Comments - and an apology!

Posted on 30 January 2010, 13:07

Thanks to John, Mark, Barry and Lindsay for your recent comments – unfortunately I’ve just deleted them!

It’s Google Chrome’s fault – I’m testing this browser at the moment, and it has switched round the “Accept” and “Delete” buttons in the comments admin page!

I’ve been able to page back to the (limited) comment preview I see though, so based on that, some responses…

John Wright:
The images on here are all with the Canon 100-400mm – my budget won’t stretch to one of the big primes, and to be honest, I’m very happy with the IQ and sharpness (and the versatility of course) of the zoom.

I do need to revisit my post processing and sharpening for the 7D – I’m losing a lot of detail and sharpness resizing for the web.

I’m very happy with the 7D so far, but to be honest I never expected not to be.

Mark Mowbray:
“Hating” the Black headed gull is a bit strong, mate! What don’t you like?

The Lapwing was a big crop, and there’s still good detail in it, which is one of the main advantages of the bigger sensor. Again, it loses something being resized for the web.

Re: the Eiders – you can get right down to the water’s edge by squeezing around the fence before the gate of the Narec site, and carefully clambering down the rocks. I’m probably going to head off there myself shortly.

Barry Fisher:
Nice to hear from you again, Barry – hope you’re keeping well. Did you do Norfolk again this January? Mark Wilson tipped me off about it, but I couldn’t make it.

Aye, these are all handheld: I’m under no illusions about them – they’re OK, but I’m still working on finding the best conversion and post processing options. What worked well for the 40D doesn’t necessarily work for the 7D, but I’m getting there.

Not sure where you’re seeing the chroma noise (the comment preview chops off at “on the wing in the…“!) but if you can see noise in the Wallington Hall shots it’s because – and I’m not a happy bunny about this – Bibble 5 does not play nicely with 7D files, and although the conversions are as sharp and detailed as they are with the 40D (and provide a ton of detail) they’re noisy too, and Bibble-converted 7D files don’t respond well to tweaking shadows, levels and whatnot.

The same files converted in Capture One 5 (or even freebie Raw Therapee) are much cleaner and I’ve found that simply by increasing the default capture sharpening just a little bit, they’re as sharp as Bibble 5 provides.

This for example, is 1250 ISO, converted in Cap One 5 and processed using my normal workflow:

Turnstone, St Mary’s

I simply can’t get near to this IQ from the same file using Bibble 5 – but Bibble’s colours are probably better “out of the box”, and I can still see a bit more microcontrast and really fine detail from Bibble.

Still, getting to grips with the PP is all part of the fun!

Lindsay Muirhead:
Hi Lindsay,

thanks for your kind words.

I use a Canon 100-400mm lens, and I like it immensely: it’s sharp and versatile, easy (ish!) to handhold thanks to the built-in image stabilisation, and because it’s a zoom it packs up nice and small.

Images, content and design © 2019 Keith Reeder. Built with Textpattern