer.

Be interested in the answer. Normally as you say TIFFs are requested, why ask for a RAW as you then need the correct processor. I don't see what the RAW gives them that a 16 bit TIFF wouldn't.

The only technical reason is they want to turn off sharpening and apply their own sharpening, I have often heard of this with publishers.

Personally I would prefer to provide an unsharpened 16 bit TIFF in whatever colour space they want.

Sounds good, Peter. However, you may want to use the brush to selectively dial back the clarity in the dark part of the circle that the full moon would have been. You shouldn't be seeing any stars in FRONT of the moon. I know this is unsolicited advice, so feel free to ignore! I won't feel hurt!

Ya I hear ya Lester, I'm sure that they could have used about anything. Looking at a few covers and there super crop's like they did to some of my fav Images they used. So there's no need for a great deal of sharpening..more or less than what I do, I try not to over do it anyway. Its a darker image with a super reflection on the water. it'll probably end up 2 inches square lol ... in any case Im not worried either way. At some point I'm going to be asking way more questions as to there intent as i've not found them to present my image in the way I intended.

I mean they took this image and turned it into the bottom image in the magazine. While everyone likes to be chosen and recognized to there efforts, I find myself scratching my head. Don't get me wrong I enjoy being in the magazine who wouldn't.

Photo from Pondrader's gallery.
Image hosted by forum (763118)

Photo from Pondrader's gallery.
Image hosted by forum (762646)

Pondrader wrote in post #18198231
Ya I hear ya Lester, I'm sure that they could have used about anything. Looking at a few covers and there super crop's like they did to some of my fav Images they used. So there's no need for a great deal of sharpening..more or less than what I do, I try not to over do it anyway. Its a darker image with a super reflection on the water. it'll probably end up 2 inches square lol ... in any case Im not worried either way. At some point I'm going to be asking way more questions as to there intent as i've not found them to present my image in the way I intended.

I mean they took this image and turned it into the bottom image in the magazine. While everyone likes to be chosen and recognized to there efforts, I find myself scratching my head. Don't get me wrong I enjoy being in the magazine who wouldn't.

Gallery photo (hosted):
posted by Pondrader originally in forum: Canon Digital Cameras

The Magazine

Gallery photo (hosted):
posted by Pondrader originally in forum: Canon Digital Cameras

Yikes. Great image.

Mike

Pondrader wrote in post #18197334
There is something too this but I don't really know what it is, I have my images used by a lot of magazines were some other's that have what I consider the same shot really... do not. It would be great to know the magic lol !!

While I'm at it,.. Question.. Canadian Geographic asked me for the raw file on one of my images. In the past tiff or jpeg ?? Anyone have an understanding of the why they would like the raw ?? The image is very sharp as is in the raw and I didn't do much to it at all. So I am intrigued as to what they would like to do with it. I don't find myself to overly protective,.. maybe I should be lol

This is not the Image,.. But an image all the same lol

Hosted photo: posted by Pondrader in
./showthread.php?p=181​97334&i=i119406145
forum: Canon Digital Cameras

I think this photo you posted PROVES it is Neither the equipment nor photographer, it's the model. LOL

I would ask the magazine directly why the JPEG isn't adequate. Take it from there.

gschlact wrote in post #18198547
I think this photo you posted PROVES it is Neither the equipment nor photographer, it's the model. LOL

I would ask the magazine directly why he JPEG isn't adequate. Take it from there.

maybe your right Guy