Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Sample Photo Archives Lens Sample Photo Archive 
Thread started 11 Mar 2006 (Saturday) 10:28
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM

 
versedmb
Goldmember
4,448 posts
Likes: 4
Joined Apr 2006
     
Feb 16, 2009 15:53 |  #481

Gary W. wrote in post #7337671 (external link)
Hey all,

The UV filters were on for these pictures, as they were taken @ 1 week ago, before I read the post about the filters. I haven't had a chance to get out lately with the latest rains that have come through our area.

Gary W.

Be careful about the garbage that people post about UV filters degrading IQ. All of these shots where taken with my 200 f/2.8 and this $10 S&W UV filter...(you don't have to pay an arm and a leg for a decent UV filter)...

http://cgi.ebay.com …%3A1%7C293%3A1%​7C294%3A50 (external link)

I've put many small scratches in UV filters over the years that would have reduced the value of my lenses tremendously.


IMAGE: http://brownphotography.smugmug.com/photos/468342963_iY7w3-L.jpg




IMAGE: http://brownphotography.smugmug.com/photos/470903482_bCdrD-M.jpg



IMAGE: http://brownphotography.smugmug.com/photos/459260253_A7LfR-L.jpg



IMAGE: http://brownphotography.smugmug.com/photos/457946349_6Ypry-M.jpg


IMAGE: http://brownphotography.smugmug.com/photos/468342957_V69QU-L.jpg

Gear List

Michael

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
DreDaze
happy with myself for not saying anything stupid
Avatar
18,181 posts
Gallery: 45 photos
Likes: 2575
Joined Mar 2006
Location: S.F. Bay Area
     
Feb 16, 2009 16:10 |  #482

versedmb wrote in post #7338489 (external link)
Be careful about the garbage that people post about UV filters degrading IQ. All of these shots where taken with my 200 f/2.8 and this $10 S&W UV filter...(you don't have to pay an arm and a leg for a decent UV filter)...

http://cgi.ebay.com …%3A1%7C293%3A1%​7C294%3A50 (external link)

I've put many small scratches in UV filters over the years that would have reduced the value of my lenses tremendously.

you can honestly say that looking at gary's pictures...that they don't look like they are lacking something?

the moment he posted them i thought something wasn't right...


Andre or Dre
gear list
Instagram (external link)
flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
funhouse69
Senior Member
Avatar
999 posts
Likes: 4
Joined Mar 2008
Location: Boston, MA
     
Feb 16, 2009 16:10 |  #483

versedmb wrote in post #7338489 (external link)
Be careful about the garbage that people post about UV filters degrading IQ. All of these shots where taken with my 200 f/2.8 and this $10 S&W UV filter...(you don't have to pay an arm and a leg for a decent UV filter)...

I couldn't agree with you more... These were taken with my copy of this lens with a $10 Tiffen Filter on it. I have the same Tiffen UV Filters on all of my lenses including all of my L Lenses and I feel that it doesn't make any difference to the IQ.

IMAGE: http://funhouse69.smugmug.com/photos/413026355_4M2zX-XL.jpg

IMAGE: http://funhouse69.smugmug.com/photos/413040334_86MxU-XL.jpg

My Online Gallery (external link)
>>> My Gear List / Feedback <<<

For Sale LowePro Super Trekker

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
versedmb
Goldmember
4,448 posts
Likes: 4
Joined Apr 2006
     
Feb 16, 2009 20:30 |  #484

DreDaze wrote in post #7338605 (external link)
you can honestly say that looking at gary's pictures...that they don't look like they are lacking something?

the moment he posted them i thought something wasn't right...

You may be right, there may be some UV filters that really are bad.

But that doesn't mean that an inexpensive UV filter is necessarily one that will degrade IQ.

Check out our own Lensrules test here....

http://www.pbase.com/l​ightrules/uvtest1 (external link)

The only time I remove my filter is if I'm shooting into the sun and I'm worried about worsening flare with my filter.


