Ducks Galore

[oeyvind]

misleading sweepin statements.
u 2 prob hv a wrongly calibrated screen. save e pixs into e hdd. u shd learn 2 read the histogram n info tab.
it is funny some people just type without even lookin at the info :dunno:

None of the above pix are overexposed... I think you have better recalibrate your screen instead.

D65, gamma 2.2, all are fine.. maybe the 3rd one the white is a bit hot, that's it.

 

[AReality]

Looks OK on my calibrated screen...

 

[Zerstorer]

Only the 3rd pic has a small amount of blowout, but still acceptable. The exposures for the rest are ok, both on monitor view and scrutiny of the histrogram.

Matthewsl, perhaps you might want to show why you think they are blown with examples/pics of the relevant histrograms?

 

[sulhan]

agree on tis, I remb someone posted way better shots w an olympus 5050. most of the shots above r badly overexposed too, wat gives? :dunno:

Hi Guys...

The photos do look okay to me. The exposure is just right. With the fact that the duck feathers would be greyish if the exposure is down ...

Picture 1 and 3 metering is tricky but the exposure locked on looks very good....

Well.....variaiton of Monitors and Laptops - I'm using a laptop anyway...

rgds,
Sulhan

 

[shortcake]

histograms, schmistograms...

I like no. 3 the most, despite the "thing in its neck". I think it's just a ruffled feather protruding from it's rear. It's a very cute moment. Would be even better if the ducks head was more sharp. But anyway, great try.

 

[MatthewSL]

must i write a thesis 2 elucidate the obvious??? i work on 2 diff terminals tat r meant for proofs,recalibration cycle is bi-weekly fyi.

black overlays over whites highlight l.o.d. zones <l.o.d. = loss of details> w absolute values of 0% 0% 1% 0% signifies complete loss of perceptible info. too much sublet variation across b n w is no not acceptable at all. ever heard of meterin 4 the scene or fills?

I m merely voicing out personal view. Tis sort of shots r outta question from a top of the line camera kit since poster decides 2 diss it out in the first paragraph.

 

[oeyvind]

you meant white are too hot for those two pix... very big diff from overexposed.

Anyway, it's a problem for MK2 to loose detail at 240 and over as well.

These are the bX-ray for the two duck pix, details are there!

 

[erwinx]

you meant white are too hot for those two pix... very big diff from overexposed.

Anyway, it's a problem for MK2 to loose detail at 240 and over as well.

agree 100%. Hot whites do not mean overexposure.

Look at the exposure data. For the white duck pic, its 1/640 f/8 ISO 100. Sunny 16 is 1/400 f/8 ISO 100.

 

[Zerstorer]

Matthew, what you said originally was that "most of the pictures are overexposed". It appears that only 2 have any reasonable amt of blown areas which are not necessarily significant when viewed in the context of the entire image.

Perhaps stating which images were significantly affected from the onset would be a lot more constructive than making a sweeping condemnation. Whether a 300D or a 1Dmk2 was used is immaterial.

 

[MatthewSL]

Matthew, what you said originally was that "most of the pictures are overexposed". It appears that only 2 have any reasonable amt of blown areas which are not necessarily significant when viewed in the context of the entire image.

Perhaps stating which images were significantly affected from the onset would be a lot more constructive than making a sweeping condemnation. Whether a 300D or a 1Dmk2 was used is immaterial.

do i hv 2 do every pix? anyways the poster changed 2 pixs from original.
more correctly phrased is bad metering tat is inability 2 maintain gd variation between b n w. it was nt 2 be a sweepin condemnation,pixs r still a fact too hot if tat is term u all use there. we term it bad exposure or over sublet variation. i apologies 4 wrong term used. 300d or mk2 immaterial 2 u perhaps but not 2 me because it showss me the capability or incapability of operator.

i had posted my point,it is up 2 each 1 2 judge. a person will never learn if he gets 2 defensive.

 

[Avatar]

Hi all,

I believe everyone is engaged in a constructive discussion. However, as the moderator, it is my duty to remind everyone to keep these discussions as civic as possible.

Thank you!

Moderator mode OFF

On a sidenote, I think both sides do make some valid points. IMHO, Matthew's comment might be over generalised but he isn't totally out of context either. Zerstorer did provide some really good insights too. Nevertheless, on a personal note, I feel the pictures can indeed be more accurately executed and if given enough fills on the shadows while maintaining the highlights, they would have been better.

I feel that it is through positive feedbacks like the above can we all learn to handle such situations.

Just my 2 cents worth

Moderator mode ON

 

[Terence]

I have no problem in receiving feedback, as long as it's not put across in a demeaning tone. I post my shots here in order to gather advice and suggestions.

Matthew, I never reposted any of the shots as you suggested. They are all original since post #1. I've had the mark II for about 3 weeks and Im still on the learning curve. It's quite different from my 10D and Im still trying to master its metering. So I guess you're right, it's "exposing the incapability of the operator". Are you suggesting I'm so bad at using it that I should junk the camera? Give me a break dude, I never claimed to be another Art Morris. You need to chill...

 

[alvinchuan]

Hi Terence

I think the pictures are fine. You have my vote. :cheers:

Alvin

 

[ipaquser]

I have no problem in receiving feedback, as long as it's not put across in a demeaning tone. I post my shots here in order to gather advice and suggestions.

Matthew, I never reposted any of the shots as you suggested. They are all original since post #1. I've had the mark II for about 3 weeks and Im still on the learning curve. It's quite different from my 10D and Im still trying to master its metering. So I guess you're right, it's "exposing the incapability of the operator". Are you suggesting I'm so bad at using it that I should junk the camera? Give me a break dude, I never claimed to be another Art Morris. You need to chill...

You don't need to bother about jealous people yeah?

 

[sexyguy]

Nice pictures.....
Looks great on my laptop screen.... Though some details are lost in the white......
Although the pictures may not be "perfect" statistically, they are very nice visually.... To me, that's all it really matters mostly....
Perhaps you may wana try raw pics next time and tweak to your hearts content statistically!!!

 

[gooseberry]

Nice pictures Terence..

Ducks are so silly looking they make fun subjects.

Hehe... laughed when I saw this comment, and looking at the your photo's, it's quite apt. Like the third one with the crab fending off the duck, although it would have been better with the duck's beak in focus (pretty fat duck too!)

 

[MatthewSL]

there are two motives for reading a book..... one that you enjoy it,the other that you can swank about it. people often mistake a short memory for a clear conscience in making comments. i shant say no more...... believe wat u like 2 believe in.......