>
> They were jpegs straight from a 1DmkII. What settings in photoshop
> should I use to help sharpen them up a bit ?
>
Michael,
The Unsharpen Mask Ken mentioned works well, however the amount of
sharpening depends on how big the image is at the time of final viewing on
monitor, you pretty much
Michael -
Unsharp mask (USM) is the usual tool. There are many approaches to
its application, but try experimenting starting with minimal
sharpening (60-75%, 1 pixel width and threshold 3 might be a place to
start) - use the Preview clicking and unclicking to judge the effect.
Ken
*
*
Michael Good wrote:
And just to add my own 2 cents..
I've recently been trying to join a stock photography agency. I had
some great images I thought they'd love. They looked really sharp on my
monitor. But bam... The agency came back and said sorry not sharp
enough, out of focus. I couldn't b
Michael Good wrote:
And just to add my own 2 cents..
I've recently been trying to join a stock photography agency. I had
some great images I thought they'd love. They looked really sharp on my
monitor. But bam... The agency came back and said sorry not sharp
enough, out of focus. I couldn't b
And just to add my own 2 cents..
I've recently been trying to join a stock photography agency. I had
some great images I thought they'd love. They looked really sharp on my
monitor. But bam... The agency came back and said sorry not sharp
enough, out of focus. I couldn't believe it. I'd used
On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 21:19:26 +1100, "Marc Lawrence" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote/replied to:
>Anyway, the point iswhat were we talking about? Oh yeah,
>the point is the 70-200 IS is my first ever L-series and
>"Big White" lens (even if the "big" is not, relative to other
>Big Whites :-) ). I've a
> Cotty wrote:
> I once sat contorted for several weeks pondering the same thing.
> With dire consequences, I went for the IS version.
> I am so glad I made the right decision
Not that I can add anything more useful than those far more
experienced already have, but I recently went through a
si
> Hmm, and with a doubler you've got a smaller version of the 100-400,
> doncha? Seems to me Reichmann compared these...
> Ken
Smaller, and with double the magnification, but only HALF the
focussing speed.
Canon EF 2x Tele-extenders force a slower AF when mounted on a
compatible lens (the ones
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Chip Louie
> Sent: Friday, February 24, 2006 5:54 PM
> To: eos@a1.nl
> Subject: RE: [inbox] EOS To IS or not to IS?
>
>
> Hi Mike,
>
> I wish I
> could justify buy
dings and
products so much lately I can hardly justify the expense. Sigh...
Cheers/Chip
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Mike Thomas
> Sent: Friday, February 24, 2006 8:09 AM
> To: 'Canon Eos'
> Subject:
Ni-i-i-ce catch!
Ken
At 03:27 PM 2/24/2006, you wrote:
I posted this before, I believe, but the shot is (cropped) with the
100-400 with 1.4 converter, on Provia in an EOS3 wide open at
1/8sec; I was standing in a field under the tree and had no support
except my legs:
http://www.archiphot
At 10:36 PM + 2/24/06, Cotty wrote:
On 24/2/06, Mike Thomas, discombobulated, unleashed:
I have been a member of this list for about 5 minutesliterally. Anyway,
I would like to ask the age old question (sorry if it's been over done) if
opting for the image stabilization feature on the 7
Hmm, and with a doubler you've got a smaller version of the 100-400,
doncha? Seems to me Reichmann compared these...
Ken
*
***
***
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
*http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/e
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Cotty
> Sent: Friday, February 24, 2006 4:37 PM
> To: EOS list
> Subject: Re: EOS To IS or not to IS?
>
>
> I once sat contorted for several weeks pondering the sa
On 24/2/06, Mike Thomas, discombobulated, unleashed:
>I have been a member of this list for about 5 minutesliterally. Anyway,
>I would like to ask the age old question (sorry if it's been over done) if
>opting for the image stabilization feature on the 70-200L is worth and extra
>$700. I am lo
All depends on if that IS is going to get you shots you wouldn't get otherwise.
I had a
70-200L for several years and upgraded to the IS when I was tasked with
shooting
an indoor party. The 70-200L IS worked great down to 60/sec at 200mm, and
considerably increased the sharpness of my soccer
IL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
> Mike Thomas
> Sent: Friday, February 24, 2006 10:09 AM
> To: 'Canon Eos'
> Subject: EOS To IS or not to IS?
>
> Greetings All,
>
> I have been a member of this list for about 5
> minutesliterally. Anyway, I would like to ask
--- Mike Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I am
> having a difficult time justifying such a high price
> tag for the IS.
Mike,
02/100: Even if one shoots wide open, there may be
situations where a smaller aperture or the longer
focal length may result in slower shutter/amplified
vibrations etc
At 08:16 AM 2/24/2006, you wrote:
anything involving shutter speeds that significantly exceed the
inverse ISO rule, then it's worth it.
Sorry, I meant to say "inverse focal length" rule, although I suppose
sunny 16 could force you into some low shutter speeds with some films.
