The Planted Tank Forum banner
1 - 20 of 24 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,020 Posts
Got a macro lens for my XTi, Canon 100mm 2.8. Little difficult to get used to, very narrow depth of field! Really lost some color on the upload :( Any suggestions welcome
OK, excellent start for that 100mm Macro!
And congrats - that is a preggie cherry in the first shot.

A few things -

1. You didn't "lose" color on the upload. Looks like you are a victim of "AWB", auto white balance and possibly some other factors.
Try shooting in RAW, and play with the white balance and see if you can get it coloring correctly. This is a quick way to learn what white balance you might be aiming for with the given lighting. Which moves onto the next topic...

2. I checked two shots in here, one was shot at 1/10 @f3.5, another 1/3 @f11. In order to get that shutter speed up, you'd need to get at least one flash unit (580EX is very nice with a ST-E2), or, you can experiment with the on-board flash, but that can be an exercise in futility.

3. Watch that Photoshopping! - That clone out of the fish in top right corner of the first shot is pretty noticeable :icon_wink

Whatever you do - keep shooting!!! :proud:
And when you want a little change of pace - use that lens for some portrait shots - you might be pleasantly surprised!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,254 Posts
Joe knows his stuff, so I would listen. i have to say BS, you did a wonderful job for your first shots!!! Nice~
 

·
Algae Eater
Joined
·
3,182 Posts
Discussion Starter · #4 ·
Thanks Joesph!

These were shot in RAW, and they looked much different in my PC, I adjusted white balance before converting them.

I shot quick b/c I was getting some blur, then just adjusted the exposure in PS. Im looking at getting a flash right now. Thanks

The first photo, I didnt clone anything out, I think that just a cherry tail in the background, I dont even know how to do that yet!
One of the decisions on getting the 100 is that I hear its very sharp, almost "L" like without putting a large dent in the pocket. Just needs to warm up outside!
Your input is greatly appericated, thank you
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,037 Posts
BS, Did you resize the photo before upload? if not that is probably what happened to the color, I have seen it do that.
Nice shots, good start.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,071 Posts
the loss of color might be due to colorspace issues. I use Adobe RGB as my workspace, but a lot of web stuff is in sRGB which doesn't have as wide a gamut. If the photo is destined for web use, you can start in sRGB and then your expectations aren't crushed. And don't forget to bump saturation to compensate in photoshop: image>adjustments>hue/saturation
 

·
Algae Eater
Joined
·
3,182 Posts
Discussion Starter · #8 ·
BS, Did you resize the photo before upload? if not that is probably what happened to the color, I have seen it do that.
Nice shots, good start.
Yes, they were resized before I uploaded them. Thanks

Bigstick, I do know what you mean. My pictures look different in photoshop and in IE or any other picture viewer. It has something to do with the settings in photoshop. To get around this I use nikon capture to process the raw photos. Does canon have an equivalent program? If so you may want to check that out.
Yes, Canon has their own. Ill have to give it a try.

the loss of color might be due to colorspace issues. I use Adobe RGB as my workspace, but a lot of web stuff is in sRGB which doesn't have as wide a gamut. If the photo is destined for web use, you can start in sRGB and then your expectations aren't crushed. And don't forget to bump saturation to compensate in photoshop: image>adjustments>hue/saturation
I think that very well may be what it is. Ill have to check the camera settings. But that will be a PITA to switch back and forth. If you want to print it then the workspace will have to change correct? Maybe next time I will just add a little hue/saturation and see if that works.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
676 Posts
Your photography is amazing, bigstick. I would be very proud if I were you!
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,071 Posts
Resizing doesn't change the color, but resizing means resaving, which brings me back to my earlier point about colorspaces. resaving (in some programs) reimposes a different color space on the file, which can change the color.

sRGB is used because most monitors can't reproduce wider than its spec. Adobe RGB is wider, and you can really tell the difference in prints.

quote: "I think that very well may be what it is. Ill have to check the camera settings. But that will be a PITA to switch back and forth."

You can avoid changing everything around by setting the colorspace to sRGB in your camera if you shoot JPG or doing it in your RAW editing (RAW is overrated and totally unnecessary with the exception of a few kinds of situations). Or you can start to think in terms of "Color Management" and your "Workflow."

This guy really, really knows his stuff... I can't really say where to start, but you could do worse for your photography than read for hours on end over @ The Luminous Landscape

gl w/the macro, and oh yeah, NIKON ROCKS! :p
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
135 Posts
Bigstick120

I also shoot in raw mode and found I was experiencing the same issue when I let Photoshop CS2 do the save as. I could always see a slight reduction in the color saturation between the original raw file and jpg file. I finally started using the Photoshop RAW editor directly to save the jpg files then do whatever cropping and resizing I needed to do on the jpg file saved by the RAW editor. That worked for me. Funny since both these products are part of Adobe’s Photoshop CS2.

