The Photo Snob Thread

[Tristan23]

Hey all

Right so i have what may be a stupid question but it has been troubling me for a few days.

Ok, so i have the 7D (amazing camera) when i take a picture and view it on the 7D's screen it looks mint, perfect colours and just perfect. Then I upload it to my computer (which is not old and has what i think is an up to date res screen 17") but when i view the images large the colour seem to be washed out (compared to the 3" screen).

The point to this is, if i then change the detials of the image through PP to make it look like that on the camera (which it does). How will i know how it will print out? Will it print how i see it on the computer screen after PP? or will it print out over saturated and all the colours wrong?

Thoughts will be much appreciated.

Are you shooting RAW, RAW + JPG, or just JPG? This could have something to do with how shite the colours look when you view them on the computer screen.

As for printing, it really depends on two things: How accurate the colours on your monitor are, and the quality of the printer you're printing the shots on. I had a few photos printed at Dick Smith Electronics, which cost like $3.50 per A4 print, and they looked mediocre. I then went and spent $27.50 per print at Foto Riesel (which was highly overpriced by the way) and they came out looking dope. If you've got a good printer and your monitor is correctly calibrated (or close to) they'll come out looking exactly as you see on the computer screen. If not, well, it'll be the opposite.

 

[wazza2282]

Are you shooting RAW, RAW + JPG, or just JPG? This could have something to do with how shite the colours look when you view them on the computer screen.

As for printing, it really depends on two things: How accurate the colours on your monitor are, and the quality of the printer you're printing the shots on. I had a few photos printed at Dick Smith Electronics, which cost like $3.50 per A4 print, and they looked mediocre. I then went and spent $27.50 per print at Foto Riesel (which was highly overpriced by the way) and they came out looking dope. If you've got a good printer and your monitor is correctly calibrated (or close to) they'll come out looking exactly as you see on the computer screen. If not, well, it'll be the opposite.

I shoot Jpegs.

So its a trial and error?

And im sure my monitor is calibrated. its about 1 year old and everthing else i see looks fine?

 

[24alpha]

I shoot Jpegs.

So its a trial and error?

And im sure my monitor is calibrated. its about 1 year old and everthing else i see looks fine?

It won't make any difference how old your screen is. As Tristan said, it has to be properly calibrated. From the factory is NOT properly calibrated.
To add what Tris has said. Each LCD screen including those from the same and different manufacturers have difference colour, brightness and contrast settings. So your images will look different on each of these screns. An easy way to test this is to use two monitors side by side. (dual Screen)
Also, because the screen on the back of your 7D is like 3" or something (note: can't be bothered looking it up) you can barely see the faults to your image. Put it on a 17" and it looks pretty shite! Worse still, plonk it on a 27"!!!
Wont on earth are you doing lookingat images on a 17" screen for? Uness it's a notebook.

 

[24alpha]

Yeah, but I just found a brand new (in box) 1DIIn for a good price, and my 1-series lust has made me want to sell the 7D.

Don't sell the 7D, sell a kidney!

 

[wazza2282]

It won't make any difference how old your screen is. As Tristan said, it has to be properly calibrated. From the factory is NOT properly calibrated.
To add what Tris has said. Each LCD screen including those from the same and different manufacturers have difference colour, brightness and contrast settings. So your images will look different on each of these screns. An easy way to test this is to use two monitors side by side. (dual Screen)
Also, because the screen on the back of your 7D is like 3" or something (note: can't be bothered looking it up) you can barely see the faults to your image. Put it on a 17" and it looks pretty shite! Worse still, plonk it on a 27"!!!
Wont on earth are you doing lookingat images on a 17" screen for? Uness it's a notebook.

Yeh its my work notebook which is the only computer i use. any idea how to calibrate them?

 

[24alpha]

Yeh its my work notebook which is the only computer i use. any idea how to calibrate them?

All screens can be calibrated. Iam typing this on a notebook with Win7, and it has it built in,look in the display settings section of your OS. But what Tris and I are talking about is proper calibration, and that can only be done by a 3rd party tool.

 

[wazza2282]

well im going to head to office works this arvo and get some prints done, mainly 6x4 as they are cheap enough not to worry if it doesnt work. Will this give me a good idea if the monitor is calibrated? if i look at the print and then the screen and they are the same then it's all good right? I have looked at some online calibration test and altered a few setting which only went worse, and i couldnt get it any closer then i did. So it may just be me worrying.

 

[alexx23]

No PP here :

talk about angry face!

thoughts?

 

[Hardrock_rider_23]

Well heres a few photos from the National Champs here at Eagle MTB park

Heppy Superflip

The Cliche'd corner shot

Tailwhip from behind

Got a few more im not sure on at the moment but i might upload them later

 

[elliotdhmcgeary]

phototobig.

I had some skittles, i got bored, i try and take photo, skittles have no sharpness at all? Played around a bit and couldn't get any clearer? What do i do.

 

[saMfish]

..point the camera at them and focus on them?

 

[hardinge915]

Basically, then crop it the way you want if for some reason you want them at the top of the picture.