Ken
*
Mike -
I think this depends entirely on what you want to use it for. If you
need to do a lot of low-light shooting, or very low ISO shooting -
i.e. anything involving shutter speeds that significantly exceed the
inverse ISO rule, then it's worth it. If you just want to shoot your
kids' dayl
Greetings All,
I have been a member of this list for about 5 minutesliterally. Anyway,
I would like to ask the age old question (sorry if it's been over done) if
opting for the image stabilization feature on the 70-200L is worth and extra
$700. I am looking at "like new", non IS 70-200 L's on
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Kotsinadelis,
> Peter (Peter)
> Sent: Friday, March 26, 2004 7:58 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: EOS To IS or Not to IS
>
>
>
>
> Bob Talbot wrote (edited):
>
>
Bob Talbot wrote (edited):
Bold statements Chip.
But ... go on, be honest ... how many people in the world have
*actually* given both lenses an extended & fair side-by side trial?
Two?
I bet a non-IS lens is faster focusing than an IS one: or even the
Canon one with the IS turned off will respon
Bob Talbot wrote:
Bold statements Chip.
But ... go on, be honest ... how many people in the world have
*actually* given both lenses an extended & fair side-by side trial?
Two?
I bet a non-IS lens is faster focussing than an IS one: or even the
Canon one with the IS turned off will respond faster (?
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Niklas
> Nikitin
> Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2002 11:53 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: EOS To IS, or not to IS; that is the question
>
>
> Hi,
>
> As my longe
>-Original Message-
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Niklas
>As my longest prime lens, I am thinking of a 300/4L to use combined with a
>Canon Extender EF 1.4x II. Canon have two 300/4L, the discontinued 300/4L
>without IS and the present 300/4L IS. I will p
Niklas Nikitin wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> As my longest prime lens, I am thinking of a 300/4L to use combined with a
> Canon Extender EF 1.4x II. Canon have two 300/4L, the discontinued 300/4L
> without IS and the present 300/4L IS. I will photograph mostly large birds,
> other animals and people with
--- Niklas Nikitin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> As my longest prime lens, I am thinking of a 300/4L
> to use combined with a
> Canon Extender EF 1.4x II. Canon have two 300/4L,
> the discontinued 300/4L
> without IS and the present 300/4L IS. I will
> photograph mostly large birds,
> othe
- Original Message -
From: Niklas Nikitin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2002 7:52 AM
Subject: EOS To IS, or not to IS; that is the question
> Hi,
>
> As my longest prime lens, I am thinking of a 300/4L to use combined with
Niklas Nikitin wrote:
>snip>I am thinking of a 300/4L
>Pro 300/4L non-IS
>+ Sharper.
> Photo rates this lens 4.3 vs. 3.4 for the IS version.
> PhotoZone rates this lens 4.90 vs. 4.67 for the IS
> version.
I haven't used either of them, but I truly believe they both can get
excelent results. I p
Hi,
As my longest prime lens, I am thinking of a 300/4L to use combined with a
Canon Extender EF 1.4x II. Canon have two 300/4L, the discontinued 300/4L
without IS and the present 300/4L IS. I will photograph mostly large birds,
other animals and people with this lens.
Pro 300/4L non-IS
+ Sharper
>
> > Chip, that is why they make flash, to freeze the image even when you use
> > 1/30 second to gain some more ambient light. Photography 101.
> > BTW, no one except amateurs would use a monopod at a wedding.
>
> That only works if you really blast the flash and therefore it contributes
> muc
- Original Message -
From: "Kotsinadelis, Peter (Peter)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Hi Chip,
> Are you doing Racing photography? Then why F2.8? Most pros I know use the
> mid apertures with fast film and rarely use a fixed focal length,
especially
> 600mm. .
I don't agree with you Pe
>
>
>From: Chip Louie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>
>Here we differ quite a bit. As I wrote before there is no one single
>feature that could make me buy into a camera system. I want and need more
>than this.
>
Having recently changed from Nikon to Canon, I have some feelings about this too.
I neede
From: Kotsinadelis, Peter (Peter)
Sent: Friday, June 14, 2002 3:40 PM
To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Subject: RE: EOS To IS or not to IS .
Robert Meier wrote:
>
> Chip, that is why they make flash, to freeze the image even when you use
> 1/30 second to gain some more ambient
>
>
> Chip Louie (edited for space):
>
> Hi Peter,
>
> >Well yea, 1/2000 is pretty fast but I'm talking about shooting
> ISO 100 film
> >in the fading light at 600mm and still getting a sharp image of a car
> >traveling at 180mph. My use of long lenses are more along these lines.
>
> Hi Chip,
>
>
> -Original Message-
> >As to the issue of IS and DOF there is no doubt that you can add
> DOF to an
> >image in low light and still get an excellent image with IS. That is as
> >long as you work within the limitations of your subject's motion which IS
> >cannot fix no matter how well I
Chip Louie (edited for space):
Hi Peter,
>Well yea, 1/2000 is pretty fast but I'm talking about shooting ISO 100 film
>in the fading light at 600mm and still getting a sharp image of a car
>traveling at 180mph. My use of long lenses are more along these lines.
Hi Chip,
Are you doing Racing
38 matches
Mail list logo
