Roma, Italy

[Mondo]

Yay, they are done!


1.
http://raymondlin.net/Uploads/personal/rome/IMG_1724.jpg

2.
http://raymondlin.net/Uploads/personal/rome/IMG_1451.jpg

3.
http://raymondlin.net/Uploads/personal/rome/IMG_1585.jpg

4.
http://raymondlin.net/Uploads/personal/rome/IMG_1620.jpg

5.
http://raymondlin.net/Uploads/personal/rome/IMG_1685.jpg

More on Flickr

http://www.flickr.com/photos/raymondlin/sets/72157625486101232/

[Will]

Your pics are amazing - so much depth, detail and animation.

[Jonny69]

You've managed to make pictures out of all the things I/my camera failed at :)

Cheeky question. What settings (inc. iso and ev) did you use for that last picture of St Peters shooting into the sun? I've tried various settings but all I get is a white-out and dark shadows. Never any detail like you've got there in the rest of the picture. I'm trying to work out if it's me or the camera.

Same for the one inside St Peters for that matter. If I set the exposure to get detail on the black/gold thing it would have overexposed the rest of the picture to the point that you wouldn't see anything in it. I tried to take some similar pictures inside Grand Central station in NYC but none of them came out.

[Mondo]

The one outside

F/1.8, ISO 100, 1/6400th a second.

But looking at the few I took at that time, I prefer this one...it is slightly sharper.

http://raymondlin.net/Uploads/personal/rome/IMG_1688.jpg

1/5000th, F/2.2, ISO 100.

The one inside, it was

ISO1600, f/2.2, 1/40th a second.

I don't see how you can't get the same detail with a "lesser" camera. If the setting are the same then the results should be similar. My RAW files are more flat, but all the details are still there.

p.s. I didn't shoot at full 21mp either, i shot in SRAW, 12mp ish, since it wasn't for a client and for fun, i didn't want to carry around too many cards.

[Jonny69]

Well I can't shoot that fast or get the aperture that wide but that would only affect the focal depth. The one inside is pretty close to something my camera should achieve. I would probably be f/3.5 and 1/20th but it would completely blow out the background. Likewise, if I set it a bit faster to darken down the background the detail in the black/gold thing would just be lost to shadows. I don't shoot full resolution either but that shouldn't affect the colour or contrast.

I'm sort of at a loss and pissed off at the same time, because my old film EOS would be fine and cheaper compact cameras seem to be able to handle conditions like that. And Now Vix seems to be suffering from the same problems with a newer model.

[Mondo]

You mean it looks dark?

Try dialing in +1/3 to 2/3 exposure. basically over exposing it on purpose to whatever the metering says.

[Jonny69]

Yes, that's what I normally do. But the contrast between light and dark is so high it sacrifices one for the other. That's why I commented on a couple of your pics because I was there earlier in the year and tried to take some of the same pictures unsuccessfully. For example, the black wiggly thing in St Peters. If I tried to get any detail visible on it the background would be so overexposed you wouldn't see it. I've tried turning the contrast down on the camera but then it just looks completely washed out.

I'm no pro photographer and I'm usually the last person to blame my tools, but this time I think it's the camera, not me.

[Mondo]

May be it is the FF sensor having more latitude ?

[Jonny69]

What does that mean? ;D

[Mondo]

What does that mean? ;D

It can pick out more details in higher ISO than a cropped sensor.

Did you shoot in RAW by any chance?