The TPU Darkroom - Digital SLR and Photography Club

[KrazyT]

Yes you're right, i always push a little the saturation, colors pops more.
Sometimes I use filters too, i can achieve good results ...
I was talking about editing to remove or darken the branches on the left

 

[the54thvoid]

Yes you're right, i always push a little the saturation, colors pops more.
Sometimes I use filters too, i can achieve good results ...
I was talking about editing to remove or darken the branches on the left

Ah, I see. No. Background has not been altered.

 

[tabascosauz]

These herons always play hard to get [a good photo]

300mm 1/3200 f4

 

[Aquinus]

I shoot RAW and use Capture One to process most pics I post. What folks often forget is that digital cameras don't show you what you saw at the time* - the image is a jpeg based on each manufacturers preferences and algorithms. I think I added a tiny bit of saturation and sharpening. That being said, the conditions were perfect, the sun was on the bird so the colours were sharp and my ISO was fairly low, so little noise to deal with.

*In fact, without filters, or RAW processing (or both), digital cameras are terrible at capturing the dynamic range our eyes see.

I actually like shooting in raw + jpeg, just because if I have a good shot that requires minimal processing, I can just use it right off the bat. The only downside is that it takes more space to store both versions.

 

[tabascosauz]

I actually like shooting in raw + jpeg, just because if I have a good shot that requires minimal processing, I can just use it right off the bat. The only downside is that it takes more space to store both versions.

That's a good point; raw+jpeg is how I started but after a couple years I stopped because I never actually used the jpegs.

But I use some absolute geezer gear compared to you lot, so if I was dealing with 36MP raws, a smarter camera and built-in wifi, habits might be different

 

[Aquinus]

That's a good point; raw+jpeg is how I started but after a couple years I stopped because I never actually used the jpegs.

But I use some absolute geezer gear compared to you lot, so if I was dealing with 36MP raws, a smarter camera and built-in wifi, habits might be different

Oh yeah. I'll pull images off my camera through wifi on a regular basis to either text somebody a picture or upload it to social media. I can (and do,) the same thing with RAWs, but it takes a lot more time, and honestly, doesn't often look as good if I'm not willing to post-process it. The JPEGs with all of the corrections often get me most of the way. Having the RAW is just nice if there's a case where maybe the image was under-exposed and the RAW might let me recover more than the JPEG would.

This might be a good example. I was out this morning looking for birds, couldn't find much until I drove by a group (flock?) of turkey. This is from the JPEG out of the camera scaled down to 2048px width without any adjustment after the fact. This is with my usual gear at 400mm, ƒ8, 1/1000s, ISO 3200. All lens corrections are on, but not processed beyond what happens in body. Honestly, I can't complain.

 

[Aquinus]

I guess the fowl pictures continue? pardon the pun...
I believe it's a red-shouldered blackbird?

 

[Chomiq]

Crappy phone pics coming in...

Took a shortcut through cemetery after donating blood today, saw these suckers running around:

This one first saw me as it was climbing a tree. Took a peak on a right side, then on left, then on right again and decided to cross:

Turns out there's a feeder full of walnuts like 10 meters away from that spot.

 

[the54thvoid]

Hey - wow! - it's not a bird pic:

 

[KrazyT]

You were in a boat, or you shoot with a x3000 ?

 

[the54thvoid]

500mm from shore. They are small rigs of the Fife coast in Scotland.

 

[KrazyT]

Something smaller

 

[Aquinus]

View attachment 294213
Something smaller

Mushroom or fungus growing on a tree? The DoF is super shallow so it's hard to tell.

 

[KrazyT]

Mushroom or fungus growing on a tree? The DoF is super shallow so it's hard to tell.

Exactly ! Fungus growing on a tree !

 

[Aquinus]

it's not a bird pic

In that same vein, not a bird, but it flies and this sucker is coming in hot! I wasn't planning on shooting a bee, so my shutter speed was a little slow for the shot, 1/400s I think. Also unlike the bird pictures, this was with the 24-105mm ƒ4.

 

[KrazyT]

24-105 f 4, is a Sigma, Canon or Sony one ?
Hard to shoot flying animals !
My success rate is about 0,5 %

 

[Aquinus]

24-105 f 4, is a Sigma, Canon or Sony one ?

Canon RF 24-105mm ƒ4 L IS USM

 

[Ferrum Master]

@W1zzard why I don't have notifications for this thread? It set watched.

 

[tabascosauz]

24-105 f 4, is a Sigma, Canon or Sony one ?
Hard to shoot flying animals !
My success rate is about 0,5 %

Practice practice practice 300mm f5.6 1/3200

Still no bees for me yet this year, but my lovely little friends should be coming soon with the weather getting warm

 

[the54thvoid]

The BIF trick - really fast shutter speeds!

You flying alongside when you took it.

 

[Aquinus]

Just took this one this morning. I should have just set the shutter to 1/4000s. This was at 1/2000s.

Edit: Side note. Did anyone notice that Canon released a 100-300mm ƒ2.8 lens for the RF mount that works with the 1.4 and 2.0 teleconverters? It only costs almost $10k USD.

 

[Aquinus]

Moar birds! This one is a chipping sparrow. Same settings as the previous picture, just on a different day. ISO was at a far more reasonable 320 though.

 

[the54thvoid]

If I had bears, and other stuff, I'd post that. But I'm still seeing birds...


A tiny long tailed tit.

 

[de.das.dude]

thats a b-orb

 

[Aquinus]

Does anyone have any opinions about using Sigma or Tamron lenses on the Canon RF mount with an EF adapter? The Sigma 150-600mm contemporary seems like a lot of lens for the price. In theory they should work, I'm just trying to figure how well compared to a native RF lens. It seems a bit more cost effective than going with the 100-500 and has a bit more reach.