Some 17-40mm L shots...

TelePaul

Havn't been out shooting in absolutely ages. I was using canon's 17-40mm and to be honest, I'm still not 100% sold on it. Things seem a little soft to me right off the camera. It might be more indicative of a lack of capture and PP skill on my part.

I'm aware the composition suffers in 3 out of the 4.

*edit: Can't seem to embed the images, they're the latest uploads on my flickr*

City-Exile

The shots on your flickr stream look like oil paintings.

challengemaster

I've told you once, i'll tell you again.

Stop fupping making them into 20kb pictures. You're left with a 604x400 or something image as your large size on flickr, coming from a 3888x2667 or something picture. You're _SERIOUSLY_ decreasing the quality of the pictures and making it hard for anyone else to comment as the quality is now..crap. You're taking DSLR pics and turning them into p&s quality.

Most of my uploads are no less than 1mb, and some are rarely less than 4mb.

Flickr resizes images for you, you dont have to.

[/rant]
_______________________________________________________

I like the composition in #2, and #4.

AnimalRights

I purchased a 17-40L last week cos I got a chance of it, it's not a lens I would use everyday but it has it's place in my family of lenses.

Nice rant CM.

TelePaul

challengemaster wrote: »

I've told you once, i'll tell you again.

Stop fupping making them into 20kb pictures. You're left with a 604x400 or something image as your large size on flickr, coming from a 3888x2667 or something picture. You're _SERIOUSLY_ decreasing the quality of the pictures and making it hard for anyone else to comment as the quality is now..crap. You're taking DSLR pics and turning them into p&s quality.

Most of my uploads are no less than 1mb, and some are rarely less than 4mb.

Flickr resizes images for you, you dont have to.

[/rant]
_______________________________________________________

I like the composition in #2, and #4.

You're so lame! I can't believe you used parenthesis to denote disapproval! Anyways, if I try to uplaod full size shots, Flickr has a spaz attack and times out.

TelePaul

City-Exile wrote: »

The shots on your flickr stream look like oil paintings.

Yeah I know. I think alot of it is down to the softness I alluded to. They look like Monets work with trees.

challengemaster

TelePaul wrote: »

Yeah I know. I think alot of it is down to the softness I alluded to.

I think it's all down to resizing your photos so much.

Paulw

TelePaul wrote: »

You're so lame. If I try to uplaod full size shots, Flickr has a spaz attack and times out.

You say the images are a bit soft, but with the low res images you have on FlickR, how are people supposed to see the "quality" issue you have?

Ok, so you don't have to upload a full size image, but at least upload an image that can show enough detail of the issue.

You could try to at least double the largest side size to give more detail. Ideally, it's best to have 100% image to see specific quality issues in an image.

I can totally understand CM's rant.

Peace

challengemaster wrote: »

I've told you once, i'll tell you again.

Stop fupping making them into 20kb pictures. You're left with a 604x400 or something image as your large size on flickr, coming from a 3888x2667 or something picture. You're _SERIOUSLY_ decreasing the quality of the pictures and making it hard for anyone else to comment as the quality is now..crap. You're taking DSLR pics and turning them into p&s quality.

Most of my uploads are no less than 1mb, and some are rarely less than 4mb.

Flickr resizes images for you, you dont have to.

[/rant]
_______________________________________________________

I like the composition in #2, and #4.

Yeah - can'treally disagree with the above. The comosition looks good on the images however the quality is not great so its impossible to tell.

ThOnda

There is always a way to try different gallery, like pix.ie.

TelePaul

I hate photography

Ricky91t

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=57189381&postcount=1 ???
Can you not just quote your post and see how you embed pics i'd rather see them on this than have to go onto flickr to look and then reports back here....

Fajitas!

The 17-40 is known for being soft on the sides.

Now, clean that sand out of all your vaginas, please.

TelePaul

"1 of your files exceed your 10 MB per file upload limit, and will not be uploaded. (Upgrade for 10 MB per file.)"

"Oooh la di da, Flickr will resize for you" Lies, all lies.







Ricky, these were resized with Microsoft Powertoys and uploaded via tinypic.com. It's not the same as embedding an image as the bulletin board link is generated automatically.