Also, 24-70 F2.8 or the 24-105 F4.. Will pretty much be my do everything lense, also have a 10-22
and more likely then not buy a tele once I'm posted out of Wagga and have more money to play with..
Would you rather the 24-70 or the 24-105 as a do it all?

Both have similar build quality although the 24-70 is more robust and higher aperture more so speaking
optically, will be used on a 20D, old girl still going strong so no need to upgrade quite yet so a nice L lense
is in order. Price isn't a governing factor either so don't say 24-105 because it's cheaper. Just in two minds
about these as have seen amazing IQ from both straight out of the camera. Thanks in advance

 

[elliotdhmcgeary]

..point the camera at them and focus on them?

I played around a fair bit and haven't been able to get really any focus with any smaller objects ..? Not sure why, camera won't focus them on auto with macro either.

 

[Oliver.]

Basically, then crop it the way you want if for some reason you want them at the top of the picture.

Also, 24-70 F2.8 or the 24-105 F4.. Will pretty much be my do everything lense, also have a 10-22
and more likely then not buy a tele once I'm posted out of Wagga and have more money to play with..
Would you rather the 24-70 or the 24-105 as a do it all?

Both have similar build quality although the 24-70 is more robust and higher aperture more so speaking
optically, will be used on a 20D, old girl still going strong so no need to upgrade quite yet so a nice L lense
is in order. Price isn't a governing factor either so don't say 24-105 because it's cheaper. Just in two minds
about these as have seen amazing IQ from both straight out of the camera. Thanks in advance

Crop: 24-70, FF: 24-105.
Since 20D is a crop, get the 24-70.

Easy

 

[freeride-freak]

Well heres a few photos from the National Champs here at Eagle MTB park

Heppy Superflip
*snip*

Got a few more im not sure on at the moment but i might upload them later

I like the first and last one best, but the last one would be better if the bike was rotated a bit more because on first glance it looks like a no foot can!

 

[red_d0g]

I like cows

 

[skivi]

get the 24-70.

+1 my mate has one on his 30D and lurves it.
good to hear the 20D is still going strong, what a fantastic old jigger she is.

ps: if you can afford it go for a set of prime lenses, they are are all i shoot with now days, test a few out and see if you can find enough to cover all the bases, i'm not very familiar with the Canon lens range as i'm exclusively mamiya 7/film now.

going to Tassie for 20 days in Feb by motorbike, just got 20 rolls of 120 from the states and a new tripod, can't wait.

 

[Tristan23]

Crop: 24-70, FF: 24-105.
Since 20D is a crop, get the 24-70.

Easy

I dunno...in my opinion the lens he chooses to buy should have little to do with whether or not the body it's going on is crop or full-frame, it should be more about what it'll be used for and it's overall practicality.

For example, people argue that the 24-105 is better because it has IS (thus meaning f/2.8 isn't necessary), but this becomes useless when you're shooting action in dimly-lit areas where you won't use IS anyway due to the fact the shutter speed counters any shake. In this situation you'd obviously want the wider aperture. The 24-70 is also a great lens if you have a tele to go with it (for example one of the 70-200 options).

If, however, you're after one lens to do-it-all the 24-105 is excellent for the fact it's wide, and also tele, has IS and awesome IQ/sharpness. It'd be my one zoom to compliment a bunch of primes. But as I said earlier, if you're going to buy a tele the 24-70 is a better option for the fact it opens up to f/2.8.

But yeah, that's a convoluted mess of an explanation. What i'm really trying to say is, personally, a future lens choice should have little to do with the body it's going on (especially when they both start at 24mm).

 

[hardinge915]

Crop: 24-70, FF: 24-105.
Since 20D is a crop, get the 24-70.

Easy

Awesome, straight to the point. Thanks mate.

+1 my mate has one on his 30D and lurves it.
good to hear the 20D is still going strong, what a fantastic old jigger she is.

ps: if you can afford it go for a set of prime lenses, they are are all i shoot with now days, test a few out and see if you can find enough to cover all the bases, i'm not very familiar with the Canon lens range as i'm exclusively mamiya 7/film now.

Yeah the good old 20D is great, wouldn't trade her for anything atm. Awesome camera to learn everything with and for what I paid I'll just use it till it dies, goes to the snow and everything, cant get enough of the elements haha.

The primes in Canon collection are excellent from what I've read and been told, especially L series, but I can't quite afford the initial outlay for a set of primes to cover the range I could with existing lense and the addition of one other.

 

[Ek155]

No PP here :

*snip*

thoughts?

Hey man,
I'm no expert on portraits or anything so this is just CC haha,
but for some reason in most of your portrait shots the person seems dominated by the background/other elements of the image, like she doesn't stand out? Compared to Callans (high comparison haha), where you look at the subject and his/her features, in yours you don't really study the subject which makes the subject of the portrait boring? Maybe compose closer to her or don't chop her legs in half, and get her to be larger in the frame?

like i said, i'm no expert, and its meant as constructive .

Home from Canada, and starting to sort through shots now, here are my favourites from the one's left on the camera:
Whistler,

Vancouver,

There are more on my flickr if your interested
Cheers.