December 22, 2014, 01:42:52 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 ... 21
...I am undecided as to whether to trade the 70-300 in for one of the new 100-400s, keep both, or perhaps another lens such as the 300 f4 which might be useful on the 7D2 for campus animals (they let you get surprisingly close sometimes).

You aren't talking about coeds, are you?

Lenses / Re: EF 100-400mm II - first impressions
« on: December 17, 2014, 01:38:09 PM »
I am not feeling well this morning so took first photos of birds rather than work!
These are all 100% crops, f/8 at 560mm iso 640 on the 5DIII. DxO prime followed by 0.9px USM at 100% (not necessary but that's my routine).

What's impressive is the Robin was at 1/50 s and the crow at 1/60 s. I took several shots and they were all keepers at those times. The IS is stupendous.

If I can get my hands on a copy that is as sharp without a TC as yours is with the 1.4x, I'll be a happy camper!

Feel better!  :D

Canon EF Zoom Lenses / Re: Canon 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L Mark II
« on: December 16, 2014, 10:59:28 PM »
Thanks for sharing your OOBE! I've read others who have also commented on how well the lens is packaged.

Enjoy, and please share some sample images when you get a chance. It's not like anybody's very busy at this time of year ...   ;D

There have been a number of potential replacements for jpeg, most notable flop was the jpeg2000.
Back in the early 1990's, there was a good reason to change from Gif to Jpeg, and that was due to very limited internet bandwidth that most of us had.  so we accepted poorer quality for usefulness.
While photographers like myself would like to see a better image format, its a really hard sell for the average person.  In 1992, there were few digital cameras, but now, there are trillions of jpeg files, and 99%+ are happy with what they have.  That means that there would be 3 or 4 major formats, raw, jpeg, DNG, and BPG.  If they started making cameras that had a option to save to BPG, few would use it, just hard core photographers, and they would have to convert to jpg for the next 5-10 years just to share files.
I really wonder if there is enough demand to go thru the pain of converting cameras, scanners, software, internet browsers, and a lot of other stuff to BPG over the next several years.  There is also the thorny subject of silent patents which will suddenly appear after it gets adapted by a significant number of users, and require all software and hardware makers to pay royalties.  Those companies will see BPG as a big risk.

I concur with your JPEG2000 flop comment.

I'm not so sure about the issues transitioning to the file format, however. Many photogs appear to prefer the DNG format (I've never used it personally), but how many cameras support that internally? Those who want to use it convert their RAW files during post.

For RAW shooters, it would be easy enough to convert to a new format, just as soon as the photo editing application developers added it to their Save / Save As dropdown lists. (Or conversion could be accomplished by means of a third party app.) And if it became popular, the various photo viewer apps / applets could add it to their lists of supported formats quickly enough.

I save a lot of stuff in TIFF/ZIP format, and routinely convert some of those to JPG or BMP, if needed for another application or wider distribution. Once I've used the JPG/BMP, I toss it, but save the TIFF/ZIP file.

Lenses / Re: EF 100-400mm II - first impressions
« on: December 16, 2014, 09:44:50 PM »
Thanks for the comparison shots. I'm really looking forward to picking one up, possibly before the end of the year.

Software & Accessories / Re: i folded and bought CC :(
« on: December 16, 2014, 02:34:59 PM »
I got CC on my desktop and laptop.  Original the desktop was Windows and the laptop OS (Mac).  With the previous license agree I could not have done that.   I have now switched my desktop to OS.

Glad I did.  $10/month is about the cost of the upgrade cost with CS4/5/6 and LR was an additional $5-7 / month. 

Now instead of waiting 1 1/2 yrs for new features, they come much more rapidly.

Not sure I get this. I have perpetual licenses for LR5 and PSE13, and I am automatically reminded whenever there's a (minor number) update available for either application; i.e., the recent update of LR5.6 to LR5.7 (and now LR5.7.1).

Am I to understand that CC subscribers get updates sooner or more frequently, or get updates not available to us users of the perpetual license products? I'd be willing to bet not.

The only advantage of a CC license (as I understand it) is free upgrades to each new major numbered version (i.e., from LR4 to LR5). Those of us with perpetual licenses decide when and if we want to pay for the next major version of each app. If we don't want or need any of its new features, or if it's not worth the price to to upgrade for us, we can skip it altogether (or wait for a deal on the price).

(And just a nit: Windows is also an OS. What I think you meant to write is "I have now switched my desktop to Mac OS. As a user of long standing of both systems, I've always been amused that a company as market-savvy as Apple has never come up with a better name for their operating system than "OS.")

How to decide to "upgrade".


Or, if you have the money and want it, just buy it!

I have kept my 7D and it is now my backup/second body to a 7D Mark II.  I like the idea of not needing to switch lenses while on a hike.

+1 Exactly what I do with my 5D3 and 5D.

Software & Accessories / Re: i folded and bought CC :(
« on: December 16, 2014, 11:09:21 AM »
I'm not interested in any software subscription service; the only way I would buy in would be if my current software no longer supported a piece of hardware (in this case, a camera body or lens) I purchased, and no viable alternatives to the subscription service were available.

But don't beat yourself up; if the subscription model works for you (as it does for many people), then more power to you. If you ever change your mind, you can always cancel your subscription.

