The 18-55 IS sucks!, It's soft beyond F8 and every image needs a lot of sharpening. I've never liked the 18-55 personally and even the 100-300mm macro D destroys it in quality!
No wonder it's cheap and feels like plastic
Church, Cathedral Photography - Thread
- Thread starter Neil79
- Start date
The 18-55 IS sucks!, It's soft beyond F8 and every image needs a lot of sharpening. I've never liked the 18-55 personally and even the 100-300mm macro D destroys it in quality!
No wonder it's cheap and feels like plastic
Nice!! 17-40, I'm getting a 17-50 f/2.8 in the post in the next few weeks
Thanks but they could be so much better
Something is wrong with my kit lens and i'm glad i'm getting rid of it!
I used to take sharp photo's from front to back between F8 and F11, but now it get's consideribly more blurry the further away you get. And also the quality of the HDR's are way down on what i'm used to!. I think my Kit lens has had it, Even in my normal photo's i'm constantly having to add more and more sharpness
I used to take sharp photo's from front to back between F8 and F11, but now it get's consideribly more blurry the further away you get. And also the quality of the HDR's are way down on what i'm used to!. I think my Kit lens has had it, Even in my normal photo's i'm constantly having to add more and more sharpness
Some people can make a church, cathedral look amazing with HDR without making it look HDR. However as seen by many hdr shots people wack up the sliders and think it's done, When I do mine I barely use 20-30% strength everything else is in processing.
With a very slight HDR or even just layer blending you can bring back a lot of lost detail