test, basic weeds.

Bitter Jeweler · Aug 23, 2010

So, is your test succesful?

I X L R 8 · Aug 23, 2010

I doubt it.
lol

When I back two feet away from the monitor, the entire photo becomes more clear and sharp.
As I sit here, perched like an Eagle in its nest, right on top of the monitor, I can see the dots on the computer screen as I peer at this photo like it's something I'm going to have for supper.

Something about this is unfair.
In some way I feel that if this photo were printed out on something with a much higher dot pitch than a computer monitor, on photo paper, in something like a 4x6, it would be more clear?
Am I wrong about this?

Meanwhile as I stare at and try to put it all together ( which may never happen) I ponder, aimlessly.

Ron Evers · Aug 23, 2010

Your shots are very noisy (grainy) due to you using ISO 800 when you could have easily used 100 for such shots.

andrew99 · Aug 23, 2010

You also have some weird halos, are you shooting in JPG?

kundalini · Aug 23, 2010

Well done. Test results are in. Now you have to decide if you were able to learn anything from this little experiment. What is well exposed, what is wrongly exposed, what is the main subject, did I capture the main subject, how is the main subject lighted and how does the background compare to the overall image, is my focus right, is the saturation about right, did I defocus the background enough to isolate the subject, ehhh what is my subject, why have I underexposed some of the frame and overexposed other portions, what's this I keep earing about an external flash, why did I miss critical focus, why have I got blown out highlights, what am I doing wrong, what I am doing right.

It's a very frustrating hobby, isn't it?.

I X L R 8 · Aug 23, 2010

Yeah I'm shooting Jpeg mode.
I wanted to see what iso800 would do. I needed the speed.
This was hand held.

This one is iso400

I X L R 8 · Aug 23, 2010

kundalini said:
Well done. Test results are in. Now you have to decide if you were able to learn anything from this little experiment. What is well exposed, what is wrongly exposed, what is the main subject, did I capture the main subject, how is the main subject lighted and how does the background compare to the overall image, is my focus right, is the saturation about right, did I defocus the background enough to isolate the subject, ehhh what is my subject, why have I underexposed some of the frame and overexposed other portions, what's this I keep earing about an external flash, why did I miss critical focus, why have I got blown out highlights, what am I doing wrong, what I am doing right.

It's a very frustrating hobby, isn't it?.

Umm, yep. All of that. lol

I don't want to have to by new lenses.
These are 14 year old sigma lenses, but like new.
I don't know that I'd gain anything even if I did replace lenses.
I wouldn't mind having one Ziess lens.

pgriz · Aug 23, 2010

I'm waiting until you get to the advanced weeds...

kundalini · Aug 23, 2010

pgriz said:
I'm waiting until you get to the advanced weeds...

Can you help a brother out? :lol:

pgriz · Aug 23, 2010

kundalini said:
pgriz said:

I'm waiting until you get to the advanced weeds...

Click to expand...

Can you help a brother out?

Well, hard to comment if we don't know what the test was about. For all I know, he could have been testing diffraction effects at high f/ values.

As for noise at various ISO values, we know that the smaller the sensor, the quicker the noise increases with ISO, we also know that the smaller the pixel element, the faster the noise increases... and the noise reduction algorithms (in-camera) vary in effectiveness from pretty good to gosh-awful. By curious coincidence, the more you spend on the camera, the better is the hi-ISO noise performance. OK, I've got my steel bucket helmet on - start throwing stuff.:greenpbl: