Stratix
New Member
Agree! Here's mine at f/2, fresh from cam. Only resized and bordered.
not that i'm peeping hard, but your pic here does look soft to me.
50mm F1.2L and 135mm F2L
- Thread starter hokkaido88
- Start date
- Status
not that i'm peeping hard, but your pic here does look soft to me.
right eye looks sharper, if he is focusing on that.
Yes of cos it always looks softer as i use MS powerpoint to resize all the time. :bsmilie: And by doing that dunno why always looks softer. :dunno:
Anyway the full-sized original pic is sharp. If u want it let me know and i send to u.
I had the 135mm a while back. The pic i took was really sharp and bokeh was superb.
After 3 years of using 24 105, I have now come to use the 50mm f1.4. Still takes sharp pic for portraits and holiday pic.
The next lens to complement is 70 - 200 who knows may be the mark 2 version could be out as Nikon has the mark 2 version.:bsmilie:
After 3 years of using 24 105, I have now come to use the 50mm f1.4. Still takes sharp pic for portraits and holiday pic.
The next lens to complement is 70 - 200 who knows may be the mark 2 version could be out as Nikon has the mark 2 version.:bsmilie:
Canon might not have the II for 70-200, but hybrid IS perhaps.
Maybe because Powerpoint is not an image processing software? There is severe compression with Powerpoint on all images.
Just get GIMPshop for resizing. It's a much more dedicated tool and it's free. With Photoshop (and I suppose GIMP) you can save for web by resizing at 100% quality so you don't lose quality due to compression.
Sadly, i'm a noob in these software as i don't use them.
It's true. Limsgp PMed me requested to send the full-sized original pic and he's amazed. If u dun want to me to be so partial to it, then i say my 50L taken at all apertures are soft lor. :bsmilie:
not so amazed lah.. but impressed..
Whatever it is, it's for those with deep pockets..
Whatever it is, it's for those with deep pockets..
Any Ls are for those with deep pockets. The higher end Ls are for those with even deeper pockets. :bsmilie:
Why don't you just use DPP to resize? is simple and fast and do not degrade the photo? Can even do batch processing. DPP is free also.:dunno:
Cos the thing is that i seldom do PP and only use the basics available in Windows to do minor touchups so i don't have a great knowledge of PP softwares other than Photoshop.
Then is high time to learn. True photographers in the pass also develop their own film...and that is PP in today's context. If you use photoshop...it is 100 times better then powerpoint. I don't get why you can install powerpoint (which need to pay to get it installed on your computer vs DPP which is free) and cannot install and use DPP instead?
Last edited:
But the thing is i don't have a lot of time to edit the pics even though i shoot quite a bit only in weekends, so i always take my best direct from the camera.
When it comes to PP software, i'm a total suaku in it. :bsmilie:
Even using photoshop is much easier than powerpoint.
Just put all the pictures in a folder, then use batch processing to resize it all at one click of the mouse.. fast and efficient.
Just put all the pictures in a folder, then use batch processing to resize it all at one click of the mouse.. fast and efficient.
What you just need to do is batch resize them. I think it is a good thing to learn to do anyway, rather than using Powerpoint (where it is so much more mafan).
I'm not talking about resizing as i only occassionally resize a few pics and post online. What i'm referring to is editing photos one by one.
beats me why f2 was used when its a f1.2 lens and we are talking abt portraiture where bokeh is impt rt ?
- Status
Similar threads
