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

Gary W. wrote in post #7337671
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

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

versedmb wrote in post #7338489
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

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...

versedmb wrote in post #7338489
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.

DreDaze wrote in post #7338605
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

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.

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

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …s/frenchbrown/3​285110135/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …s/frenchbrown/3​285110245/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …s/frenchbrown/3​285929232/

Hey all,

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

Gary W.

Gary W. wrote in post #7346746
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.

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.

johngpt wrote in post #7348367
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.

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.

Gary W. wrote in post #7356088
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

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
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorial​s/expose-right.shtml

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

PhatheadWRX wrote in post #7359632
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
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorial​s/expose-right.shtml

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.

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

...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!! (-: