9 from the 923 M9 photos

[Roger Hicks]

Chosen not so much for artistic merit as to demonstrate the VERY wide range of conditions under which I was shooting, and why I have my doubts about batch processing:

Ax-les-Thermes: Mixed, mostly sodium vapour, around midnight. 50 C-Sonnar
Baths: dappled sunlight. 50 C-Sonnar
Candles at St Jean Pied-de-Port: self explanatory. 35 Summilux.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Hams: fluorescent lighting inside a supermarket. 50 C-Sonnar
Hot springs: the steam was constantly changing and interacting with the sun. 75 Summilux.
Knights: Museum interior, tungsten. 35 Summilux.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Land Rover: in cloud. 35 Summilux
Shadow: glancing sun. 50 C-Sonnar.
Smokery: mixed light. 35 Summilux.

 

[jsrockit]

Some great ones from what I can tell...

 

[Harry S.]

What aperture/ ISO are they? Some look pretty soft?

 

[Roger Hicks]

What aperture/ ISO are they? Some look pretty soft?

ISO 160 to 2500, apertures f/1.4 to f/11.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Andy Kibber]

Some look pretty soft?

I agree. Obviously we're not looking at the finished product though!

How's the white balancing going? Are you correcting the images individually or in batches?

 

[Roger Hicks]

I agree. Obviously we're not looking at the finished product though!

How's the white balancing going? Are you correcting the images individually or in batches?

Individually, on a decent calibrated monitor, until they look the way I want and go with the other pics selected for the same usage (which is not, of course, the same as a fixed white balance). That's why I'm no great believer in batch processing.

Cheers,

R.

 

[SimonSawSunlight]

What aperture/ ISO are they? Some look pretty soft?

I think the softness is due to the strong jpeg compression...

some very atmospheric shots, roger!

 

[Roger Hicks]

I think the softness is due to the strong jpeg compression...

some very atmospheric shots, roger!

Thanks. They're JPEG level 6, 600 pixels high. But some are fairly soft: 35 Summilux pre-aspheric, wide open.

Cheers,

R.

 

[daninjc]

mmmh... anguille.... truite....

 

[dfoo]

Individually, on a decent calibrated monitor, until they look the way I want and go with the other pics selected for the same usage (which is not, of course, the same as a fixed white balance). That's why I'm no great believer in batch processing.

Cheers,

R.

I find batch processing most useful for a series of photographs all taken in the same location. Generally, I set the white balance on one and and the sync all photos in the batch. After that tweak as necessary.

 

[charjohncarter]

They look good, and I agree with you about batch processing. You are lucking if you get 5%, you got close to 10%

 

[Darshan]

Excellent shots, all of them.

Dan.

 

[Lss]

and go with the other pics selected for the same usage (which is not, of course, the same as a fixed white balance).

That's what I usually struggle with the most. And that's the main reason I so often end up with two (or three) fairly similar versions of the same photograph. One which I like the best, another which I think goes with other pics I have selected for the same use.

Btw, I like the Land Rover shot.