July 31, 2014, 05:14:03 PM

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - JonAustin

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 13
... I'd really like to see lossy and reduced DNG as a raw option in Canon cameras.  While they are still de-Bayer'd, they are much, much better than Canon's mraw and sraw, for multiple reasons.

I'd like to hear more!

I don't like to print less than 300PPI.
And prefer even 540PPI if I can get it.

I don't know what kind of printer you're using, but I've tested output at every resolution from 100 to 600 ppi, and without a magnifying glass, I don't see any perceptible difference

They already been de-Bayered into a weird format with some info even beyond just resolution lost and you are stuck with their quick and dirty de-bayer and scale.

Whatever. The images still look great.

Canon General / Re: What do you Splurge on?
« on: Today at 12:15:08 PM »
That's the problem with G.A.S. You get interested in quality photography, and this equipment goes from being tools to toys to objects of desire ...

I'll "splurge" on anything for which I believe the value over the period I plan to own it exceeds the price. So I tell myself I'm actually saving money. (I do try to buy smart, and watch / wait for sales, rebates, closeouts, estate sales, etc. That way, if I got it wrong, I don't lose too much when I sell.)

Canon General / Re: What is your Least Used Piece of Gear?
« on: Today at 12:05:20 PM »

I bought it in 2004 (before EF-s) as a normal zoom for my 10D.  I thought I'd love it when I got my 5D, but time had intervened.  To get a wide-angle on the 10D (again, before EF-s) I had purchased a Sigma 15mm fisheye.  Well, the fish is on my 5D perhaps 100 times as much as the 17-40L.  When I need a normal zoom, I use the 24-105 on the 5D and the crop camera (now a 20D) is used primarily with the 70-200.  Once in a great while I'll use the 17-40L.  It's still a great lens with great optics and great handling and AF.  It's just that I like all my other options better.

This was me a couple of months ago. I bought my 17-40 in 2003 to replace the 24-85 on my 10D. I also now have a 20D, which doesn't get much use. So I sold the 17-40, along with a 70-200/2.8 IS and a 1.4x II to buy a 70-200/2.8 IS II. I really like the new 16-35/4 IS, but just don't know how much I'd use it.

My least used gear: 20D, 50/2.5 CM, 5D. The 5D is mostly my backup. I'd sell the 50 CM, but it's just so dang sharp!

Any hints you could offer on the best settings for scanning different types of media (B&W prints vs colour prints vs newspaper clippings vs book pages etc) would be much appreciated.  I'll do some experimenting of my own, but some advice to point me in the right direction might save some time.  I'd be especially interested in the reasoning behind the various settings.  I will do some Googling, but there's no substitute for (your) experience.


Re-read my post above for my recommendations for scanner settings.

As for B&W vs color prints, I usually scan everything in color, just because it's quicker and easier than constantly fiddling with settings between scans. You can easily remove the color information in post, but sometimes, you will want to add color (sepia or other tint, for example).

And again, for offset printing (newsprint, books, etc.) use the Descreen option (it's in the software for both of my Canon printers, so I assume it's in yours, as well.)

Let us know how it goes.

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon to Make a Big Splash at Photokina? [CR2]
« on: July 30, 2014, 08:40:18 PM »
I must note that I almost never crop, and if I do that on occasion it will be only minor edge crops to remove a disturbing feature on the edge. If the composition isn't right without cropping, the whole photo gets binned.

Then you're either much better at composition that I am, or you must toss a lot of images! Even with the 5DIII's superimposed grid lines (which I always have turned on), I'm constantly rotating images slightly in post to correct horizons, etc. And I almost always crop at least a bit for optimum composition.

Perhaps it's the non-destructive tools in LR that have "encouraged" me to work in this fashion. But my style of shooting is to concentrate on focus, depth of field and exposure, and then to "capture the moment," knowing that I can easily adjust for the other stuff in post.

[Below: one of my luckier shots, moment capturing-wise, after rotating & cropping!]

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon to Make a Big Splash at Photokina? [CR2]
« on: July 30, 2014, 08:30:52 PM »
I really cannot imagine shooting in anything other than full RAW. Maybe I'm different than some because I do print large on occasion but I'd rather carry cards than switch modes during a shoot. I now wait to be schooled by those who tell me I'm missing the point. I can take it.

You are missing the point. The point here is some distant wildlife or whanot and where you don't care about the frame borders and would always cut them off before printing or whatnot anyway.

For other stuff I always shoot full RAW and don't bother with sRAW/mRAW which are not 100% true RAW anyway.

The point for me is that I've never printed larger than 13x19", and the 5DIII's mRAW resolution of 3960x2640 is enough to output at more than 17x26", assuming 150 ppi. If I ever needed / wanted to output larger than that, I could change to full RAW almost instantaneously at the flip of a switch.

I don't know about sRAW and mRAW not being "100% true RAW," I just know that they open in LR & PS like any other RAW files I've used. I realize that there is downsampling going on inside the camera before the image is written to sRAW or mRAW format, and I've tried without success to research the downsampling algorithm, or identify any attendant detrimental aspects.

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon to Make a Big Splash at Photokina? [CR2]
« on: July 30, 2014, 04:31:03 PM »
If you are shooting distant wildlife and such why do you need to store all that dumb wasted boundary pixel stuff?? It stuffs up HDs, makes backing up take longer, fills up CF cards faster, clogs up the camera's buffer more quickly and makes it flush less quickly.