Ricky91t

TelePaul wrote: »

"1 of your files exceed your 10 MB per file upload limit, and will not be uploaded. (Upgrade for 10 MB per file.)"

"Oooh la di da, Flickr will resize for you" Lies, all lies.


Ricky, these were resized with Microsoft Powertoys and uploaded via tinypic.com. It's not the same as embedding an image as the bulletin board link is generated automatically.

Ah i see well basically open the flickr pic you want click "all sizes"
go down to the bottom and copy the "Grab the photo's URL:"
And click the add photos button on the post reply tab and paste it in...

PopeBuckfastXVI

TelePaul wrote: »

Ricky, these were resized with Microsoft Powertoys and uploaded via tinypic.com.

I've always found whatever algorithm powertoys uses for resize to be completely ****, makes everything look like it's from Super Mario Brothers 1.

Use the Gimp or equiv to resize.

TelePaul

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

I've always found whatever algorithm powertoys uses for resize to be completely ****, makes everything look like it's from Super Mario Brothers 1.

Use the Gimp or equiv to resize.

I'm uploading a high res at the moment.

challengemaster

Who the fk doesnt have a pro account these days?

3-7mb would be about the range of where most pics would be. Why any are >10mb is beyond me.

TelePaul

challengemaster wrote: »

3-7mb would be about the range of where most pics would be. Why any are >10mb is beyond me.

Well I'm not making it up!

challengemaster

Well.. just throw some money at flickr. Pro accounts ftw.:pac:

Fajitas!

We don't all have mammy and daddy's credit cards to be throwing to Flickr.

Tactical

As far as I can tell most Canon suffer from soft images even with L series lens. Serious PP sharpening is the order of the day.

preilly79

I use a 17-40 on my 5D and I can't say i've seen much softness in the corners. sure, it's not quite as sharp as the centre but it's damn good.

I presume you're using a full frame camera? if the corners are still soft when used on a reduced frame camera then you might have a dud lens.

TelePaul

Oh ffs, nothing I'm doing is working. Tried re-sizing in photoshop, set the jpegs to medium quality and I get the same problems as before.

TelePaul

preilly79 wrote: »

I presume you're using a full frame camera? if the corners are still soft when used on a reduced frame camera then you might have a dud lens.

No, crop.

Paulw

TelePaul wrote: »

Oh ffs, nothing I'm doing is working. Tried re-sizing in photoshop, set the jpegs to medium quality and I get the same problems as before.

Try altering the image size - Image, Image size.

I'd always save as High quality.

That should improve the detail in the final jpg image.

preilly79

TelePaul wrote: »

No, crop.

Then I'd be really pissed off mate. Some tripod mounted test shots of a sharpness target should give you a definitive answer. Hell, you can try mine for comparison.

TelePaul

Last try....

........

TelePaul

preilly79 wrote: »

Then I'd be really pissed off mate. Some tripod mounted test shots of a sharpness target should give you a definitive answer. Hell, you can try mine for comparison.

Awfully decent of you. To be honest, it might just be me and my approach to post-processing. I should lend it to someone in the know.

Calina

Okay.

Just my two cents. Elements of this thread are less than helpful to the OP and are thoughtless rants.

If I see any more self-justifying rants like a couple in this thread there will be some trouble.

Instead of whinging at the OP as was done in this thread, it would be more helpful to be polite. I'm very disappointed with the attitudes here to be honest.

Please don't do it again.

_______________________

OP, photo looks okay to me from a softness point of view so I am not sure what is causing you concern. The colours, however, seem a little flat to me which I think is a post processing issue. You might want to look at playing with the levels tool in your post processing software.

AnimalRights

PM'd instead.

Freddie59

The three photos themsleves look good, but the colour is very washed out IMO.

TelePaul

Freddie59 wrote: »

The three photos themsleves look good, but the colour is very washed out IMO.

Thanks Calina, Freddie. Should I boost the saturation a little?

TelePaul

AnimalRights wrote: »

PM'd instead.

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm?

TelePaul

I've uploaded some more to my flickr. Quite happy with how they look.