SuperHornet From United States of America, joined May 2004, 89 posts, RR: 0 Posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 1392 times:
Be bold and tell me what you think about what is wrong with this photo because it is about as good as I can do. I caught four photos of this aircraft transitioning from level flight. I thought conditions where perfect the aviator did what I expected, when I expected it the transition was smooth through all four photos and this photo was selected for upload because it contains the best vapor burst.
Canon 35-350 lens
Photo Taken at 8:30 AM at 85° air temp.
SuperHornet From United States of America, joined May 2004, 89 posts, RR: 0 Reply 4, posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 1337 times:
The orginal is a RAW file the orginal was 3072 X 2048 cropped to apprx. 1840 X 1192 and then reduced to apprx 1235 X 800 pixels the quality was maintained at 12 so I am not sure where the compression came from.
Please keep going I am actually setting in a meeting and attempting to read post at the same time quite fun actually.
SuperHornet From United States of America, joined May 2004, 89 posts, RR: 0 Reply 6, posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 1299 times:
To capture a photo at the instant their vector changes at 350knots/402 mph takes less than a second I was actually quite please with shutter speed because having attempted this before at 1250 it was very shaky if not even a little blurred. I will give your suggestion another try but all of this happens very quickly.
Skymonster From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 7, posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 1286 times:
There are some artifacts in the image, but they're not really excessive. With the greatest respect, even now it isn't the sharpest knife in the draw, but I wonder how soft the original image was... Have you already sharpened it (or rather unsharp masked it) quite agressively??? If so, this could account for the artifacts. If the original is fairly sharp already, its possible that a change to your unsharp process might fix things.
Clickhappy From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 9444 posts, RR: 72 Reply 8, posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 1275 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW PHOTO SCREENER
I have no doubt that it happens very quickly, but you are trying to achieve something that probably takes years of practice to get right. That is why I suggested in another thread that you practice on slower moving objects.
SuperHornet From United States of America, joined May 2004, 89 posts, RR: 0 Reply 9, posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 1246 times:
This photos was sharpened and the USM was added perhaps poorly but I did get better masking this time on the central elements main features fwd fuselage, wing tips and vertical stabs.
Skymonster I guess I should say that I have had this camera for a little over a year and have sent it back to the mfg at least three times complaining about the softness of the photos...I have even challenged them to use the camera and send me their best photos and they refused.
It might be me I don't know I have repeatedly asked others photographers to use my camera in order to help me improve my technique and both have agreed that I was doing everything necessary to get a good photo but the photos where still soft. So it might be that my Complementry Metal Oxide Silicon is just bad. I really can't say. But to answer your question yes the original was some magnitude softer than you see here.
Skymonster From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 10, posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 1229 times:
OK, then I think that's what's causing your problems... The very limited artifacts that can just about be detected don't smack of jpeg compression to me, and that's really confirmed by what you tell me about your processing. I'd be interested to know what unsharp mask settings you are using (please note its late here in the UK so I won't see your response tonight) but I suspect that there's some problem with the sharpening process, maybe originated from an overly soft original.
For what its worth (and I know this will be no real consolation for you) a friend of mine has a 10D and has just sent it back to Canon because he continually gets images that are way too soft!
SuperHornet From United States of America, joined May 2004, 89 posts, RR: 0 Reply 12, posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 1216 times:
I have been seriously contemplating getting a Nikon D70 as a replacement with a Nikon Zoom telephoto AF VR Zoom 80-400 mm f/4.5-5.6 but I am a little shy about trading problems of softness for color. Does anyone have anything to say about this possible combination? Or would anyone like to purchase a slightly used Canon 10d?
Best price I can find on the D70 is $999.00 at B&H photo.
Wietse From Netherlands, joined Oct 2001, 3809 posts, RR: 57 Reply 13, posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 1195 times:
Trust us, it really is not the camera or lens. When I saw you were applying 100% sharpening DURING conversion, that scared the hell out of me. One of the things you really shouldnt do! I wont bother you with any advice, listen to Eduard (IL76), he definately knows what he is talking about.
With the equipment you have, you should not have problems at all...
Marco_polo From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 324 posts, RR: 19 Reply 14, posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 1168 times:
Not to jump to conclusion about what you did but it looks like you have over done the noise reduction in photoshop using Noise ---> Median. Whatever process you have done you seems leave the aircraft un-touched and Median the sky including all orsome of the vapor effects. I can see some parts of the aircraft that "Noise -----> Median" tool has effected it. If so you might replay with the Median values.
If you did not use this method, please kindly dis-regard this post.
Ckw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 530 posts, RR: 18 Reply 15, posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 1160 times:
Regarding the softness - it does seem that some 10Ds/lens combinations are affected by focus problems. This has been fairly conclusively documented over on Dpreview, and while many user complaints can be written off as "user error" this issue does appear to have some basis in fact.
The first thing to determine is whether the lens or camera is at fault. You'll need a 2nd lens, a tripod and a test target. Compare results using AF and MF with both lenses. If both lenses consitently mis-focus on AF, the camera needs adjustment, and should be returned to Canon (with the images and test procedure as evidence). If only one lens shows a problem, then it is the lens that needs adjusting. If, in this test, you get perfect results, then you will have to accept that perhaps your technique is at fault.
Hisham From Lebanon, joined Aug 1999, 701 posts, RR: 12 Reply 16, posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 1095 times:
I totally agree with Colin. Some body-lens combinations just don't work. Even different samples of the same model may behave differently.
My Canon 10D had focus problems with the Canon 70-200/4. The same combination works just fine for other people.
Now I'm using a Canon 80-200/2.8 with excellent results. I suggest you try a different lens.
Paulinbna From United States of America, joined Feb 2003, 1114 posts, RR: 5 Reply 18, posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 997 times:
I might be wrong but does 7.1 and 1/1600 sound like he was shooting at a high ISO. I never get that kind of shutter speed at 7.1 with same background and general aircraft color it is more like 1/400 or lower.
And you also said that you cropped it down to 1800 that is almost half the picture. My 10D 100-400 L IS combo does not do that well with small targets like that.
And one last thing my pictures all come out very soft from the camera.
Canon 50D user; 100-400 MM L IS 10-22 MM, 60MM Macro