Gear List

Michael

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
PhatheadWRX
Senior Member
Avatar
391 posts
Likes: 1
Joined May 2008
     
Feb 17, 2009 14:20 |  #485

Here are a few birds from my first weekend with the new 70-300 :D

IMAGE: http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3202/3285110135_d2c023db7f_o.jpg
IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …s/frenchbrown/3​285110135/  (external link)

IMAGE: http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3167/3285110245_b13f38c883_o.jpg
IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …s/frenchbrown/3​285110245/  (external link)

IMAGE: http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3314/3285929232_cb5df4f73f_o.jpg
IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …s/frenchbrown/3​285929232/  (external link)

frenchbrownphoto.com (external link) - flickr (external link) - stomping ground (external link)
Canon 40D
Sigma 10-20, Canon 18-55 IS, Tammy 28-75, Canon 100 macro, Canon 70-300 IS USM
Canon 430EX, Nikon SB-26

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Gary ­ W.
Member
Avatar
61 posts
Joined Nov 2008
Location: Lompoc, CA
     
Feb 17, 2009 16:27 as a reply to  @ PhatheadWRX's post |  #486

Hey all,

I am still new to the DSLR world. Would exposure compensation make for a loss of perceived contrast?

Gary W.


Canon 7D gripped, Canon 70D, Canon 50 ƒ1.4, Canon 85 ƒ1.8, Canon 18-135mm IS STM, Canon 70-300 IS USM, Tamron 70-200 ƒ2.8 Di VC USD, Canon 430EX, Pixel Mago Speedlights, RPS Studio wireless triggers, Pixel King Pro transceivers and Pixel King X receivers.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
johngpt
Senior Member
854 posts
Likes: 4
Joined Apr 2008
Location: Albuquerque, NM
     
Feb 17, 2009 20:33 |  #487

Gary W. wrote in post #7346746 (external link)
Hey all,

I am still new to the DSLR world. Would exposure compensation make for a loss of perceived contrast?

Gary W.

Possibly, especially in the red flower image that you posted.

Some photographers purposely set the camera to be very neutral in the processing of the image during capture. This way the image can be processed later rather than in camera. Others, especially for jpeg capture, prefer some enhancement of contrast or saturation. There's nothing wrong with a neutral capture.

Looking back at your images, other than the reddish flower, the exposures look fine on my computer. Good contrast, saturation, focus. Very crisp.

The red flower looks somewhat washed out. Could be white balance a hair off for the available light. Could be slightly over exposed.

The images of the gulls look great, BTW.


John

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
johngpt
Senior Member
854 posts
Likes: 4
Joined Apr 2008
Location: Albuquerque, NM
     
Feb 17, 2009 20:45 as a reply to  @ johngpt's post |  #488

From this past Sunday, the Tarantula 100 desert race in Alamogordo NM.

The photographer is "Brick" Miller of Alamogordo. He's shooting with an XT. I was roaming around, trying to find a good location from which to shoot my son on his return to the start/finish.

IMAGE: http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3288/3288681775_f1cccdd5d4_o.jpg

John

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Gary ­ W.
Member
Avatar
61 posts
Joined Nov 2008
Location: Lompoc, CA
     
Feb 18, 2009 21:06 |  #489

johngpt wrote in post #7348367 (external link)
Possibly, especially in the red flower image that you posted.

Some photographers purposely set the camera to be very neutral in the processing of the image during capture. This way the image can be processed later rather than in camera. Others, especially for jpeg capture, prefer some enhancement of contrast or saturation. There's nothing wrong with a neutral capture.

Looking back at your images, other than the reddish flower, the exposures look fine on my computer. Good contrast, saturation, focus. Very crisp.

The red flower looks somewhat washed out. Could be white balance a hair off for the available light. Could be slightly over exposed.

The images of the gulls look great, BTW.

Hey all,

The picture of the flower is the only one that I processed. The rest are straight from the camera, except for the resizing for the web and maybe a zoom/crop. I already know that my processing work needs a LOT of work, and that just confirms it to me.

I had the exposure compensation set at +2/3. I have made an adjustment to it and will try to get some more test pictures so I can see what difference it will make. FWIW, I personally prefer the look of an actual photo vs the processed look. PP has it's place, but I like natural look to photos.

Gary W.


Canon 7D gripped, Canon 70D, Canon 50 ƒ1.4, Canon 85 ƒ1.8, Canon 18-135mm IS STM, Canon 70-300 IS USM, Tamron 70-200 ƒ2.8 Di VC USD, Canon 430EX, Pixel Mago Speedlights, RPS Studio wireless triggers, Pixel King Pro transceivers and Pixel King X receivers.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Gary ­ W.
Member
Avatar
61 posts
Joined Nov 2008
Location: Lompoc, CA
     
Feb 18, 2009 21:21 as a reply to  @ Gary W.'s post |  #490

Hey all,

I am still learning the correct white balance usage, the red flower was shot with AWB, ISO on auto. I still need a LOT of work.

