HOME | DD

Published: 2009-10-04 03:08:54 +0000 UTC; Views: 1619; Favourites: 68; Downloads: 0
Redirect to original
Description
this is a heavily cropped image, but shows how well the 400 5.6L handles in image quality...im pretty happy about this shot, i have never been able to get such a clean shot that allowed me to crop this much either, so it is a first for me...anyways, the same coyote as in the last posti also need to note that the quality of DA does not truly show off the colors nor clarity of this image as seen here compared to the shot submitted to flickr [link]
coyote-arizona
Related content
Comments: 35
despair [2010-05-20 03:59:27 +0000 UTC]
frankly thats terrible this being the premiere art site and it lacks the ability to properly display ART.
that terrible green/grey background doesn't help either. why can't it be plain white is beyond me.
i actually have my PS working space background custom set to this horrible color so as not to upload anything that clashes, can you believe it.
thanks for mentioning this issue.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
PeterJCoskun In reply to despair [2010-05-20 04:05:55 +0000 UTC]
For some reason this was the only image affected by the quality issue. It seems they somewhat fixed the issue, but still not as sharp as it should be...I'm not a fan of the gray background either, but to each their own I guess.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
despair In reply to PeterJCoskun [2010-05-20 04:09:42 +0000 UTC]
but as an art site they want to be the best and furthermore, encourage membership of, i'd say they owe us a neutral background.
after all, it's our art. i think it shouldn't have to compete against some putrid backdrop.
well, i did have my stuff set to sRGB already, perhaps thats why i hadn't noticed any compromise in quality with my own images.
but as i said before, have to set them against that color and if something doesn't look passable, it just never gets uploaded.
terrible.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
PeterJCoskun In reply to despair [2010-05-20 04:28:20 +0000 UTC]
True, though if the photo is good, that background is easily surpassed.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
despair In reply to PeterJCoskun [2010-05-20 04:30:53 +0000 UTC]
i agree with that to a degree.
i think color intensive images or images that have a certain color theme will most likely suffer due to this background perverting the mood of the image (not a lol)
but really. not neutral enough, so it will affect most shots.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
PeterJCoskun In reply to despair [2010-05-20 05:56:58 +0000 UTC]
I agree. Even a black background would suffice
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
despair In reply to PeterJCoskun [2010-05-20 06:06:25 +0000 UTC]
i adore black backgrounds, everything comes to life
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
PeterJCoskun In reply to Leonca [2009-10-07 02:38:52 +0000 UTC]
they are fun to watch and just trot along so gracefully
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
MarietteBerndsen [2009-10-04 14:25:13 +0000 UTC]
Wow, you guys know what you're talking about
I noticed the difference, but the coyote looks very friendly in both ways.
Vry nice shot Peter
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
PeterJCoskun In reply to MarietteBerndsen [2009-10-04 21:16:27 +0000 UTC]
thank you
yeah, its kinda disappointing but not everything can be perfect on the web
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
TVD-Photography [2009-10-04 11:50:18 +0000 UTC]
Wow I know that has happened to me before too with some of my tiger shots. The orange was washed out. This is still an amazing photo though
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
PeterJCoskun In reply to TVD-Photography [2009-10-04 21:17:20 +0000 UTC]
yeah, idk whats up with DA lately but they shouldnt come out soft at all or discolored
thanks for looking though!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
TVD-Photography In reply to PeterJCoskun [2009-10-05 11:58:58 +0000 UTC]
Welcome. Hopefully DA fixes it somehow
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
kkart [2009-10-04 03:27:50 +0000 UTC]
That really is day and night between this and the image on Flickr....you should link to it in your description
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
PeterJCoskun In reply to kkart [2009-10-04 03:32:01 +0000 UTC]
i think im going to right now...that is just unacceptable
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
chalutplease [2009-10-04 03:24:58 +0000 UTC]
This is amazing and convinces me even more that these lower end cameras have nothing wrong with them. Now I just need to save enough to get an L lens!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
PeterJCoskun In reply to chalutplease [2009-10-04 03:30:54 +0000 UTC]
yeah, unfortunately this is one of the cases where DA has degraded this photo [link] and thus why i feel that flickr shows off better of what is captured
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
chalutplease In reply to PeterJCoskun [2009-10-04 03:38:31 +0000 UTC]
Holy Wow! What a difference. I might have to seriously think about showing mine somewhere else. I thought a big part of the blame was because I convert them from RAW to jpg but if this is the same file then WOW is all I can say!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
PeterJCoskun In reply to chalutplease [2009-10-04 03:43:58 +0000 UTC]
this is a jpeg file...my computer doesnt allow me to process raw files unfortunately i tried putting it back up with a different file converting it to profile but i dont see much of a difference
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
chalutplease In reply to PeterJCoskun [2009-10-04 03:50:05 +0000 UTC]
Now I have to be even more impressed. You're telling me that you're not even shooting in RAW?!
I've got the XSI and PS CS2 which won't allow me to convert the RAW that my camera takes but the camera itself came with a disk that has a very easy and wonderful conversion program that also lets you tweak in RAW. Once I saw the difference between jpg and RAW I never went back to jpg. I can only imagine what the difference would be with an L lens.
The program that converts mine is Digital Photo Professional so if your camera came with software see if that's on it otherwise check the Canon site and see if you can download it.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
PeterJCoskun In reply to chalutplease [2009-10-04 03:56:17 +0000 UTC]
i hear lightroom is a good program for editing raw images, so imagine how it might look if shot and edited in raw haha
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
chalutplease In reply to PeterJCoskun [2009-10-04 03:59:07 +0000 UTC]
I've heard that too but most people take it from there and put it in PS to finish the processing. We're talking a bunch of bucks to get both so it's out of the question for me. I do like what I'm seeing people do with Lightroom so it's definitely on my wish list. I've just added an upgrade to CS4 to my wishlist too because the college computers have it and the bells and whistle are easier and better than CS2. The first item on the list though is a tripod. After that we'll see.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
PeterJCoskun In reply to chalutplease [2009-10-04 04:01:23 +0000 UTC]
yeah, my school had cs3 when i was there, and i loved it...but i gotta get a few things for my arsenal haha...a new tripod being one as well
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
chalutplease In reply to PeterJCoskun [2009-10-04 04:04:42 +0000 UTC]
With my point and shoot I never needed anything more than it but with this the wishlist just seems to get longer and longer!
I just checked the Canon site for you and they only have updates for the software so your camera must have come with a disk and if you find it and want to try the software you should upgrade it first. It gives you more bells and whistles for adjusting them.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
PeterJCoskun In reply to chalutplease [2009-10-04 04:06:29 +0000 UTC]
yeah, ive been meaning to look for it haha...i just wanna get my brothers copy of lightroom just so i can process raw images and then fine tune them on PS
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
chalutplease In reply to PeterJCoskun [2009-10-04 04:11:27 +0000 UTC]
Have you checked to see if lightroom will allow you to load RAW from your camera? I checked Adobe and then emailed to see if they were making a patch so CS2 will load mine but they said they were only doing it for CS3 because CS2 is too old. They tried to talk me into an upgrade too until they found out I had the full suite but the education version. They don't allow upgrades on it so I would have to buy the whole thing full price. Not happening.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
PeterJCoskun In reply to chalutplease [2009-10-04 04:15:48 +0000 UTC]
well i guess first thing is look for the disk that came with my camera wherever it may be haha
👍: 0 ⏩: 1