Can't you keep a running total of what you've posted here?
- Thread starter
- #2,122
Yeah, but I'll have to go back through to find the weights, I'm that big a stoner, I know what i've got, done to and given away. An estimate is fine, I'm not matching quotas.
I'm sure there's a large collection of college lined paper scraps on the pool table with weights on every one!
- Thread starter
- #2,124
I don't keep the notes those are just for the pictures... Once the plant matching the notes is gone so is the paper.
Then I guess all you have it what you've posted. A job for a rainy Sunday afternoon. I'm sure you get lots of those 
.
.- Thread starter
- #2,126
Ehh, a search for strain names and "oz" will likely 'yield' what I'm looking for.
I try to remember to bookmark my harvest and weight posts for each plant. Not sure I've done them all but probably the last year or so.
Is it only colour tone differences you see, or do you perceive a sharpness loss as well?
- Thread starter
- #2,129
I was wondering if anybody else would see that. I didn't until after upload and I also noticed its the faster shutter speed that shows more blur. Speaking about the first two pictures.
kelticBlue
Well-Known Member
I was gonna ask about that, a bit lees sharp than the second one at 1/50. could it be a gust of wind/breeze?
- Thread starter
- #2,131
Is it only colour tone differences you see, or do you perceive a sharpness loss as well?
It could be that and it was a little breezy yesterday, but my initial thought is the quality of the glass. The 50mm I have is a cheap one, cost was $75-$100. The 24-105 (itsa 105 not 135) is $1100.00. I would expect the quality of the glass to be much less in the cheaper lens. Lenses are pretty impressive as far as what they can do and such, but it always comes down to 2 things. Quality of glass and your film or CMOS Sensor. That stands for Copper Metal Oxide Semi-Conductor.
Like I said, I shop refurbished lenses too, my macro lens is a refurb and I may look into grabbing a used 50 mm cause I'm a stickler for a sharp image! I'll run the test a little more diligently next time, when I shoot the Kush Auto, her harvest date is set for the 31st of this month. 1 week more than the breeder recommends. Who knows maybe I'll check the trichs this time, she's the last of my autos for the foreseeable future. I'll look into getting the cameras internals set the same for both and do the same exposures as well, I'll process them the same too. I'll even use a tripod, fast shutter speed, and cable release.
In my days as a photographer, I never saw anyone test a lens for sharpness outside. Still subject, still lighting, still camera.
Is one of them fixed and the other not? I know fixed lenses can be clearer because there is less glass 
But I thought you were talking about a change between pre-upload and post-upload - that’s where I have perceived a slight drop in sharpness, even when I had resized the images myself.
In any case...
But I thought you were talking about a change between pre-upload and post-upload - that’s where I have perceived a slight drop in sharpness, even when I had resized the images myself.
In any case...
That makes more sense tho’, right? Unless there’s a motion-blur factor, a longer exposure of a still subject will always be sharper... I thought
- Thread starter
- #2,134
I was being lazy about it. A couple quick shots to see if it's worth it to further test. The pictures were taken within minutes of each other on AV setting. Setting was f14, camera chooses shutter speed. I did not think I'd have any pics under 1/60, guess I was wrong. As I said, I'll be more diligent when I shoot the Kush Auto. Everything you mentioned of course!
Is one of them fixed and the other not? I know fixed lenses can be clearer because there is less glass
But I thought you were talking about a change between pre-upload and post-upload - that’s where I have perceived a slight drop in sharpness, even when I had resized the images myself.
In any case...
That makes more sense tho’, right? Unless there’s a motion-blur factor, a longer exposure of a still subject will always be sharper... I thought
No, the 50mm is fixed, the 24-105 mm is not fixed.
I was testing both ideas at the same time. I noticed the drop in sharpness on the upload that my have been due to less contrast due to jpeg. JPEGS suck as they loose quality every time you open and save them.
There are many ways to shoot a subject it depends on your desired effect. If the lighting is correct and your exposure in the middle the only drop off you would see is a variance is Depth of Field. Assuming your shutter speed is the same for all exposures and you bracket using aperture. A still life bracketed can be done with shutter speed and your exposure changes but your depth of field will not. Now you can combine those two ideas as well.
EDIT: leavin town, back laytuh...
Stay Baked!
Have fun in the next town. Safe travels! 
Hope you have an enjoyable & relaxing weekend.
- Thread starter
- #2,137
This place in Big Bear is ridiculous!!! Pool table, pac man, outdoor kitchen (grilled steaks last night), awesome, would definitely plan a 420 event up here!
View media item 1698725
View media item 1698725
- Thread starter
- #2,138
and crickets... Nice to see ya Beez!
Looks like my type of vacation! 
DrDoob
Well-Known Member
A little cooler up there eh?
