Napioa - Wind Origins

Napioa - Wind Origins
by octopus                

Submit your Photo
Hall of Fame

Please participate in Meta
and help us grow.

New answers tagged

1

One more to go with the excellent tips from others - what's the ISO? Higher ISOs generally result in less fine detail and so a softer overall image, and 1/4000 @ f/8 is letting in very little light. If you can get away with letting in more light, say by opening up to f/5.6, that should let you lower the ISO to a level that'll increase sharpness.


3

It looks like the magnification of the falling water is quite high. This means that the water moves very fast relative to the frame. My guess is that it took only around 1/20 of a second for a droplet to move through the entire frame. This means that even with a shutter speed of 1/4000, a droplet traverses 1/200 of the frame during the exposure, which ...


0

I definitely think Caleb and Mark are on the right track. This look can be recreated with careful lighting and wardrobe selections - more so than it can be with editing. The lighting setup looks like a gridded (or modified in a similar fashion) key light to prevent spill - notice there are no shadows on the backdrop. Although, to me, it looks like there ...


0

It's a little while since I've played with that sort of thing to remember (and then not to that level!), but from memory it's about selective desaturation by colour range. I've been a long-standing user of CaptureOne, in which it's quite easy; select the colour range you want, drag it smaller or larger if required, set the saturation and lightness that you ...


2

This look is primarily about the choice of lighting. Compared to typical headshots and family portraits the light here is very 'hard.' What that means is that the photographer has chosen a small light source that casts very crisp shadows. You can see this by looking at how sharp the shadow cast from his arm onto his jacket is. Larger light sources like soft ...


2

The saturation looks to be decreased a bit, but I don't think low saturation is the right description. There's plenty of color here even if they're not especially bright shades. If saturation were increased more than a little, the model would look oddly orange: In a truly low saturation image he would look more washed out: I think some of the keys here ...


3

You should be able to use a higher f-stop (and higher ISO to balance out the darkness, if it isn't a problem). Switch to live view when shooting, zoom in, then switch to manual focus and adjust the the focus by yourself. This should prevent any problem arising from the auto focus.


4

It seems that the focus is shifted backwards. This contributes to unsharpness of main object. You should focus more carefully. Also, you may use even bigger F-number when resolution drop caused by diffraction is not critical.


2

We all see things differently. People who complain online are likely to outweigh the people who write to tell you how happy they are. In that case, just be aware that complaints are far more frequent and can distort the real picture significantly. 'Walk around' is a term that suggests you want a lens that you would prefer to keep attached to your camera ...


4

None of these lenses are going to approach L series lenses in terms of build quality and the ability to take punishment and just keep working as they should. There are reasons they offer near the same optical quality at 1/5 to 1/15 the price of an "L" prime lens. I've had an EF 50mm f/1.8 II "nifty fifty" since 1997 or so and it still works fine for what it ...


2

If you are considering a Canon 50mm lens, you should really consider the new EF 50mm 1.8 STM as it is much much better than the old plastic mount EF 50mm 1.8 II. The new STM version has much more accurate STM AF along with a metal mount, closer min focus distance, 7 blade aperture, better focus ring, and new coatings which improve the optics. It is so ...


2

You seem to have some confusion about the different lens designations. The "nifty 50" is the EF 50mm f/1.8. I don't think Canon offers a 50mm f/2.8. generally build quality is very important to me so the 50mm f2.8 "nifty 50" is out. Then step up to the EF 50mm f/1.4 USM. At $350, it costs more than the f/1.8 that I think you're referring to above but ...


2

Well the 40mm is a better focal length for walk around in my opinion, however if you are into portrait then the 50mm is certainly more flattering and it's a tad bit sharper and faster.


1

All of the linked images appear to have camera motion as a factor in the overall sharpness of the image. They also seem to demonstrate the result of fairly aggressive noise reduction which can reduce the detail in an image. What shutter speeds were being used? What ISO setting was selected? Was the camera on a stable mount or being handheld? It appears the ...


1

Testing optical performance of lenses requires knowledge and an optical laboratory. Subjectively, looking at the results obtained via the images you have captured, which may raise your index of suspicion about the performance of a lens so tested; may only point you in the general direction of disappointment with performance. In general terms, it is usually ...


7

You applied surplus of sharpening. Sharpening means for a computer to find a lightness transition and make the dark part of it darker and the lighter part lighter. If you apply disastrous amount of sharpening (as you clearly did) you are guaranteed to get those artifacts - the ligher part will become clipped white and the darker part will become clipped ...


2

Cleaning the lens is important, but it looks to me like your issue is compression artifacts. Check your camera settings to see if you can increase the quality of images saved or shoot in RAW.


0

I had the same problem in my D5100. I just changed my focus mode from "MF" ( Manual Focus) to "AF" ( Auto Focus).


0

Whatever, stick to viewing on 100%. Plus take that extra measure of saving for the web if that's where the image is destined.


2

However, these two sometimes give completely different results. For example, the Lumix LF1 has a perceptual megapixel count of 3MP, while the Sony RX1 boasts 18MP -- a 6x difference. But when we compare the number of lines the camera can resolve on a resolution chart, a completely different picture emerges: The Lumix does 22, while the RX1 does only ...


3

I'll just add, the two numbers measures different aspects. Dxomark's "perceptual megapixel" are measuring both resolution and contrast, hence the use of the word "perceptual". It's not the actually detail sharpness but how we as humans sees it on print in the size they uses for the measurements. Dxomark is basically telling you how most of us perceives the ...


1

The term sharpness is directly related to contrast - a detail (colour transition) being sharp means that the brightness ratio between adjacent regions is high. This one is not sharp because the brightness changes smoothly across the image. This one is sharp though. Another pair of examples. This is sharp. And this, the version scaled down by 66% in the ...


2

No the opposite is the case, the higher the true resolution* the more details you've see, and the more details the more sharp the images appears. Although sharpness is limited by the display's resolution, downscaling will still make the images appears sharper when it's higher resolution. *true resolution is not just the resolution of the image, but the ...


3

Say a 2000 by 3000px photo is reduced to 1000 by 2000px. Would the smaller image appear to be sharper? No. Sharpness is limited by the display's resolution -- the number of pixels per inch. If you want to increase the make the displayed image seem sharper, you need to increase the display resolution. You can (sort of) do that not by making the image ...



Top 50 recent answers are included