Also consider the 17-55 f2.8 IS
they're almost holographic in their presentation, the one above is positively 3D.
Shooting on kodachrome was a one-in-a-while treat for me back in the day. Ektachrome was more readily available for quick processing without the need to send the canister interstate.
As Mike says though, incredible depth to those images.
2nd pic: I did it with a B+W circular polarizer.. The lens flare was the real deal (no post-processing).. I just added some fill light because the tree looks like it was burnt prior to PP.
Unfortunately, the steering wheel is on the wrong side here. I am thinking of shipping my bike, and to pick up a few more lens + upgrade my 2010 build MBP to the new one when it comes out in june.
I'm still debating if I should sell my 1Ds Mark ii in Vancouver or Sydney.
I think I agree with you.
I did speak to a pro-photographer at the GP who told me that he imports all of his images into Adobe bridge before processing them. Despite asking why this was necessary, I can't say I understand it.
The extra detail that can be extracted from a RAW file is impressive, but unless you're printing huge and color critical files (which I'm definately not), it's probably overkill.
this one was converted from RAW and has ****eloads of detail, and I've printed at 38x26 inches (actually 4x 13x19" prints from the printer at home, but same ****), but apart from that they only get seen on computer monitors.
So Liam, does this mean you're intending to uninstalll lightroom?
My system is defaulting to Lr whenever it sees an image before telling me my time's up.
I need to decide whether to get rid of it or take a deep breath and learn how to use it, RAW use or otherwise...
seriously impressed with the sharpness of this Fisheye, even though it's not really a lens you would think would be sharp. Front element would have been about 5cm from Cooper's eye in this, if that.
fullsize (from a 7D @ about 10mm) http://mpd.smugmug.com/Other/Random-...CooperFish.jpg
Last edited by MickyD; 04-21-2012 at 02:26 AM.