Doing some testing, need a little C&C

[DarkShadow]

Besides the tight Crop the colors are bleeding. No this is not you go back as you where before you get a Ken Rockwell saturation thing.

 

[robbins.photo]

Besides the tight Crop the colors are bleeding. No this is not you go back as you where before you get a Ken Rockwell saturation thing.

Lol.. thanks DS. Actually this was a test shot using JPG mode - I shot this with both RAW and JPG and only used the JPG file. The intent was to see how well the internal processing would handle something with that much color on the "vibrant" settings. I didn't really want to bias anything by announcing that in advance, I wanted everyone's honest and unfettered opinion. So no, you probably won't see many more of these from me, no matter how tempting it might be to become Ken Rockwell's evil minion.. lol

 

[Derrel]

Vibrant can look good on really dull overcast or foggy days. But it's definitely not good for M&M-gobbling, Jack Daniels-drinking tropical birds!

 

[robbins.photo]

Vibrant can look good on really dull overcast or foggy days. But it's definitely not good for M&M-gobbling, Jack Daniels-drinking tropical birds!

Well the JD thing was my fault entirely. Not sure where he got the M&M's. Must have been those high school kids I was stuck behind - lol. All in all a successful test I think, I've found that JPG mode does have some usefulness and have a better idea as to it's limitations and best settings for various conditions, so happy there.

Also did some testing on a few other things and you'll be happy to hear I am a convert - the UV filter is off the lenses and will remain off. On the D5100 with the slower glass it really didn't make any noticeable difference that I could see, but on the 5200 with the F/2.8 you can tell a difference between having it on and removing it. Not sure if it's the higher MP sensor, the wider aperture or a combination of both, but I really could tell a difference in the test shots even without pixel peeping.