alpha 900 first impressions

[Georg Baumann]

Sony 70-400

I left it at 1200 width to see what happens... LOL

P.S. Yeah, I think Terry was right... the forum sowftare does something....they should stay at 900, ok mea culpa mea culpa... from here on me posts nuttin but 900 and only pre sharpened. The weired thing is, if you click on the picture, then the version looks right, clos it again, and you see it is oversharpened

 

[Terry]

Jack knows which ways of attaching work best. I go bigger than 900 pixels if I upload the shot to the gallery and not just upload to the thread. I will send him a PM and see if he can weigh in.

 

[Jack]

Terry is correct. If you upload to your ALBUM on this site (remember it's FREE) you can upload any size image, and the software creates three versions: a small thumb, a decent looking 900 pix jpeg and the original.

However, IF you upload your images as ATTACHMENTS, everything gets sized to a maximum of 900 pixels -- and more importantly, the down-sizing for larger attachments will almost always over-sharpen a jpeg, so it's definitely advised to size them BEFOREHAND to 900 pix max before uploading a file as an attachment!

 

[Georg Baumann]

Thanks Folks,

So when you put a file into the Album, how do you send it into the Fora? Do you use the INSERT IMAGE icon and paste the URL of the bigger version?

 

[Terry]

Now you've got it. Wow, what a shot. Certainly isn't taking you long to come to grips with the camera! What lens?

 

[ptomsu]

Really great shots Georg!

What WB were you using for the last one? I tried today to set it to Daylight for sunny outside shots (as Jono suggested) and it worked pretty well. A bit cooler than AWB would have delivered, which I personally prefer.

Looking forward to the Greycard procedure I will go through with Guy and interested if it brings any further improvements or consistence compared to a fixed WB setting.

 

[cmb_]

Georg - the BB code places a thumbnail in the thread (as you see above) but clicking on it takes you to the gallery (your gallery - Georg Baumann's Images) where you placed the image.

Nice work, btw.

 

[Terry]

Really great shots Georg!

What WB were you using for the last one? I tried today to set it to Daylight for sunny outside shots (as Jono suggested) and it worked pretty well. A bit cooler than AWB would have delivered, which I personally prefer.

Looking forward to the Greycard procedure I will go through with Guy and interested if it brings any further improvements or consistence compared to a fixed WB setting.

When we all went through the WB adventure on Nikon we found that at least if you shoot them all at the same temp (using daylight) if you find that you do want to make a change, you can change all the shots at once. When shooting AWB we had all different temp and tints as starting points making it harder to consistently get the same look from the whole shoot.

 

[ptomsu]

When we all went through the WB adventure on Nikon we found that at least if you shoot them all at the same temp (using daylight) if you find that you do want to make a change, you can change all the shots at once. When shooting AWB we had all different temp and tints as starting points making it harder to consistently get the same look from the whole shoot.

Yes, I think this is a good starting point.

I find that I fooled around pretty much with AWB in the past years. Now that I am doing a lot of high end scanning and workflow on my old film archives and use calibrated monitors, I am getting more sensitive to a somehow correct WB - which means a WB coming close to what I remember I have seen when taking the picture (and this is all what counts to me, although I am aware this might not be the technical 100% correct WB).

Now with that workflow of using a certain preset, one can be much more efficient in changing WB on multiple pictures.

To my understanding - if I would find "my" correct WB for a certain situation with a certain camera (say the A900) using a greycard and editing a custom profile, I would even be closer from the beginning to my way of viewing the colors - right?

I look forward to try these during the upcoming workshop

 

[Gio]

Interessting thread - especially the WB-"issues" - and nice pictures too.

To my understanding - if I would find "my" correct WB for a certain situation with a certain camera (say the A900) using a greycard and editing a custom profile, I would even be closer from the beginning to my way of viewing the colors - right?

These posts from Carl Weese on TOP might be worth reading:

http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2008/12/white-balance-p.html

http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2008/12/white-balance-1.html

regards

Johannes

 

[jonoslack]

These posts from Carl Weese on TOP might be worth reading:

http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2008/12/white-balance-p.html

http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2008/12/white-balance-1.html

regards

Johannes

HI Johannes
Thanks for the links, but what a palaver. Notice too that all the outdoor pictures he's used are taken in even, overcast lighting, where one might (I suppose) postulate a 'correct' WB.

But this raises two questions
1.
Outside, most of us take pictures where there is some sunlight, if so there will be a huge temperature variation between the shade and the sunlight . . which is right? Are you going to trust your camera to make an arbitrary decision? Or are you going to apply some standard yourself.

2.
Do you want 'correct' white balance, even if there is one? If you go out in nice warm evening light and take a reading from a grey card, then do a white balance against it . . . you no longer have nice warm evening light!

Please note - this is all about outdoor photography - indoors is quite different, and I largely agree with what he has said.

I'm not saying it must be Daylight - just suggesting that it's worth picking a setting and then sticking to it.

Why I use daylight is because it's supposed to relate to bright lighting on normal day, and I feel that that's what my eyes correct to - so it makes sense to have the camera do the same.

Maybe I'm being simplistic about all this, but I don't thing so. The basic idea is to remove a whole raft of variables from dealing with colour, and they are variables which will almost always cofuse the issue. I always was one for the easy life . . . . now I must get back to work (yes, on a Sunday morning):ROTFL:

 

[Georg Baumann]

Question:

What maximum size do you guys prefer for the fora here? I am on a 30 inch screen, but I know it is a pest if you have to scroll and not everyone works on 30", but I was thinking as most here are photographer, chances are you are on 30" too. Even for that this last pciture was too big, soory for that.

Let me know what size you prefer and I shall make them accordingly.

 

[Terry]

When I go past the 900 size I generally use 1200 wide figuring it will be OK with most laptops.

 

[Georg Baumann]

When I go past the 900 size I generally use 1200 wide figuring it will be OK with most laptops.

Thanks again Terry, good idea including laptops.... will use 1200 from here on as well.

 

[kweide]

i am on a 24" 1920 x 1200, so its okay for me....but i think i am the only one ????
The truth will be between 900 to 1200...

 

[jonoslack]

Lovely Georg
These shots just remind me that I'll be in West Cornwall next week
Not such a grand scale, but pretty still!

 

[Georg Baumann]

forgot to say.... native printsize... 50x20 :grin:

 

[Georg Baumann]

Thanks Jack!