Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Nature' started by alexz, Mar 6, 2013.
In manual focus :
To give a better idea, here are 50% CROPS :
Very sharp shots!
Great quality which lens and teleconverter.
Great pics Alex. Well done!
Thanks, I love this lens !
Those are jpeg. Should I have better results in RAW + LR4 or similar ?
I think those are very nice results. I also think that you can get better results using RAW and an application like Lightroom BUT:
1) did you do any processing on these shots after downloading them? You can get better results from RAW + processing than you can from straight out of camera JPEG, and also than you can get from processed JPEGs but there will be less difference between the processed RAW and the processed JPEG than there is between the processed RAW and the straight OOC JPEG.
2) You have to learn what to do in processing. It takes time and practice. You can get better results with processed RAW but it may take you some time before you're happy with your results. Don't expect great results straight away. Getting great results still takes some work even after you've developed the necessary skills and it takes time and work to develop the necessary skills.
3) You can get more out of some images than others.
I find processing an enjoyable part of my photographic experience, but then I used to do my own B&W film developing and processing many years ago. I'd probably process RAW in Lightroom even if I didn't think I could get better results, just different results. If you enjoy processing your JPEGs to change what you get straight out of camera then you'll probably enjoy processing RAW files even more since you can do more with a RAW file. That can be enough reason to start since you're already spending time processing anyway.
If you don't like processing at all, then I'd say don't start if you're happy with what you're getting straight out of camera.
And if you just want better results and there's no other enticement to process RAW files, then the decision is harder. You're going to have to make an investment in time and effort in order to start getting good results, and then you also have to decide how much time you want to spend on each image/how good the result you're aiming for is. After trying it you may end up deciding that you can get better results but those results aren't worth the added effort to you.
Thee's been a series of ongoing processing challenges running here for some months now. The winner of the previous challenge posts a file for others to process, then picks the image he thinks is best and the person who contributed it hosts the next challenge. Take a look at those threads, take a look at what different people do with the same image. What some people do takes more time than what others do, and can take more skills than what others do, but it will give you a feel for what processing can do for, and sometimes to, an image. See if you find those threads interesting. If you do then it's worth giving processing a try yourself. If not, then forget it for now in my view. What you're doing right now looks very nice.
Great shots! Whichs 2x converter are you using?
@elavon and microfourthirdsnut : lens = Olympus SHG Zuiko Digital 150mm f2 4/3 mount. This is a superior lens and heavy.
Thanks ! The converter is the Olympus EC-20.
The lens is the Olympus Zuiko 150mm f2.0 ED, and the heaviness (1,6 kilos) is relative...
In the 24x36mm world, the Nikon 300mm f2.8 weighs 3 kilos, and the f2.0 weighs 8 kilos
Hello David A !
Generally, I only add sharpness (with the ViewNX2, from my previous Nikon).
With other lenses, adding sharpness often gives caricatural results. But with the 150mm, no problem.
I probably have to learn how to process in RAW. I'm patient (I also had a B&W Dust labo), but actually it seems that, if the photo is good (focusing, exposure, ...), I have better results working 10 seconds on the jpeg, than 30 minutes in RAW !
I'll take a look at the challenges, to see if the processing can add what I want.
Thanks for all
Do look at the challenges. I think you'll find them interesting, especially for providing a feel for the range of what can be accomplished.
Two comments. First, processing RAW will take you more time, simply because you have to do some things that are currently being done automatically in camera for you as your image is saved. None of us are anywhere near as fast as an automated in camera process and there's no point in denying that.
Second, you don't have to spend 30 minutes on each shot. You only need to work on the ones you want to and you can either delete the others or keep them to work on later if you change your mind. There are shortcuts such as presets which give you a one click path to a particular "look" which you can then tweak. Even doing everything yourself without using presets takes less time as you gain experience and learn what you need to do to achieve a particular result. I can get a better result now in a minute or two than I could in 10 or 15 minutes when I started out processing RAW. Experience speeds things up a lot. Finally, it's up to you how much time you spend processing.
I have one suggestion for you: initially shoot RAW+JPEG. Use the JPEGs for most images and also as a guide for what you want to get out of the RAW shots you do process. Start out by only processing the RAW files for the images that really matter to you. You can decide down the track whether or not you want to continue shooting RAW+JPEG, just shoot RAW, or go back to shooting JPEG but by shooting both at the start you keep your options open, you have access to the sort of results you've been getting up to now because you're still saving a JPEG file, and you have RAW files as well to practice on.
I love the sharpness/details. I'd love to try that 150mm + 2x tele combo myself...
Too bad it's too expensive (and heavy).
Wonderfully sharp and excellent color - well done!
I owned the 150f/2 back when I had my 4/3 gear. Just an amazing lens. I just bought a GH3 and Nikon adapter, so I am playing with some of my Nikon lenses on the camera. One, the 180 f2.8, Is a first generation autofocus I have owned for over 20 years. Beat to hell, but still takes good images. I'll try and post some samples, and it might be a poor man's alternative to the little tuna.
Please consider disabling your ad blocker for our website.
We rely on ad revenue to pay for image hosting and to keep the site speedy.
Or subscribe for $5 per year to remove all ads and support our efforts.