OT [photo] Fuzzy rocks

http://paulcarmichael.org/fotos/thumbnails.php?album=8

I think I'm starting to get a feel for this depth of field business. Or am
I?

 

I like 3/43 - if you could provide map co-ordinates so I can place it on a
map, I would be very grateful.

 

wessie escribió:

3/43?

 

photo no 3 in the set of 43, now 44.

DPP_0003.jpg

 

wessie escribió:

I assume you're taking the piss, but just in case, I think it was around
about 36º57'18.16" N 4º32'36.11" W.

 

Unusually for me, no. I like the look of the road & scenery. May be a
tad warm for my preference though.

 

wessie escribió:

Sorry - was being a bit thick. It became 44 within minutes of posting the
link, so didn't see the thingy wibble. The last one added was completely
black, so I whacked up the white. Haven't touched the rest, apart from
scaling and jpegging.

 

There's a great little road not far from there: A-7000, between
Colmenar and Malaga. There are a couple of loops where it goes under
itself as it winds down the mountain.

 

Thomas escribió:

Some serious hairpin bends. A friend was following me on his Divvy and went
off-road. My bike's surprisingly good in tight bends as long as I keep the
power on.

 

<blanket type="wet">

The pictures are in focus, but at f/8 and 18mm, you've got pretty much
infinite DOF so everything is in focus and it would be very hard to have
anything blurry in such conditions.

But although the pictures are properly focused, they are far from sharp,
even at 1500x1000. There are two possible causes:

You are using the lens at its minimum length so it's not at its best
(even if using f/8 helps). Zoom with you feet and avoid going below 20mm.

The scaling (to 1500x1000) always makes the picture softer. One should
always give a small shot of sharpening (aka "unsharp mask") after
scaling to restore some of the original sharpness. For instance, on an
extract of your DPP_0013: http://cjoint.com/?izvPJD78Ts

I would have also added a pinch of contrast. DSLRs are very "neutral" by
default, if you don't post-process your images you can use slightly
aggressive settings for contrast/saturation, otherwise, it's better keep
contrast/saturation low and increase them in post-processing.

</blanket>

Don't worry, you'll eventually get "the eye".

 

Found them on Google Maps - looks like fun.

There's a similar loop on the Gerlos Pass in Austria. You go under a bridge
and then climb through a 360 degree loop to go over the bridge.

 

Nice.

I posted a few photos of El Torcal a year or two back and ISTR you
commenting about them being better than any of yours.

I think those have just overtaken mine!

I loved that place - cold as **** though in March. I must go back one
day.

 

Yes, indeed a matter of taste, and I overdid it a bit for the example.
Also, working from the original would have been better.

 

CT escribió:

I love the place. It's about 45 minutes from here. If you go when there's no
tourists, it's magical.

 

Vass escribió:

Do you know who you're talking to?

 

Borg escribió:

My fuzzy rocks were in RAW format. What I don't understand is why a jpeg
created by the camera is so different from a RAW jpegged by me.

 

No, I use DPP (but I don't do much RAW anyway). My run-of-the-mill photo
twiddling is done with Gimp, working on neutral camera-produced JPEGs.

 

If you use Canon's DPP to produce JPEG from your CR2, it will use your
camera settings by default.

 

Grimly Curmudgeon escribió:

I'm thinking of specializing in porn photos. Actually, I'm not really. I got
a new wide monitor, and my existing wallpaper doesn't work at that
resolution (http://paulc.es/tmp/album-sleeves.jpg), so I set about browsing
the web for a nice wide hires piccie. But are there a lot of hires flesh
piccies about for free or what? I mean it's mostly pornographic, but there's
actually a lot of nice stuff as well. I didn't find anything that my wife
would consider appropriate though (even though she was fine with that other
one), so I used a picture of her with some dolphins instead.

 

Kinky.