Any photographers in here?

[altspace]

Ummm...ok?

 

[SKiZZ]

Here's a couple of my favorites:

These all look better on a color calibrated monitor.

 

[sleeper3]

wow, those are really good, except I'm not digging the green cast on the second one... is that what you were going for?

 

[SKiZZ]

wow, those are really good, except I'm not digging the green cast on the second one... is that what you were going for?

hence my calibrated monitor comment. I have this in a 24" x 36" gallery wrap in my home office.

 

[altspace]

Yea, the 2nd photo makes her look like a mannequin. Too much smoothing of the skin.

 

[altspace]

Some quick test shots with the new lens. Nothing great.

 

[SKiZZ]

Yea, the 2nd photo makes her look like a mannequin. Too much smoothing of the skin.

Not when it's on a canvas

 

[sleeper3]

brb, printing all of your pictures on canvas so that you'll listen to me when I make a comment...

 

[sleeper3]

Wow, the 70-300 looks pretty sharp!

 

[altspace]

It really is and I forgot to mention all hand held.

 

[sleeper3]

Yeah, with IS, handholding shots is pretty easy. It's amazing how much it helps.

 

[SKiZZ]

brb, printing all of your pictures on canvas so that you'll listen to me when I make a comment...

It's possible too something in my resize script did something odd or is possibly 8bit instead of 16bit which is why some of the color looks gone. I know it looks awful on my laptop screen. The smoothness was done on purpose since the bride wanted a high fashion shoot. And was former miss teen Alabama and some other beauty queen.

 

[FlyinHawaiian]

I like the capture of the C-17. Rare to get a military bird in-flight like that! Is that the same as the old kit 70-300, but just with IS now?

 

[altspace]

I like the capture of the C-17. Rare to get a military bird in-flight like that! Is that the same as the old kit 70-300, but just with IS now?

Otis AFB is on Cape Cod. Yes, similar lens but more advanced. http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=ModelInfoAct&fcategoryid=150&modelid=11922

 

[FunkyBuddha]

Yea, the 2nd photo makes her look like a mannequin. Too much smoothing of the skin.

Agreed. Too "plastic" looking on the bride's face. Good photo though

 

[Vocko]

Here's the set - http://www.flickr.com/photos/vocko/sets/72157622963484017/

Comments are appreciated

 

[altspace]

Cool pics bro. Love seeing different countries.

 

[sleeper3]

The 70-300 is a beefy lens. I saw it in a store for the first time not too long ago. It's probably twice the size of the 55-250.

 

[chowhoundMSP]

Vocko, I like the shot you took labeled Cold Night. The industrial plant lights reflecting on water looks great.

 

[NVP5White]

Here's a couple of my favorites:

These all look better on a color calibrated monitor.

To clarify, these are pictures you took? Also, when you say these look better on a calibrated monitor what exactly do you mean? Unless you are talking about a wide color gamut calibrated monitor there really should be little difference if all images are in the sRGB color space. If you are talking about a difference between a 16bit TIFF on a 92% RGB monitor then I can see how converting to a different space and gamma would effect the results. But what we are seeing in the images you posted is a range of white balance settings and that inconsistancy is not effected by calibration.

Just wondering as I struggle with color space and colibration in my own photography. Maybe you could provide a monitor model number and your calibration methodology to help us see how you get yuor results.

Regarding the post-processing of the skin I agree it's a little strong but may be appropriate for a given output (like canvas) or size (small web image or thumbnail).