[JMitchell]

Just realised this after making the Tamron thread.

I know it would be hard to get running at first, but I think that if the crew chose the most often asked about lenses, probably things like the Nikkor + (ergh ) Canon nifty, Nikkor 70-200, Sigma 10-20, Tamron 90, (ergh ) Canon 300 f/2.8 etc., and some more if they come up, then we could (or the crew could) post our shots in the respective threads, letting people get a good idea of what they're getting.

I suggest this because I know what I looked for most when researching lenses was example shots, taken by amateurs or people I know weren't trying to 'advertise' the lens.

I would suggest placement in the "photography forums" section of the site.


What do you think?

[Angela]

Already looking into something similar Jack

[JMitchell]

Er dave, what happened there? I saw your post, then it disappeared!!!!

[Dave]

I jumped the gun a bit ..... keep it under your hat for the mo Crew needs to discuss & agree .... must stop poking my nose in

[Les Meehan]

Nice idea Jack and fully support it!

I think such a forum would require links (or at least centre/edge full size samples) to full size images for true comparisons, no? Otherwise doesn't make it much use to use reduced/resized examples.

[silkstone]

That's one of the things we've been talking about backstage, Les.

It would be helpful to have some views on this, since the idea is to have something that will help all Pixalo members. As Les says, a resized image is of limited use for comparison, but a 100% crop could be regarded as pixel-peeping. Links to a full-size image off-site could be slow and tedious, especially given the file sizes these days.

Any views folks?

[JMitchell]

Not sure there is any other way to get to full size images, but I suppose you could post resized shots, and then the member could request the ones that they wanted to see full size from the user?
Not too sure about that one really.....

[silkstone]

It's a difficult one, isn't it?

We're open to suggestions here and have no objection in principle to the idea of example shots, but the problem is how to make these a genuinely useful basis for comparison, given the limits on image sizes which we must have to avoid server overload.

We'll be posting an announcement shortly on a change to the permitted file sizes on Pixalo, which should help members to post higher quality (lower compression) images if they wish, but it will not affect the maximum size in pixels.

Please let us know your thoughts on how a useful 'Example Shots' forum/gallery could be implemented. If you think it isn't really possible, given the necessary constraints, then feel free to say so! The whole point is to provide something of genuine value to members if we can.

[Charlotte]

I like the idea of a 'test shot' area, but (for once) have no suggestion as to the best way to go about this. Suggest Crew investigate other sites which do it, to see how they do it.

[silkstone]

I'm not sure that many forums do this, except of course the major review sites where the test shots are carried out under controlled and identical conditions and are therefore comparable.

The danger we have is that people use different camera settings and/or RAW processors with different default settings, so any comparisons may be misleading.

[Charlotte]

Originally Posted by silkstone

The danger we have is that people use different camera settings and/or RAW processors with different default settings, so any comparisons may be misleading.

Quite so. Obviously contributors would need guidelines to follow, which would list requirements to display with their photo's, e.g. exif + any other pertinent shooting conditions (e.g. lighting (low light etc.)) which they feel would be useful to viewers, plus what post-processing was done. Also I think rules would have to be set limiting image editing - preferably none, except the most basic tonal/colour adjustments on RAWs - otherwise the photo's would not show the camera/lenses' capabilities so much as image editors' capabilities

[silkstone]

The problem I see is with the default settings in the camera (for JPGs) or the processor (for RAW).

Take the more recent Canon cameras as an example. There are various Picture Styles for JPGs. The default 'Standard' setting has a fairly S-shaped tone curve and quite high levels of in-camera sharpening and saturation. It's designed to make the photo 'pop' straight out of the box.

The 'Neutral' setting has a flatter tone curve (less contrast) and lower in-camera sharpening and saturation.

If you looked at a typical shot taken on each of these settings, the 'Standard' one would probably look better. However, the Neutral setting is safer because there's less chance of blowing highlights etc, and you can adjust sharpness and saturation in PP.

So someone could post a shot taken with a Canon 300mm f/4L (decent lens) on the Neutral setting, and it might not look as impressive as something taken with a Sigma 70-300 (no offence) on the Standard setting.

The same applies to RAW processing. Not only do people tweak the defaults to their taste, so there won't be consistency from one person to another, but there is often some background enhancement going on, which the user may not be able to eliminate. (For example, Rawshooter had quite a bit of default sharpening and some local contrast enhancement, quite apart from what you set it to.)

So it's a bit of a nightmare really!

[Charlotte]

With respect Silky, I think you're making it sound more complex than it needs to be

The differences (between camera settings / using different lenses) which you mention are exactly the features that we want to see when we view test shots There's no way around different photographers using different settings on their cameras, so there's no use trying to find a 'standard' to set for them The 'problems' you list do not seem to be problems at all, to me, but indeed characteristics of equipment, which are all valid + would be useful for viewers to see examples of these features I reiterate though that this is the kind of info which contributors would need to include in their descriptions, so we know which camera/lens features were used.

As for pp + different image/RAW editors, the 'default' sharpening you mention can always be turned off, but perhaps a little sharpening could be allowed on RAWs only, if camera sharpening was turned off. We would largely have to trust contributors to follow any rules, and if they want to display heavily manipulated images, then they would be best advised to post into the gallery if showing off their pp skills is what they want to do, since what we're after in a 'test shots' forum is, well, test shots Oversharpening is usually visible, in any event, + such shots could be questioned/disqualified.

I don't think we can expect to set rigid 'standards'. We all know what the purpose of a 'test shots' area would be for + would have to trust ppl to some extent to play the game properly, to avoid mega work for Crew to scrutinize each + every shot before it's included.

Perhaps we could have a small-scale test-run of some sort, to try out the idea? Then Crew could review what parameters would work + what would not.