-= T2i / 550D users UNITE! (1) =-

haha. it does seem too perfect. lol. gorgeous either way.

Here is my version. If that butterfly is real, then I'm gonna have to eat this picture lol . It could be very real, but just looks artificial to me.

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'text/html'

davidc502 wrote in post #11818055
Am I the only one who thinks this is PP trickery?

I don't know about trickery, but I was wondering if it was photoshopped. Anything is possible though. And if is is shopped, it's a really great job.

Trickery is a strong word, and I didn't mean it that way. I'm just having fun with this, that is all.

David

I guess I'm gonna have to eat that picture. There are butterflies with transparent wings, and they look like the one in the picture above.

Then all I have to say is... Great Shot!!!

The pictures below are referred from this website - Credit goes here >>>>> - http://photowebs.blogs​pot.com …ransparent-butterfly.html

LOL! I hadn't thought of it, but the pixel density on the butterfly's tail does seem a bit higher than the resolution achieved on the leaves. But, the transparency and washing out of the further section is hard to achieve, specially with the delicate non-transparent divisions showing. I wouldn't bet anything one way or the other... for me its just too close to call! At any rate, nice image!

@Bluefox, fantastic F18 (??), I really like the motion of it, and the sun reveals the aircraft was really in that position. Nicely done!

@Wofly, Those look really... cold!... They are great images... I myself prefer the HDR when it is just to bring the dynamic range of the image higher, but I like those. I find that HDR tends to flatten the image by taking away the volume, but yours don't suffer much from that. The two middle ones are my favorite... that needle adds to the composition nicely. The images of your wife playing outside seem really fun! And, as usual, exposing with such a white background, presents problems, which you have overcome perfectly!

@Peajunk... WELCOME!!! Nice to have you on board. Another Guitar freak, welcome as well, there are many of us here . I really like your portrait image! It looks a bit red to me, but the overall cast suites the image. Nicely done.

@David, really unsure what I'm looking at there! Is it a wood railing? I would have liked that the top of the veranda would have been a bit less burnt, it may have provided some more texture to the image... but then again, it could be anything!

@Al, I really like your park shot! The softness you speak of has apparently disappeared on the scaling down, and the warmth you have achieved is great!

Great pictures everyone!
Rafa.

Sean, these are really nice. A bit of a departure from your usual shots, but just as great.

Annie,
thanks, I think you didn't see my shots from a month ago and earlier when it was lots of buildings - that was back when my favorite lens was my UWA 10-24. For the past 3 weeks or so I've been in love with my new 17-50, but decided today to give it a break.

RafaPolit wrote in post #11818610
@David, really unsure what I'm looking at there! Is it a wood railing? I would have liked that the top of the veranda would have been a bit less burnt, it may have provided some more texture to the image... but then again, it could be anything!
Rafa.

It wasn't a good picture. EF 35-135 f/4-5.6 USM was one of the first USM-EF Zoom lenses made by Canon back in 1990-91. This lens was discontinued in less than 10 years because it just wasn't a very good performer (average at best). I guess if you look back to the early 90's, for a zoom lense it was okay, but with the way Zoom lenses are designed today, and DSLR sensors with 18mp, the flaws really show up.

Appreciate you looking at it, but the shot, more than anything else, reminds me why I keep it in the bag. Right now the 50mm stays on the body, and I'm happy with that until the copy of the 24-70L shows up at my doorstep. Man! I wish Canon would go ahead and put out the IS version of that lens. I wouldn't care if they added 500 bucks to the tag, it would be in my hands in three days!

Here is a comparison of this lens .vs the Tamron. Is it a fair comparison? Probably not, but it shows what you can get for the money. - - http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=0​&APIComp=0

@Sean, fantastic depth to those images. The color and the light is superb! My only critique is that you have chopped the bottom of something in each of them : the first image is lacking tires, the second is as well (by the way, that car seems squished... did you change the Aspect Ratio of that image or scale it horizontally?) and in the last one you have cut the base of the sculpture. The last one doesn't bother me at all, but the other two... when you cut half a car, the cut seems intentional, when you cut the last 3 inches of tires, I feel as if the cut was unintended. But that's just minor critique, the vividness of the images is great!

@ David, have you purchased a 24-70 and are, right now, waiting for it, or do you mean until an eventual 24-70 IS shows to your doorstep? If the latter, it seems its with the current rumors, not sure what truth to them... if the former, CONGRATULATIONS! I'm sure it's not called 'The Brick' lightheartedly, but I'm sure you will develop good neck muscles! By the way, that site digital-picture is a two sided blade... it can help make decisions at some level, but it can frustrate you as well, and it shows nothing of color depth and contrast or vignetting or barrel distortion... its just a sharpness chart. At any rate, the 24-70 is the most laureate lens I have read about, so you cannot go wrong with it!

Rafa.

davidc502 wrote in post #11818745
Here is a comparison of this lens .vs the Tamron. Is it a fair comparison? Probably not, but it shows what you can get for the money. - - http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=0​&APIComp=0

Congrats on the new lens coming in! I'm jealous. I bought the Tamron equivalent to the 24-70L as a compromise lens, but am satisfied with it--kinda sorta. You ask above "Is it a fair comparison? Probably not..." but I think it's probably on the money. Notice that in center sharpness the two are pretty close throughout the range, but everywhere else the L whips the poor tammy's little heinie. However, if you step down to 5.6 (which is sensible outside in the daytime) the difference becomes much smaller. Also at the long end, around 70mm, the Tammy catches up somewhat.
I guess my point here is that by knowing the weaknesses of an inferior lens you can work around them and minimize them. For the money the Tamron is a really good lens. The Canon is much better, but by being a bit careful what I shoot (doing more "center portrait" kind of stuff at 2.8 and stopping down more for broader scenes, or zooming out more when edge sharpness is important) I can sort of make my little cheap lens seem almost as good as the much better (but 3X more expensive) L.

Mook, look in my sig, I just bought the same lens 15 minutes ago!