Quote from mrodgers :

WOW! The new FireFox 3.5 is TERRIBLE at displaying pictures. They look horrible and nothing like they did in Photoshop or my old Firefox install.

Firefox now does colour management by default (like it should), so that's probably what you're seeing. Here's how you change the setting: http://blog.duber.cz/misc/firefox-color-management-madness

Quote from Don :

send what? lens or camera? happends with every lens. and i doubt it is something that they could fix, it's just a "feature" of lowend dslr cameras

You would need to send both lense and camera.
When your combo is so much off the focus it can be adjusted for sure.

Is it front focus or back focus?

http://www.awh.cz/web/AWHSP.nsf

Check the "Cenik - Canon"
It would be around 1000-2000Kc + shipping. The insurance using Czech post is dirty cheap.

Quote from mrodgers :

WOW! The new FireFox 3.5 is TERRIBLE at displaying pictures. They look horrible and nothing like they did in Photoshop or my old Firefox install. Looks like I have to do an abrupt uninstall/reinstall to get it back looking correctly. Just trying the new FF tonight. Wrong decision....

The output from IE and Firefix 3.5 looks same on my screen.

to check if your browser supports color profiles look here http://www.color.org/version4html.xalter
my firefox doesn't by default

Quote from wien :

Firefox now does colour management by default (like it should), so that's probably what you're seeing. Here's how you change the setting: http://blog.duber.cz/misc/firefox-color-management-madness

THANK YOU!!! That did the trick. All I could find on a search was that it was a bug. I saw many forum postings from a search with complaints about it when all they did was change the default value for the 3.5 release.

I was wondering why other's photos here (sorry, they are not in print here so other's [i]images]/i] ....) were looking so dark. I couldn't even see the building of Tomba's post. It was a silhouette for me.

I did some comparing, my "new" stock 18-55mm canon's lens versus 22years old canon's 28-70mm.


Taken with 28-70mm from 18-55mm lens


Taken with 18-55mm from 28-70mm lens


Imo the old lens is better. And better looking

I know you can't compare so well as the target isn't the same.

Haven't been in a very productive mood lately but here's an outtake from an earlier shoot.

looks like i wont have and pics from this months karting becuse i may be racing but ill have a sort through last months and upload some of thise if there any good

Quote from Tomba(FIN) :

Imo the old lens is better. And better looking

I know you can't compare so well as the target isn't the same.

They look pretty similar to me, though the DOF is definitely quite a lot different (note the degree of focus on the wood in each shot). Sharpness seems near identical. What aperture were these shot at?

Quote from DeadWolfBones :

They look pretty similar to me, though the DOF is definitely quite a lot different (note the degree of focus on the wood in each shot). Sharpness seems near identical. What aperture were these shot at?

4.5, not sure though.

Quote from spankmeyer :

PIC HERE

Dexter wears a mask????


nice picture btw

I have a UV light filter on the 28-70mm, but I think it shouldn't effect on anything? Does it effect on brightness?

Quote from Tomba(FIN) :

I have a UV light filter on the 28-70mm, but I think it shouldn't effect on anything? Does it effect on brightness?

UV filters on digital cameras are next to useless. I think it was discussed in this thread some time ago too. Manufacturers sell them as easy way to protect your lens, sure, but you get extra glass added to your lens and that's always bad, lens hoods are much better for protection.

Some comparison shots I've seen between these "protective UV filters" show really bad extra lens flare. I take the old lens was used in a normal SLR, and there it probably had it's use, but not on a modern day digital camera.

Quote from Blackout :

Some comparison shots I've seen between these "protective UV filters" show really bad extra lens flare. I take the old lens was used in a normal SLR, and there it probably had it's use, but not on a modern day digital camera.

True, it was bought to be used in southern countries. So if I remove it now there should be an improvement in the quality?

Probably not a noticeable one, but it's one less glass element getting between the sensor and the subject.

Here two from today with my budget 70-300 Sigma.

Really wanted a colourful shot and ah there was these bright flowers and green leaves.

Then I came up with this flower sticking up above everything else with interesting background at friends yard.

An older shot, taken with the kit 18-55 Nikon. Current desktop background.


That is all. Might got something with old steam boats tomorrow, but let's see.

Great photos, Blackout! Really really attractive!!

Since Sigma started producing their own high quality SLR, they do seem to have upped the quality of their lenses!

@ Mackie.. well volunteered!

Blackout,
Please could you send me the 3rd one in 1680*1050? I would like to use it as my background as well.

thanks in advance!

Quote from SamH :

@ Mackie.. well volunteered!

DOH!! :doh:

(I'll get something done tonight when I get home from work, and after Murray's played Roddick)

about to go take pics at karting, not racing anymore so its camera time

Thanks for the comments.

Quote from DEVIL 007 :

Blackout,
Please could you send me the 3rd one in 1680*1050? I would like to use it as my background as well.

thanks in advance!

Here you go.

I put some of my pictures from Le Mans up on my Flickr page.

scratch the karting lol, i promise ill look through sopme of the pics from the last event to see if there are any worth posting

Quote from Mackie The Staggie :

DOH!! :doh:

(I'll get something done tonight when I get home from work, and after Murray's played Roddick)

Great Idea.