I though I would try some flowers today

MacroLuv · Post by **MacroLuv** » Thu Dec 27, 2007 9:45 am

Very nice Joan.

Let me guess... #1 - Calla and #2 & #3 - Hibiscus?

Ken Ramos · Post by **Ken Ramos** » Thu Dec 27, 2007 9:51 am

Beautiful images Joan

and one can tell that you are becoming acoustomed to the new camera but I notice compression aritifacts showing up quite a bit and some background noise. I don't know if it is a product of your software or something else. As for the noise, try shooting at ISO 400 or lower.

JoanYoung · Post by **JoanYoung** » Thu Dec 27, 2007 10:38 am

Nikola

Let me guess... #1 - Calla and #2 & #3 - Hibiscus?

You are quite right Nikola. Thanks for the lovely comment.

Ken
How in heavens name do you see these things Ken?

I have always had a compression problem when I try to get it under 200k and no matter what I do, can't seem to improve on it. These were all shot at ISO64, but I did not do a noise reduction. Does your comment apply to all the pics??

jmlphoto · Post by **jmlphoto** » Thu Dec 27, 2007 10:56 am

nice hibiscus flowers, haven't seen a golden one around here. its on my wish list now gotta find a cutting. what program are you using to resize? what mode are you shooting in?

JoanYoung · Post by **JoanYoung** » Thu Dec 27, 2007 11:30 am

Thanks Jordan. Here we have so many colours of hibiscus it is unbelievable. I hope you can get a cutting of the one you are looking for.

I am using Corel Paint Shop Pro and this was shot on Auto.

rjlittlefield · Post by **rjlittlefield** » Thu Dec 27, 2007 12:10 pm

Joan, these are lovely flowers -- rich colors and interesting shapes.

I see the same technical issues that Ken does. These images definitely look noisy. ISO 64 on a modern DSLR should be creamy smooth, no need for noise reduction even at actual pixels, and certainly not at these web-sized reductions. But I'm not sure that we're actually seeing noise. Sometimes a "sparkly"background will interact with lens bokeh to look sort of like noise. You could tell for sure by shooting something that really does not have significant detail, like a gray card. I do agree there are visible compression artifacts especially around the anthers, and I can't think what else those could be.

I don't have Corel Paint Shop so I can't suggest specifically what to do. In general, what usually affects visible noise and compression artifacts is the amount of sharpening. Also, it helps to adjust the compression level until you get just barely under 200K. These images run from only 81K to 129K.

Hope this helps!

--Rik

Ken Ramos · Post by **Ken Ramos** » Thu Dec 27, 2007 12:20 pm

Joan asked:

Does your comment apply to all the pics??

Yep

Not criticising you but you really need to ditch using Auto.

Automatic operation of any SLR be it digital or film was or has to be the worst idea to come along for SLR's but of course that is my opinion and I am not trying to stuff lint in anyone elses belly button.

In a round about way a DSLR can be used pretty much like a film SLR. Put it on manual and use the light meter in your viewfinder to set your exposures, shutter speed, f/stop, etc. It may seem awkwards at first but soon it will become a habit that you will be glad that you acquired. I most of the time shoot at ISO 100, sometimes at 400 in low light. Shutter speeds rarely fall below 1/125 sec and have yet to exceed 1/250 sec. since I have been using a DSLR. If you don't have a dedicated Canon flash use your onboard flash. As for f/stops, it depends on how much DOF I want and secondly the lighting itself. Normally I rely on the light meter display in the viewfinder and use the main thumb wheel to adjust my f/stops accordingly but this all takes a little practice and like I said it will soon become a habit if you employ it. Keep at it though and don't be afraid to experiment, you have a delete button, so you may miss a shot or two, maybe more but there are always more shots coming your way and the more you practice, the more you will be ready for them next time around. Just keep shooting.

JoanYoung · Post by **JoanYoung** » Thu Dec 27, 2007 2:49 pm

Thanks Ken and Rik for this input.

Maybe I am compressing them to much or maybe a combination of factors....but this pic was taken with my P&S not the 400D. Ken, I have sent you the pic to put through your software. I have just recently got Paint Shop Pro so maybe I need to play with it a bit more and see what I am doing wrong. Thanks.

MacroLuv · Post by **MacroLuv** » Thu Dec 27, 2007 4:00 pm

I realized it was P&S because you mentioned ISO 64. Huh... does any DSLR has ISO 64?

Hey! 400D? Welcome in the club!

JoanYoung · Post by **JoanYoung** » Thu Dec 27, 2007 6:14 pm

Hey! 400D? Welcome in the club!

Thanks Nikola...I still have to do a lot of practicing but maybe oneday hope to be as good as you with it.

I hope to get my butterflies as good as yours.

Ken Ramos · Post by **Ken Ramos** » Thu Dec 27, 2007 6:32 pm

Nikola asked:

Huh... does any DSLR has ISO 64?

I think the higher end Canons and Nikons have ISO's down to 50 but I am not sure, then there are the really high dollar 21 mega pixel medium format cameras that do...I think

Then again I dunno

, oh well...bye

Ken Ramos · Post by **Ken Ramos** » Thu Dec 27, 2007 6:47 pm

With Joans permission, here is the orginal file from Joans first image after processing with Photo Impact 6, I had assumed this had been taken with her new 400D but it was her Kodak instead. Still I thought it turned out pretty well with no compression artificats that are readily noticeable if any at all. Here's the pic, I think this qualifies as a close up

. Thanks Joan...

Blue channel pulled down a click, slightly contrasted and slightly sharpened, resized 156kb 800 X 609. Drop shadow for garnish, serves one forum.

JoanYoung · Post by **JoanYoung** » Thu Dec 27, 2007 6:48 pm

I see that from now on I will have to add in which camera I take the pics with to avoid confusion.

JoanYoung · Post by **JoanYoung** » Thu Dec 27, 2007 6:57 pm

Thanks Ken, that looks great. For interest sake, I am going to take a pic of the same flower with the 400D and compare them.

I have just realized it is not the same pic....this is the full one from which I posted.