my quote from another post
i took the advice from another member and did some test shots with his in camera settings then i re calibrated the camera exposure settings and BOOOOOOM camera histogram and zebras match the raw file well as close as could be, took 500 posts. Im going out now to shoot some images and reset my camera back to what im used to as the original settings give 1/2 stop leeway.
Oh dear, you still have no idea what a raw histogram is or how to use it.
I didn't ask for a raw histogram so I don't know what you are rambling on about.
What I posted is
Hopefully one day you will understand the potential benefits of maximising the quality of the raw data allowing images of higher quality to be created compared to sooc jpegs.
im sure someone will post images of higher quality than i have just posted 🙄🙄 they are goin to need more than just a camera for those images BTW they are live 😎
They will look good on a wall just about anywhere as long as they're not printed too big. The second image is distractingly a bit mushy in some places, especially around the eyes. The others probably are as well. I haven't looked.
But all 3 have the annoying and distracting reflection of the camera or other equipment in their eyes. But that is easy to fix in post if you wanted to.
This is going off topic and you know how i hate off topic topics 🤨
thats exactly what the 5000 voters said on the DPR challengers when i got 1st place 🙄 you see a great image is when 50% like them and 50% hate them that means you hit the nail on the head. Im afraid its human society these days.
I have to admire both your honesty and stamina regarding the 500th post in this thread!
Generally claims of fame using just the DPR Challenges as a justification generally carries very little weight.
If you look through the threads there for the last 5 years or so you will see it is littered with threads highlighting the cheating, sandbagging, vote rigging and the flaws in DPR voting system.
Yes, the better images still tend to float up to anywhere in the top 10 notwithstanding the above issues with the challenges.
Can you post the link to the challenge where you claim you won?
I doubt there were anywhere near 5000 voters in your challenge. On average, historically the number of voters per challenge entry is a single digit.
Thank you but that post was not my 500th post in this thread. 500 was the total number of posts 🙂
feels more like 5000 posts 😂
didnt you know im the Ken Rockwell of extreme macro. I still win the competitions and dont even have to enter an image" 😎😎😎
btw im that good i got 1st and 3rd 🏆🏆
sorry Bob couldn't help it. remember 10 years ago gee poor old KR copped a bashing. Hes a very good photographer.
Maybe those were your entries and maybe they were not. Maybe they are the ones you posted and maybe they aren't.
Your screenshot doesn’t even show who submitted those entries.
Either way, you have not told the truth on too many occasions at least in this thread for me to not question your honesty and integrity. But that's just me :-)
I would have thought if you make claims then it is on you to prove them if you want people to believe you.
You haven't posted the link to that challenge and I suspect it's because those entries were not submitted by you.
It is unreasonable to expect me to just take your word for it given you have not told the truth on too many occasions.
Why are you scared to post the link to that challenge?
Give me back my 15 morning coffee minutes! 😂
There is to many to list www.dpreview.com/challenges/Entry.aspx?ID=1160507&ref_=pe_1674010_132618830
The spread of votes on that entry from 0.5 to 5 highlights the issues I mentioned earlier about sandbagging and vote rigging.
Who knows how many of the handful of votes were legitimate.
I would not normally criticize a person photos based on the IQ for the chosen setting used but your lack of understanding what a raw histogram tells you so for this time I am going around my self control on this one.
There is a lot of artifacts that are shown in the image, these are noise in areas where the NR and the process did not remove, the areas that had NR to combat the noise for the exposure that you had chosen. I can see that this was taken using controlled lighting so you could have maximized with ETTR. There is also a lot detail that has been over sharpened to combat the NR done to the image, this also highlighted the noise that was not removed by the NR that was done throughout different areas of the image. If the time was taken to maximins the exposure you could have used it to reduce the noise while also removing the need to apply NR that then would have given you better detail as not need sharpening to create the visual of sharpness
There is also clipping that I can guess is due to the raised iso you had selected so understanding what was in your raw file could have helped you here because we really don`t know what cause this clipping
i always lead by example.
next your going to say i freeze them 😂 i do but take every precaution
.
Ive herd it all before theirs nothing you can say other than lead yourself into embracement when questioning my macro skills.
Which part of the critique do you disagree with?
In part he is confirming my earlier observation that your images are 'mushy' in parts.
Now, whether the 'mushiness' resulting from the post processing of the raw data is acceptable to you or not is your choice to make.