I would love a crop function on my 5DIII. Most of the time, I shoot in mRAW (10mp). I only switch to full RAW (22mp) when I lack the reach I need, and then crop in post. But I would much rather have the ability to crop in-camera, rather than waste all the storage space (both in-camera and after transfer).

On the lens front, I'm eager for the 100-400 II, and hopeful that its reviews will be along the lines of the excellent new 16-35/4IS. It would make an excellent companion to my 24-105 when hiking. (I'm on my 2nd 24-105, and a refresh would be welcome there, as well!) If the 100-400 II isn't announced, or if its reviews fall short, I'll just get a 1.4x III for my 70-200 II, live with the shorter reach, and continue to crop in post.

Canon General / Re: What do you Cheap Out On?
« on: July 29, 2014, 10:10:43 AM »

2. Intervalometer - I had the Canon release (only) and it sucks, so I bought the Vello intervalometer and it works perfectly for $30

Dear Mackguyver, I've been thinking about getting an intervalometer and I also don't want to spend a lot on it. Would you mind posting the model number?



Sure, it's the Vello Shutterboss Version II Timer Remote Switch for Canon with 3-Pin Connection.  I paid $37.50 for it - just a bit better than the $169 Canon price :)  Make sure you get version II.

You can get the same intervalometer from Amazon for under $20:


As you can see from the product images, it's the same device, only with different branding and graphics. Some Chinese company must make these and OEM them out under a variety of brand labels. I bought mine from Amazon (under another brand name entirely) about 3 years ago for less than 16 bucks. I've used it a ton with 3 different bodies, and no problems whatsoever.

I also went cheap (in price, not quality) with lens caps, replacing the old Canon style on all my lenses with Tamron-brand center-pinch versions. Now that I've upgraded a couple of my lenses, and the new ones have Canon's center-pinch caps, I have some spares!

Lenses / Re: What do you do with lens cases?
« on: July 25, 2014, 06:01:15 PM »
They stay in the box so when resale time comes.. people who want a bag to keep in the box can have them.

This. Plus what longtallkarl said.

Everything except the lens, lens caps and hood stays in the original box, which goes into a storage tote in the attic. I have a dedicated photo equipment shelf in one of the hall closets. I leave whatever lens was last used on the body, and store it on that shelf with the battery (-ies) removed; the other lenses, speedlites, accessories, etc. are all within ready reach. One shelf up are my seven camera bags (I almost have as many bags as bodies and lenses), providing a variety of sizes and well-padded configurations, so no additional lens protection is needed.

I'd err on the side of "too sharp," rather than risk an OOF subject. It's relatively easy to smooth wrinkles, clone out blemishes, etc., in post. It's impossible to bring OOF areas into sharpness.

I keep the backdrop out of focus by positioning it at least 6' behind the subject. I usually shoot at f/5.6 - f/8, 1/90 and ISO 400, which is quite clean on the 5D3 (and extends speedlite battery life).

Hi Gerry,

I do a lot of print and slide scanning, and own both a Canon LiDE 110 and a CanoScan 8800F.

I think you'll find that, in most cases, the resolution of your scanner will be more than high enough for the effective resolution of those old prints.

Before you spend any money on new hardware, try scanning a few representative prints on your current scanner, and experiment to find the best settings.

I typically scan prints at 300 dpi (my lowly LiDE 110 will scan up to 1200 dpi), with Unsharp Mask turned on. (If it's a newspaper or magazine clipping, I will turn off Unsharp Mask and turn Descreen on.) I save the results in TIFF/ZIP format, and then do the rest of the processing in Photoshop (noise reduction, color correction, touch-ups, etc.).

Since the scanning process is relatively slow, I'll place as many prints on the glass to scan in one pass as possible, then use the Crop tool and Save to split them into individual files. (Then Undo back to the scan import step, to crop the next image, etc.).

Hope this helps,


Lenses / Re: What Lenses are missing from Canon's range
« on: July 19, 2014, 10:00:27 PM »
Taking the optics out of an extender turns it into an extension tube, and the later has an effect on how far the lens attached to it can focus.

Good point.  :(

Lenses / Re: What Lenses are missing from Canon's range
« on: July 19, 2014, 09:18:07 AM »
Extenders equipped with a switch to flip them into / out of the optical path (like the built-in extender in the 200-400 f/4 L IS).

Sure, they'd be larger and more expensive than the current models, but the technology is now proven, at least with the 1.4x.

When I replaced my 70-200/2.8 L IS with the II version recently, I also sold my 1.4x II, which I'm not replacing. It's just too much hassle to insert and remove. For the extra reach, I'm hopeful for a 100-400 II this year, with reviews as glowing as the new 16-35/4.

Lenses / Re: Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II [CR1]
« on: July 15, 2014, 09:18:33 AM »
Not to sound too pedantic, but the difference between f/5.6 and f/2.8 is two stops, not one. (Which only further reinforces your point.)

There is a full stop between f4 and f2.8 too.

I know, but I presumed that noting the two stops between f/5.6 and f/2.8 would make the one-stop difference between f/4 and f/2.8 obvious, and I didn't see any need to pile on.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 13