Great shots!

JT
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,199 Posts
I agree. Most of the time you do not need to shoot in Raw. Fine Jpegs will work fine as long as you don't change and resave all the time - thus compressing and decompressing the file and losing info in the process.

Also, some exposures really damp down in macro mode, but the Canon should compensate, or you can figure it out manually. Your shots look really nice Bigstick, as does the health of the tank!

BTW, low depth of field (selective focus) which is inherent in Macro lens is what really makes it cook. Try shooting around f11.5 of f16 to get a little more depth if you want/need it. Good pictures for sure.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
317 Posts
Jeff,

I won't go into details but something to keep in mind:

1. Calibrate your monitor. No 3rd party software will substitute Spyder Pro or other brands and even those are not near perfection.

2. If your working space is Adobe RGB (*possibly camera setting as well) and you want to create a jpeg to post on the web, you need to convert your image to sRGB (*in photoshop CS2: Edit >> Convert to Profile), the standard color space for web images.

3. Get familiar with Histogram / Levels -- crucial to digital post-processing photography

4. Do NOT add something that wasn't there to begin with. Never understood why people would recommend to add Saturation. Calibrate / use sRGB in Adobe Photoshop and you will get output that will look the same via Internet Browser.

Simple as that :) !
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,071 Posts
Jeff,
4. Do NOT add something that wasn't there to begin with. Never understood why people would recommend to add Saturation. Calibrate / use sRGB in Adobe Photoshop and you will get output that will look the same via Internet Browser.
Simple as that :) !
Depends on what you mean by "wasn't there." Film type, or sensor, white balance, etc etc are all interpretations of the light that is objectively there. If you make a setting error, you can compensate using saturation to get back what was lost. I agree that it looks terrible if you are "adding something something that wasn't there," but not all saturation use does this.

Concrete example: I used a low saturation slide film for a long time before switching to Fuji Provia (before going digital). When I scanned these slides, I'd need to bump saturation so that the images looked like the actual scene, i.e. I used saturation to return what was "already there." BigSticks raw>jpg/colorspace issues/whatever seems a lot more like this.

BTW, I didn't say so yet, but nice shots! Remember that you can use the low depth of your field to your advantage instead of fighting it, put your subject in focus and let all else go blurry (I think I said this in another one of your posts on the same topic). Just avoiding distracting/out of focus foreground elements. Overhead shots will put everything in the same plane relative to the camera, but might not be possible depending on your lens' focusing capabilities and your tank depth. And don't drop your camera in the drink!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
467 Posts
nice lens. read up on composition, rule of 3rds, etc.

Rules of photo composition

lol @ bokeh being the clone tool :)

you should use acr (adobe camera raw) or photolab for converting the raws. the bundled apps always suck and default to oversaturated colors.

going from raw > jpeg is going to be a 12 or 14bit to 8bit conversion; lots of color data will be lost/substituted. there will be a slight shift. staying within the srgb colorspace from raw to web will help keep that shift to a minimum.

if you want to have accurate post processing you should calibrate your monitor. a cheap tool like a huey will be drastically better than eyeballing it :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
317 Posts
I agree that it looks terrible if you are "adding something something that wasn't there,"
I agree with that statement !
Concrete example: I used a low saturation slide film for a long time before switching to Fuji Provia (before going digital). When I scanned these slides, I'd need to bump saturation so that the images looked like the actual scene, i.e. I used saturation to return what was "already there."
Scanning Film vs. Digital ... two different animals my friend :)

BigSticks raw>jpg/colorspace issues/whatever seems a lot more like this.
His issue has nothing to do with saturation issue. It is Adobe RGB / sRGB / Monitor Calibration issue and I can bet my left hand on it. Have seen that same question many, many times on every single photography forum I frequent on daily basis.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,020 Posts
(RAW is overrated and totally unnecessary with the exception of a few kinds of situations).
Overrated!? Hardly - Have a look at figure 2 on this site:
Raw -- Part I

Why give up the ability to get in between all that?


And some further reading...
Why use your camera's raw format?
Bibble Labs: Learning Center

With the prices of CF storage these days ([email protected]$40), why NOT shoot RAW+JPG (if you must).
When someone asks for that 16x20 print and you only have that JPG you will be kicking yourself most of the time.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
312 Posts
Guys, Listen to Jay on this one :) I was going to make that same comment, we have all gone through this. Change to SRgb before saving and you will see no problems. Internet browsers can only recognize Srgb, but cameras are natively shooting in Adobe RGB, that is all there is to it.

Calibrating is another issue. You may see colors wrong on an uncalibrated monitor, but it wont change from PS screen to Internet, if both are seeing the same RGB Color space. Change to SRGB and then save. That is all there is to it.
 
1 - 20 of 24 Posts
Top