Hi Fons,

it is hard to compare the colour casts from the lenses whenthe lighting is different. Also, this is a very difficult subject to expose correctly. You did an excellent job in that respect here! How many stops under exposure did you use?

A pity that the moorhen just moved it's head... I know they are difficult in the way the act when they swim.

Cheers, Jens

Jens Birch wrote:
> Hi Fons,
>
> it is hard to compare the colour casts from the lenses whenthe lighting is different. Also,
> this is a very difficult subject to expose correctly. You did an excellent job in that respect
> here! How many stops under exposure did you use?
>
> A pity that the moorhen just moved it's head... I know they are difficult in the way the act
> when they swim.
>
> Cheers, Jens
>

Thanks Jens ,
You have an excellent eye I must say, explane how you could see this is under exposed?
I underexpose 1.0 stop in post processing Adobe CS.This to correct the colours a bid more.
Sometimes it happend also shooting with the E-300 that when you make a shot the second shot a fraction later is completely different in colour from the first shot.
Dont realy know if this is a problem with the E-300 in commen.?

--Fons

Fons,

Is this an isolated color example or there is a Sigma pattern? I see there is some noise in the dark areas whereas there is no noise in the image taken with ED lens. So that (as well as your settings) tells me that the lightning condition was not exactly the same when the both pictures were taken. Sometimes the evening back light produces a very interesting over-all tone, which may appear as overcast. See this image; http://myolympus.org/document.php?id=3734 This was not exactly blue as it is seen, but I would not doubt the lens.

So generally, what is your take on Sigma lenses? Could you comment on it to sngreen35@hotmail.com?

Was 1/80 at 400mm preferable or was it automatic?

Thanks,

> You have an excellent eye I must say, explane how you could see this is under exposed?

Well, I didn't see it - I knew it ;-)

The camera's metering system tries to expose all images so that they look get a medium luminance in average. So if you have a dark subject and a dark background, the camera meter will suggest an excposure that makes it look much brighter = over exposed in reality. So, in this case, since I know how the bird looks like and the white patch on the wing wasn't totally blown out, I knew that you had taken the expoure into account rather than darken it in post processing.

Here is an example where I did the same thing:

I could have under exposed (relative to the metering) even more here-

Cheers, Jens.

Jens Birch wrote:
> Here is an example where I did the same thing:
>
> I could have under exposed (relative to the metering) even more here-
>
> Cheers, Jens.
>
I get the it now , took a while but I see what you mean.
This bird you gave as a example the white feathers are not over exposed due off the longer shutter time( under exposer)
I hope to say it right now, but I now what you are saying.
Thanks very much for the explanation....
--Fons

See this image; http://myolympus.org/document.php?id=3734

See this image; Haze

See this image; Countryside in early evening