Converting & Saving in DPP

Well, if I did the micro-adjust correctly, using the moire' pattern (haven't tried the other sharpness tests yet), my 17-85 required a +2 and the 70-300 a +3.

My 100mm macro didn't require any adjustment - but then, that's the one lens I hadn't used.

I tried the morie' pattern several times and got to the point where the lens never moved from my manual focus to the AF focus.

Is it usual for lenses on the same body to exhibit the same focus direction correction (on the plus side, in my case). Or do some require + and others - adjustment on the same body?

By the way, what do I have - back focus or front focus, and is what I found common?

Time to do some real work - but I'll still try the other sharpness suggestions/sticky issues later.


By the way, I think I'm going to have to make the investment in Lightroom - seems to work really well and I do like that output sharpening for different print papers.

I found that PS did a better job with resizing then LR. I like the control with PS has. You can see the results. In LR you pick the output. I prefer to see the results before applying. I had the 30 day trial and I just could get it as nice PS but I'm sure that was just me.

PS does a far far better job of resizing than DPP. When I'm done I convert full sized images. I have resize and resize/sharpen actions that I batch in PS. It only takes minutes to run 500 images through.

digital paradise wrote in post #12547207
I found that PS did a better job with resizing then LR. I like the control with PS has. You can see the results. In LR you pick the output. I prefer to see the results before applying. I had the 30 day trial and I just could get it as nice PS but I'm sure that was just me.

PS does a far far better job of resizing than DPP. When I'm done I convert full sized images. I have resize and resize/sharpen actions that I batch in PS. It only takes minutes to run 500 images through.

Yes Photoshop has it's advantages over Lightroom, and I am all for Photoshop. Even the less expensive Photoshop Elements has advantages on some things just like that. I would even go as far as to recommend PS Element to work along with Lightroom. But not Photoshop CS5! Unless you are is into Graphic Arts/Design and total image manipulation as well as general photography, CS5 is otherwise unnecessary.

Not only should a person consider cost of the software, but the practicality of what each are developed for and what is actually needed for their personal purposes.

tkerr wrote in post #12547430
Yes Photoshop has it's advantages over Lightroom, and I am all for Photoshop. Even the less expensive Photoshop Elements has advantages on some things just like that. I would even go as far as to recommend PS Element to work along with Lightroom. But not Photoshop CS5! Unless you are is into Graphic Arts/Design and total image manipulation as well as general photography, CS5 is otherwise unnecessary.

Not only should a person consider cost of the software, but the practicality of what each are developed for and what is actually needed for their personal purposes.

I get confused when I look at the product listing for PhotoShop, particularly when they call it "Adobe Photoshop Lightroom." Any particular version you recommend? Isn't CD5 a little over-kill?

Roxie2401 wrote in post #12547528
I get confused when I look at the product listing for PhotoShop, particularly when they call it "Adobe Photoshop Lightroom." Any particular version you recommend? Isn't CD5 a little over-kill?

CS5, would be overkill for you

Generally when people say Photoshop, they are referring to either Photoshop CS*, CS5 is the current version, and then some are referring to Photoshop Elements. Photoshop Elements 9 is the latest version of that software. Most people refer to Photoshop Lightroom as just Lightroom or LR. Lightroom 3 is the latest release.

Elements is a lighter much less expensive version of Photoshop CS5. It will give you the ability to manipulate images using layers similar in ways it can be done in CS5 but with many limitations compared to the full blown version of Photoshop CS5.

Photoshop Elements 9 along with Lightroom 3 should be all the software you would ever need for most if not all general photography applications.

Roxie2401 wrote in post #12545533
Well, if I did the micro-adjust correctly, using the moire' pattern (haven't tried the other sharpness tests yet), my 17-85 required a +2 and the 70-300 a +3.

My 100mm macro didn't require any adjustment - but then, that's the one lens I hadn't used.

I tried the morie' pattern several times and got to the point where the lens never moved from my manual focus to the AF focus.

Is it usual for lenses on the same body to exhibit the same focus direction correction (on the plus side, in my case). Or do some require + and others - adjustment on the same body?

By the way, what do I have - back focus or front focus, and is what I found common?

tkerr,

Thanks for the Photoshop clarification. CS5 is way too expensive for what I need. Was liking Lightroom - haven't looked at Elements yet.

Any thoughts on what I found with the microadjustment? Do some lenses go on the plus side while others go on the negative adjustment or do they tend to go in the same direction on the same body?

Roxie2401 wrote in post #12547958
tkerr,

Thanks for the Photoshop clarification. CS5 is way too expensive for what I need. Was liking Lightroom - haven't looked at Elements yet.

Any thoughts on what I found with the microadjustment? Do some lenses go on the plus side while others go on the negative adjustment or do they tend to go in the same direction on the same body?

Yeah, it all depends on both the lens and the camera body and what side of the acceptable tolerance they are on when the leave the factory.
You could have a dozen lenses. Some might need +, some might need -, and then some might not need anything.