Unless you are 100% certain your audience is using a profile-enabled browser or image viewer through a good monitor, you should not release images profiled under Adobe RGB. Since it has a wider gamut that de-facto sRGB, profile-disabled browsers and viewers happily assume everything they display is un-profiled or under sRGB - and everything wider gamut that sRGB looks flat, unsaturated, usually tinted to red/magenta and generally like shiet.
AdobeRGB has its place but not under general image viewing on teh intertubz.
Bear with me, iz not a troll as I got facts and reasons to back that up.
At shutter speeds of 1/500 and faster you are already starting to freeze motion and the VR - no matter whether in-lens or in-body - is actually a handicap at faster shutter speeds and should be turned off (same with shooting from a tripod).
I can see the point of VR if you are to shoot landscapes (which don't move around much, except for foliage and waves and stuff) but since you're probably using a wide-angle anyway, you can shoot at lower shutter speeds in the first place.
And if since the VR can't carry you to very long exposures in night time shooting you probably have to use a tripod - which means VR should be turned off.
Am I missing something here?
Editor's note: This applies to personal shooting preferences and fast lenses. Iz cool if you like the VR gatorade.
Sort-of-off-topic-yet-on-topic-since-we're-discussing-mech-crap has anyone here owned Steel Battalion (with full epixxx controller set) for original Xbox?
I'm still pondering whether to pull the trigger on eBay 2nd hand version as that was the most hardcore mech sim ever.
It'll suck ass since no-one in the gaming industry has any balls left because of million dollar budgets that has to be repayed to the publisher so the devs will dodge any strands of originality, difficulty, complexity and will opt for easy and fun gameplay without the fear of death or difficult decisions.
Fun lens I can tell you that. Probably the best ultrawide for crop sensor system. Focused quite close at wide end if I recall correctly. I miss that since my current FF ultrawide Nikon 20-35/2.8 can't focus under 30cm. And the FF Nikon 14-24/2.8 costs a motherload. :faint:
It's not word play or meant to be taken as some form of elitism, sorry if you got it that way.
I feel the physical print gives it a conclusion and shows the photographer stands behind his or her work by spending a little money and time to get a quality print.
It's probably just my ass-backward thinking but I think the stuff that comes out of a digital camera is only an image before it's printed - only then it becomes a photograph.
Sorry to rain on your parade but only printed sharpness matters, kids.
If you have a good monitor with a good panel you'll learn to hate hilariously oversharpened downsized images (downsizing is sharpening too, no matter what algorithm you use) that make people buy useless glass in search of similar sharpness.
And jiggapixxels mean absolutely nothing unless you provide the print size and intented view distance in the process too.
/Spankrant over and out, the truthmedia rests for a while zzz ooooh ommmmmmmm