p.1 #1 · 5D3 [Joke!] What's wrong with my settings?
What's wrong with my 5D3? I used a tripod, focused carefully (manually, because I'm a "CF"), and gave it as much help in Lightroom as I could, but it just doesn't seem to have the tonality that other people get from their cameras. Thanks for any help.
p.1 #4 · 5D3 [Joke!] What's wrong with my settings?
Though the histogram doesn't show it you may have pushed the yellows a wee bit
Looks good otherwise. The second one is kinda ordinary just a leaf it a tree Oh, I didn't notice any banding at all!
p.1 #5 · 5D3 [Joke!] What's wrong with my settings?
I think the main issue is that you didnt buy a Nikon. Appaerntly the backwards, greedy Evil Empire at Canon only sells you one color for the $3500 price of the 5DIII. Want all the colors? Guess you have to shell out for the 1DX. BTW, i hear the new Nikon sensors have colors no one even knows about yet!
p.1 #7 · 5D3 [Joke!] What's wrong with my settings?
I get my original values, for all my set points, from non winning lotto tickets, and use those values, (the numbers that did not win), for my starting point values. I have had to make some slight adjustments since upgrading to LR4, but it still gets me close to what I expect to see.
The shadows slider value should be half the value of the of the highlights slider as a general rule after inserting the non winning lotto numbers...just that alone should get you in the ball park...
When you do PP well, you can't tell it was done at all
p.1 #8 · 5D3 [Joke!] What's wrong with my settings?
Well, it's obviously a seasonal thing. The first one was taken in the fall, on a foggy day, while the second one was taken earlier in the year, on a clear day.
p.1 #12 · 5D3 [Joke!] What's wrong with my settings?
canon pants wrote:
Saturation should be more than 35. bump it up to 100 and should be solved.
Thank you! How could I have missed that? John_T wrote:
I like the first one, the tonality, composition, color rendition, yet again you have surpassed yourself.
I try to be a consummate artist (CA) as well as a competent fotografer. WAYCOOL wrote:
Though the histogram doesn't show it you may have pushed the yellows a wee bit
Looks good otherwise. The second one is kinda ordinary just a leaf it a tree Oh, I didn't notice any banding at all!
Color balance was the only thing I thought I got right. I used a custom white balance. You can see from the second example how bad it is to use AWB. bbasiaga wrote:
I think the main issue is that you didnt buy a Nikon. Appaerntly the backwards, greedy Evil Empire at Canon only sells you one color for the $3500 price of the 5DIII. Want all the colors? Guess you have to shell out for the 1DX. BTW, i hear the new Nikon sensors have colors no one even knows about yet!
-Brian (kidding of course)
What makes you think that I didn't buy a Nikon? cputeq wrote:
Gross. That second shot looks like one of those psychadelic, over-cooked HDR thingys. The colors, they burn!
Why thank you! I'm not used to such praise, mostly vituperative criticism. Jefferson wrote:
I get my original values, for all my set points, from non winning lotto tickets, and use those values, (the numbers that did not win), for my starting point values. I have had to make some slight adjustments since upgrading to LR4, but it still gets me close to what I expect to see.
The shadows slider value should be half the value of the of the highlights slider as a general rule after inserting the non winning lotto numbers...just that alone should get you in the ball park...
When you do PP well, you can't tell it was done at all
...Show more →
Jefferson, I never gamble, which is why I shoot raw. Where would I find non-winning blotto numbers? jcolwell wrote:
Well, it's obviously a seasonal thing. The first one was taken in the fall, on a foggy day, while the second one was taken earlier in the year, on a clear day.
The exif seems to indicate that I took them a few moments apart, but my memory is highly unreliable. I'm sure you're right. Ian.Dobinson wrote:
It's the 5D3's special mode . It uses the LCD display as the lens
That's right. Many people are unaware of the special uses for the green mark on the dial. Saves the price of an L.
p.1 #14 · 5D3 [Joke!] What's wrong with my settings?
Photon wrote:
Peter, I'm a little disappointed. My 5D2 was more consistent: nearly an 85% trash rate (15% keepers). Still, although the trash collectors may be disappointed about the 50%, when you factor in the increased frame rate, my total volume for them should be similar. Also, some of my friends are looking forward to my further experiments with ultra high ISO:
Jess, kidding aside, that shot looks mighty good for ISO 20000.
p.1 #16 · 5D3 [Joke!] What's wrong with my settings?
Gochugogi wrote:
Ha! And pushed 4 stops
Actually, due to forgetting to put on the lens cap, I had to {i]pull 4 stops. It's nice to know that LR now allows a *5* stop pull or push. So let's see, that means we have at least 10 stops DR plus however much the camera natively provides, right? Who needs Exmor?
p.1 #17 · 5D3 [Joke!] What's wrong with my settings?
PetKal wrote:
Jess, kidding aside, that shot looks mighty good for ISO 20000.
Yeah, I'm beginning to think (seat of the pants judgment) that I have about a full stop better ISO/noise performance compared to the 5D2 when both are shot raw and processed in LR to best advantage and equal detail retention. Whatever the quantified difference, it's nice to have.
p.1 #18 · 5D3 [Joke!] What's wrong with my settings?
Steve350 wrote:
Obviously you need more camo!
I have zero camouflage, so I guess I do need more! Will the leaves perform better for my Canon if they don't see me coming?
p.1 #20 · 5D3 [Joke!] What's wrong with my settings?
Photon wrote:
I have zero camouflage, so I guess I do need more! Will the leaves perform better for my Canon if they don't see me coming?
Of course. A static, at ease subject is by far easier to capture. Only by taking them by surprise, can you get their true colors.
(kidding of course)
