Jump to content

checking low light performance of my 800d with efs 60mm


Recommended Posts

having a few bourbons, got camera and tripod out, this is pretty impressive, jpeg off camera no editing, not sure if stereonet will compress it more but here you go.  

IMG_6303.jpg

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 months later...

Have you tried the Nikon using the active D- Lighting engaged ?

It shoots JEPG not RAW which is why I rarely use it, but the results are really impressive if you compare a shot with / without it

Link to post
Share on other sites

Very nice shoot, like the colours.  I used to have a 600D, so I expect the 800D is even better.   I now have an 80D and love it.  Is it the 60mm macro lens you are using (can't see any EXIF) ?   If so I have the same lens.  Very nice little lens, makes a nice prime lens for other uses than macro as well.

 

Noting this is a jpeg from the camera, do you ever shoot RAW?   Anything the camera can do internally can be done later, with more control, and then there are more things you can do to improve the photo, even better than the camera can.  Especially with some of the free post-processing software available now that deals with non-destructive editing of RAW images.

Link to post
Share on other sites


Yes it’s the efs 60mm, which I have used as a portrait lens, I mainly shoot jpeg as I’m just a hobbyist 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, ppaul said:

I don’t have a Nikon so unable to try that feature 

 

Sorry, I got confused with the Nikon D800 🙃

 

You should try shooting in the RAW format as it gives you a LOT more scope to alter you pictures.

It's like having your own darkroom to process shots how you like.

Try the free program like RAW Therapee.

https://rawtherapee.com/

 

You can convert any picture to JPEG once you have altered in RAW.

 

Here's a video showing a basic tutorial on what it can do for you.

 

Edited by Tweaky
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Tweaky said:

 

Sorry, I got confused with the Nikon D800 🙃

 

You should try shooting in the RAW format as it gives you a LOT more scope to alter you pictures.

It's like having your own darkroom to process shots how you like.

Try the free program like RAW Therapee.

https://rawtherapee.com/

 

You can convert any picture to JPEG once you have altered in RAW

 

or even better  Darktable

 

http://www.darktable.org/

Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, aussievintage said:

 

or even better  Darktable

 

http://www.darktable.org/

 

I've downloaded that but yet to try it.

Got to love Freeware like these two and GIMP, the poor mans Photoshop.🙂

 

To the OP: GIMP is a freeware image editing tool, very much like Photoshop.

Basically you'd opt to process you shots in a RAW program, then do advanced editing with a copy of those RAW files to make whatever you wanted in GIMP.

Takes quite a while to get your head around just how powerful it is, and what you can do with it, but anything you see in a magazine or advanced ART photography can be done with it, like layering several photos together to make one shot.

The possibilities are endless.

https://www.gimp.org/

Edited by Tweaky
Link to post
Share on other sites


1 minute ago, Tweaky said:

 

I've downloaded that but yet to try it.

Got to love Freeware like these two and GIMP, the poor mans Photoshop.🙂

 

Absolutely.   I find I seldom need anything but Darktable.  A good set of defaults, and it produces better than the camera can, then a few tweaks and you're done.

 

Note that I use it under Linux, but the Windows version has been out a while now, so I expect it is pretty good too.

Link to post
Share on other sites

All these free programs are usable but if you're serious about editing then LR + PS for only $14.29 a month is a bargain.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, ArthurDent said:

All these free programs are usable but if you're serious about editing then LR + PS for only $14.29 a month is a bargain.

 

 

 

Yes and No

The only problem is if you stop using those programs all your editing data is lost, as it's tied to ADOBE's propriety software.

You can't save your edits made in those ADOBE subscription software and transfer it to use in another program, same for Lightroom's file system, your locked in to using ADOBE, and paying for it.

Unless you want to start from scratch again with all your shots

Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Tweaky said:

 

Yes and No

The only problem is if you stop using those programs all your editing data is lost, as it's tied to ADOBE's propriety software.

You can't save your edits made in those ADOBE subscription software and transfer it to use in another program, same for Lightroom's file system, your locked in to using ADOBE, and paying for it.

Unless you want to start from scratch again with all your shots

 

 

and no-one who is paying such a large amount (it really adds up) wants to admit something free does the job, sometimes even better, and often people only use a small fraction of the features in a program anyway.   

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites


1 hour ago, Tweaky said:

 1 ...if you stop using those programs all your editing data is lost, as it's tied to ADOBE's propriety software.

2 You can't save your edits made in those ADOBE subscription software and transfer it to use in another program, same for Lightroom's file system, your locked in to using ADOBE, and paying for it.

Unless you want to start from scratch again with all your shots

1 not really true, you can write all the metadata from Lightroom to xmp sidecar files, just like other database style non-destructive editors.

2 See above, and it only applies to Lightroom

 

I've been a PS user since the first or second version.

Now I have the Adobe Photography subscription with LR and PS. I find it excellent value and use it heavily.

 

I keep all my raw files, my LR export is a tif file that is widely supported.

Final editing is done in PS and again, a tif master file and web sized jpgs are the output.

 

Your concern is valid and sensible, but it is not impossible to circumvent.

 

Edit:

The bit about the file system depends on how you've set up LR.

My raw files are imported to a dedicated data drive and live there in a date based hierarchy. Lightroom doesn't move them. The output files go to a separate dedicated data drive for sorage and any additional editing and output formats.

Edited by pwstereo
Added info about file system
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, aussievintage said:

 

 

and no-one who is paying such a large amount (it really adds up) wants to admit something free does the job, sometimes even better, and often people only use a small fraction of the features in a program anyway.   

 

$14.29 a month might add up but it's peanuts compared to the depreciation on all your gear and a free program that's as good as PS, there isn't one.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, ArthurDent said:

 

$14.29 a month might add up but it's peanuts compared to the depreciation on all your gear and a free program that's as good as PS, there isn't one.


 

Sorry,  but that amount per month to use a software program is ridiculous.  Having to rent software is ridiculous.  Trying to tie people into your software ecosystem is ridiculous.  No love for Adobe here. 

 

Darktable is NOT to be compared with PS, it is a Lightroom alternative. 

btw.  Darktable is much better for me than Lightroom.   Also, I rarely need programs like PS, and if I do, Gimp does it.  The main reason people use PS is familiarity, not functionality.    A good tip too, have a look a Digikam for proper management software.  I don't need it, but very powerful - also free.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, aussievintage said:

Sorry,  but that amount per month to use a software program is ridiculous.

One takeaway coffee per day (say $3 x 30) is $90 per month

Netflix/Amazon Prime/Stan/etc is similar.

 

This forum is where poeple buy $100 power cables and amplifiers/speakers that cost as much as a small car.

 

Paying a regular small amount is far more doable than a huge chunk every couple of years.

 

The dollar argument doesn't stack up for me.

Link to post
Share on other sites


PS. I'm no Adobe fanboy, they deserve their share of criticism from time to time.

But I think levelling out their income has benefits for all, easier to budget and maintain employee numbers and development cycles. Before they'd have had huge income on upgrade cycles and not much income in between.

Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, pwstereo said:

One takeaway coffee per day (say $3 x 30) is $90 per month

Netflix/Amazon Prime/Stan/etc is similar.

 

I'd rather the coffee :)

 

btw   Amazon Prime is way cheaper than that.  About $5 a month if you pay yearly.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m not a fan of subscriptions either, I do have Affinity Photo  and Skylum, I enjoy the 1 slider editing 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...