Gary W.


Canon 7D gripped, Canon 70D, Canon 50 ƒ1.4, Canon 85 ƒ1.8, Canon 18-135mm IS STM, Canon 70-300 IS USM, Tamron 70-200 ƒ2.8 Di VC USD, Canon 430EX, Pixel Mago Speedlights, RPS Studio wireless triggers, Pixel King Pro transceivers and Pixel King X receivers.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
funhouse69
Senior Member
Avatar
999 posts
Likes: 4
Joined Mar 2008
Location: Boston, MA
     
Feb 19, 2009 00:31 |  #491

Gary W. wrote in post #7356088 (external link)
Hey all,

The picture of the flower is the only one that I processed. The rest are straight from the camera, except for the resizing for the web and maybe a zoom/crop. I already know that my processing work needs a LOT of work, and that just confirms it to me.

I had the exposure compensation set at +2/3. I have made an adjustment to it and will try to get some more test pictures so I can see what difference it will make. FWIW, I personally prefer the look of an actual photo vs the processed look. PP has it's place, but I like natural look to photos.

Gary W.

Gary - I am with you man... I shoot RAW these days and use DPP to process / convert my pics... I might tweak things a little in DPP but that is about it. I think I get some great results with this process / method. While I don't plan on going down the photoshop road anytime soon, I know that you can do amazing things with it - To each his own :-)


My Online Gallery (external link)
>>> My Gear List / Feedback <<<

For Sale LowePro Super Trekker

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
PhatheadWRX
Senior Member
Avatar
391 posts
Likes: 1
Joined May 2008
     
Feb 19, 2009 10:28 |  #492

Exposing correctly to the right of the histogram can really help your images, but does take more time to learn, use, and process correctly. Read through these that really help:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com …standing-histograms.shtml (external link)
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorial​s/expose-right.shtml (external link)

As for protection, I use hoods over UV filters. Hoods offer protection from bumps and scrapes, AND improve the image quality by reducing glare.


frenchbrownphoto.com (external link) - flickr (external link) - stomping ground (external link)
Canon 40D
Sigma 10-20, Canon 18-55 IS, Tammy 28-75, Canon 100 macro, Canon 70-300 IS USM
Canon 430EX, Nikon SB-26

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
johngpt
Senior Member
854 posts
Likes: 4
Joined Apr 2008
Location: Albuquerque, NM
     
Feb 19, 2009 19:15 |  #493

PhatheadWRX wrote in post #7359632 (external link)
Exposing correctly to the right of the histogram can really help your images, but does take more time to learn, use, and process correctly. Read through these that really help:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com …standing-histograms.shtml (external link)
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorial​s/expose-right.shtml (external link)

As for protection, I use hoods over UV filters. Hoods offer protection from bumps and scrapes, AND improve the image quality by reducing glare.

Brilliant links. Thank you.


John

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Eagleye
Junior Member
28 posts
Joined Dec 2008
     
Feb 22, 2009 22:40 as a reply to  @ johngpt's post |  #494

ISO 200 f 5.6 1/160

cropped and edited

PHOTOBUCKET EMBEDDING IS DISABLED BY THIS MEMBER.
Photobucket sends ads instead of embedding photos from their free galleries.
Click the link (if available) below to see the image in a gallery page.

http://i55.photobucket​.com …ye_/IMG_1058_LR​1_PSE1.jpg (external link)


CC welcome



  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Emergenic
Member
Avatar
143 posts
Joined Jun 2008
Location: Planet Earth
     
Feb 25, 2009 14:39 as a reply to  @ Eagleye's post |  #495

...Have not picked this lens up allot lately, just thought I'd give it some luv, and take some images, here's one from today...It's still a great lens!! (-:

IMAGE: http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3526/3309084093_016621579c.jpg

Flickr (external link) | MyGear

https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=614171

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

698,066 views & 31 likes for this thread
Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM
FORUMS Sample Photo Archives Lens Sample Photo Archive 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is Ckort66
853 guests, 307 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.