BC Photos

Except for photos relating to Ryan and Jen's wedding, I've uploaded my photos from the most recent trip. No sense in keeping folks waiting for those.

I think that I'll do some post-processing on at least a few of the wedding-related photos though as some of the shots - particularly those taken by Darren trackside - were fairly dark. It may be a while before these appear.


Don't you apply any post to your shots at all? Are you shooting RAW, or RAW + JPG? Regardless of the camera, true RAW files require at least some processing. You can leave the exposure as is (I usually tweak it), but due to anti-aliasing filters, some unsharp mask is generally a requirement for all shots. BTW, what does Dave use for image processing? I've got Photoshop 5.0 Limited Edition (came with the D30)

I'm not crazy...oh, wait, nevermind.

I've got raw data files, but I'm largely just doing a straight export with default settings from Nikon's PictureProject (it's lacking in editing features).

To do any sort of decent post-processing, I need to use something like UFRaw or put some money towards a different image editor.

My workflow looks like this:
1. Download images to computer from CF card
2. Create TIFs using Canon's ZoomBrowser software

In Photoshop:
3. Level image as necessary
4. Adjust exposure using Levels
5. Tweak "Color Balance" if image has color cast
6. Boost saturation (or lower) if necessary
7. Remove noise using "Dust and Scratches" if needed
8. Apply "Unsharp Mask" (usually at 65%, radius = 1)
9. Save TIF
10. If making JPG, resize, then crop as needed to 1024 x 768

Most shots only require a quick levels adjustment and unsharp mask...can be done in less than a minute. The ones where you have to select part of the image before making your levels adjustment to keep from blowing something out get interesting. And remember Dave, its easier to save a dark, underexposed image than an overexposed one. If you blow out your highlights, they're GONE, if you clip the shadows, you can pull a lot of detail out in post.

EDIT: after resizing for JPG, don't forget to add a bit more unsharp mask (about 20-25%)

I'm not crazy...oh, wait, nevermind.

I've also started playing with the free Rawshooter Essentials.

If you guys are working with RAW files, you might find this useful:

It looks interesting, but my Canon software allows me to view RAWs in its browser. Once I've converted to TIF, I do most of my work with that, and just save the RAW file for future use, if necessary. The way I think of it, is my RAW file is my negative...filed in case I need it to start from scratch with, otherwise, as a backup.

I'm not crazy...oh, wait, nevermind.

It figures Dave would spot a train from the air.

That's not so unlikely when you're flying over the Fraser Valley in a small plane.

Out of the Nikon and Cannon Cameras, which one is the better one?

Tough to say. I think that both companies are putting out good consumer-level digital SLRs at the moment - assuming that's what you're referring to since Ryan mentioned that sometime before.

For commercial photographers who have oodles of money to spend on cameras and lenses, Canon's high end of the line is better. At the lower-level consumer end of the line, I think that the race is pretty close.

When I was shopping in the past, I found that Canon's lower-end cameras seemed to be built a little flimsy whereas Nikon seemed to have a better build quality. On the other hand, Canon seems to offer better software with their cameras.

(I've recently started to play around a little bit more with software - free stuff but somewhat ackward to use - and am beginning to agree with Darren about the importance of postprocessing software. Shooting photos in RAW mode instead of the customary format makes it possible to recover some poorly lit shots without losing much image information.

Here's an example: