Lots of yellow

[ewx]

I got my 135mm lens back, now with working autofocus, so I had to take lots of pictures with it. Total cost was £154, of which £10 was paid up front to get a quote. The whole process took about a month and a half; I just took it to Campkins and they sent it Canon. I like this approach because I didn't have to mess around with packaging, couriers etc, and would use Campkins again for it as they gave a good explanation when it turned out to be taking longer than expected; gave an accurate estimate of when it would finally be back; and called back when they said they would.

Comments

[fivemack.livejournal.com]

So this is your specialist lens for fluffy things.

I've just been going through a lot of photos I took with my last-but-one DSLR, which had a ridiculously sharp lens; it's amazing what difference going from a decent to a superb lens has for fur.

Presumably at f/2 the autofocus is very fast and precise. I have committed the cardinal sin of reading lots of reviews of new not-quite-unaffordable cameras and now I find the autofocus on my D100 slow and error-prone.

[ewx.livejournal.com]

Yes, while taking that lot I could pretty much just forget about focusing. The f/2 maximum is handy for dark indoor stuff, and sharper than max aperture on the cheaper lenses e.g. 50mm f/1.8 and 85mm f/1.8, though in this case I was using flash.

[hilarityallen.livejournal.com]

Was there a cunning use of filters, or are the backgrounds as we see them?

[ewx.livejournal.com]

No filters. The white background to the cactus really is white, it's the fridge. The yellow backgrounds are the walls of my living room, which are a rich and cheerful yellow.

I guess your question is why is there so much apparent variation in the background yellow...

In most cases the flash was bounced off the ceiling rather than pointed directly at the subject. In some cases some of the light is likely to have reflected off nearby walls too. The same applies to the background, but differently than to the subject since it's not in exactly the same place.

The important point is that the subject and background in each photo weren't (necessarily) under identical lighting conditions.

In software I corrected the color of each image to true the colors of the subjects. So the variation in light hitting the subject is canceled out, but its inverse is then applied to the background.

Color correction is a normal part of developing an image and most cameras can automate this to some extent and have settings to let the user help out. You can generally do a better job in software though, if you're willing to put in a little extra time, since you know what's supposed to be white and the camera and computer generally do not.

[ceb.livejournal.com]

What *is* that disturbing pink creature?

[ewx.livejournal.com]

I'm told he's a small furry creature from α Centauri.

[ewx.livejournal.com]

As for not-quite-unaffordable cameras, I'm glad to say that I'm currently finding the immense price of the 5D mark II a bit offputting.

[baljemmett.livejournal.com]

It is rather, isn't it? A shame, although comparing it to the Hasselblad gear in the Calumet catalogue that arrived yesterday made it look positively reasonable!

I've decided to be a bit more sensible, though, and am currently investigating the 50D. Street prices at the moment are a lot more reasonable than Canon's suggested figure. I'm almost certain I wouldn't regret buying one; my 300D isn't a bad camera but occasionally its age shows through at inopportune moments.

[ewx.livejournal.com]

I'm more tempted to get a 5D given its increasingly reasonable price; it'd be a great companion to the lens referred to above and a greater proportion of the cost would be offset by selling old kit. I guess it won't be that long before you can't get them any more though...

[naath.livejournal.com]

More prosaically it's a puppet (the string sort not the hand sort). And it isn't disturbing.

[curious-reader.livejournal.com]

I like the penguin with the bow tie. Who is that happy smiling person?

[baljemmett.livejournal.com]

I had briefly considered a 5D, and in fact they seem to be available almost-new at around the 50D's street price -- my main concern was losing IS; since my 28-105mm doesn't feature it I'd have to think about, say, the 28-135mm or the 24-105mm L (which is, admittedly, a very nice piece of kit in itself).

It had occurred to me that I could simply buy one of each, thanks to the combination of recent HMRC generosity and having earmarked £600 for an upgrade earlier in the year, but that would just be far too silly. Wouldn't it?

[ewx.livejournal.com]

Naath.