Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital Cameras (Point and Shoot) > Panasonic / Leica

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Feb 23, 2005, 11:27 AM   #11
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 132
Default

i actually prefer the original shot. the second one is a bit painful on the eyes, imo.
spidamonkey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 23, 2005, 12:32 PM   #12
Senior Member
 
RedHouse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 216
Default

I think lovelife's "correction" is overdone. It looks like a cartoon. Your first shot looks more like what occurs naturally.
RedHouse is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 23, 2005, 1:43 PM   #13
Senior Member
 
trooplewis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 578
Default

It is a fun picture to play with. I think that somewhere between the original and the oversharpened one there is a happy medium. With just a little more saturation and a touch of contrast, it looks like this...
Attached Images
 
trooplewis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 23, 2005, 6:25 PM   #14
Senior Member
 
LoveLife's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 1,288
Default

trooplewis wrote:
Quote:
It is a fun picture to play with. I think that somewhere between the original and the oversharpened one there is a happy medium. With just a little more saturation and a touch of contrast, it looks like this...

Do not assume always ask; no sharpening.
LoveLife is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 23, 2005, 6:47 PM   #15
Senior Member
 
m.achure's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 114
Default

Question for Lovelife ...... or any one else,
from one who does not have or know how to use pp software.


Conjecture on my part but it seems a majority of photographers frequently use pp, irregardless of the camera they are using.

So if that picture was able to be corrected, for lack of hood use, by pp; why carry around and use a hood at all? if one is more than likely to treat a pic to some form of pp anyway?

:?
m.achure is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 23, 2005, 7:36 PM   #16
Senior Member
 
greenbaron's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: the Netherlands
Posts: 742
Default

That's a fairly easy answer; the less pp you need to do, the better the quality of the end result :arrow:
greenbaron is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 23, 2005, 8:19 PM   #17
Senior Member
 
LoveLife's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 1,288
Default

m.achure wrote:
Quote:
Question for Lovelife ...... or any one else,
from one who does not have or know how to use pp software.


Conjecture on my part but it seems a majority of photographers frequently use pp, irregardless of the camera they are using.

So if that picture was able to be corrected, for lack of hood use, by pp; why carry around and use a hood at all? if one is more than likely to treat a pic to some form of pp anyway?

:?
I have been involved in computer engineering and photography most of my life. I have learned one axiom, which is worth passing on. Always let the hardware, not the software, do it. No matter what I did to that picture, I could never create the picture captured with a lens hood. Here are two other truisms:

Cropping a picture will never match the quality of a good zoom lens.


No auto focus exposure system is going to give you a better picture then your own judgment using manual mode.




LoveLife is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 9:01 PM.