>>3505221Not really, it's usually fairly specific to your taste, but contrast and sharpness are the two obvious ones to tweak. Saturation, whitebalance will also be factors depending on the lens.
I'm usually really light on the editing, so the cats were a bit tedious to have to touch everyting a bit. But a standard contrast and saturation edit was usually good enough.
It's been a while since I used catadioptrics, but when I did it was consistently for several years, and using all of the lenses I listed above.... So if you feel like scrolling through some unrelated and often unnecessarily large images, theres this:
http://oh-hi.info/tech/Where you will find some 3 frame montaged images depicting editing I was playing with.
Click an image and check for things like 500mm, 1000mm, those are the cats. They should be visually fairly obvious though.
Stuff like 2000mm/22 are exif-adjusted to reflect the use of a teleconverter on a 1000mm lens.
There's also, some money shots of grubby lenses interiors, like:
http://oh-hi.info/tech/dust_tamron-350mmf5.6-06B.jpgNote that this is possibly one of *the* best catadioptrics available, and is pretty sharp despite all this shit inside it.
People saying the lens resolution is worse than the camera: (it's not)
http://oh-hi.info/tech/00089934-jpg88-crop1to1at1024-y1024px.jpgAn edit note:
http://oh-hi.info/tech/00089432-raw_vs_edit-jpg88-crop1to1at1024-y1024px.jpganother:
http://oh-hi.info/tech/ProcessingNotes_00088894-y600px.jpgThe /tech folder is relatively small, so just have a look.
If you want to look at hundreds/thousands of actual-use shots.... I guess start here-ish.With the 350mm/5.6, the 500's etc come somewhat under/before that.
http://oh-hi.info/2013_1-4/?from=2013-04-27.jpgAlso; worthy of note: many cats make rather good casual macro lenses. So don;t just expect to be looking for typical long distance "sports" compositions.