I'm perfectly satisfied with my perpetual license of LR5; LR6 would have to offer eye-popping improvements to get me to upgrade. I also use Photoshop Elements 13; although I was also perfectly satisfied with v10, onOne Software's new Perfect Photo Suite 9 requires PSE v11 or higher. So I watched for a sale, and bought PSE 13 for a mere $35.

I'm sure this is a joke, but if you really don't know what to do with them, I'll buy one of them from you (sans the Sto-Fen).

Technical Support / Re: Happy ending...
« on: December 14, 2014, 05:39:33 PM »
I have to confess, I am completely confused about calibrating monitors and printers. I should say, that I understand why one needs to do it, it's how to do it in practice that I don't understand. I also don't know what I should buy as there seems to be a number of systems out there.

... I should also note that my computer is located in a room with a lot of north facing windows (and one west facing window) and so the light changes throughout the day. From what I've read, this is probably one of the worst locations to put a monitor, but moving the computer to another room is not an option and room darkening shades aren't an option either.

I would greatly appreciate it, if any of you could make some suggestions regarding which color calibration system for monitors and printers to get and also for any articles or videos that might explain more about all of this. ... As I said, any suggestions or tips will be greatly appreciated.

Best regards,

(I can't speak to the Macintosh world at all, at least with respect to the best Mac displays / hardware for photo processing.)

Any calibration hardware you buy will be bundled with a software application that walks you through the calibration process. Basically, the "puck" (colorimeter or spectrophotometer) rests against the display screen, and has a light sensor on the screen side. The software app displays a series of colors at known (reference) intensities, while the light sensor measures the displayed values. Then the output of the video card is automatically adjusted to match the display's output to the reference values. Some calibrators also measure the ambient light, and factors this into the display adjustments.

For printer calibration, one or more test targets are printed out, and the puck is used to measure the printed color samples against reference values. The software then builds an ICC profile which you can then select in your printer preferences to yield the truest colors in the final print. (Note that such custom ICC profiles are usually specific to a particular paper type (i.e., brand, finish, etc., such as Canon Pro Platinum N, Photo Paper Plus Glossy II, Pro Lustre, et al).

What genre do you guys use this type of lens for?   I'm having a hard time imagining what I would do with it.   At that price, I assume there is something it excels at?

Reminds me of the joke I read over on a few years ago: Two guys pass by a photographer doing a shoot with a rather long telephoto lens. One of the guys wisecracks to the other, "Looks like somebody's compensating for something!" Without looking up from his work, the photographer simply replies, "Yes, distance."

Technical Support / Re: Happy ending...
« on: December 14, 2014, 09:37:19 AM »
I'm glad to report that after spending nearly $3000 on new PC + higher resolution & pre-calibrated monitor + Canon Pro-100 printer(bought it new on CL for $100), I have completed the job before the due date.

It's priceless to see the photos I edited in LR came out from the printer just like the way I wanted in the monitor - not 100% exact yet, I would say 95%plus.

If you were to spend an incrementally small additional amount of your recent investment (~ 10% or less) on your own display calibration device, you might surpass your current 95%+ accuracy mark. (Does anyone ever achieve 100%?) Not only that, but you should re-calibrate your display regularly (I do mine at least once a month), and anytime you're using it under substantially varying lighting conditions (i.e., daytime vs. nighttime, especially if your editing room is exposed to lots of daylight).

Since you're now printing at home (congratulations on your printer purchase, by the way), you might want to consider a device that can calibrate your printer as well as your display. I'm very satisfied with my ColorMunki Photo for both of these tasks. (Although, honestly, the Pro-100 is so good with quality papers and good ICC profiles, that the incremental improvements yielded by calibrating it will be quite small relative to a proper calibration of your display.)

And then you have the whole subset of camera owners that don't spend their day on internet chat forums discussing their cameras and which cameras they're going to buy.   Many of these people simply go out and buy something when it fancies them, without spending a year discussing it beforehand.

Yeah ... what's up with them?   ;)

Technical Support / Re: What kind of photo printer do you use?
« on: December 12, 2014, 09:19:23 PM »
I'd have to disagree. My Pro-100 produces excellent 12x18s on Canon 13x19 papers ... works very nicely with the pre-fab 18x24 mats and frames I buy at Aaron Brothers.
Jon, you're quite right and I should have elaborated on my point - I mean that it's not cost-effective to produce large prints (in terms of ink costs), but the quality is excellent.  At least IMHO.  If I print large prints, I try to save ink and use a lab.

Dear Mr. Mackguyver:

It's all good. I just checked the Costco price list, and they charge $2.99 for a 12x18 print, which I have to admit is pretty "freakin'" cheap.

However, according to the link below, the Pro-100's ink cost to print a 13x19 is $2.70, based on $14.99 per ink tank. I usually pay $12.50 per tank with the $100 8-pack (84%), and usually print 12x18 on the 13x19 sheet (87% coverage). So that would put my ink cost at about $1.97. Add in, say, a buck for a sheet of Canon 13x19 paper (varies by grade, and assumes you don't get in on one of those ridiculously good buy 1 / get 4 or buy 1 / get 9 deals), and I'm up to $2.97 for my 12x18 print, so essentially break-even with the Costco lab.

Add in the benefit of not having to go pick it up or wait for it to be delivered, the gratification of near-instantaneous output (even though I let them dry for 24 hours before framing), and I'm fine with the cost / benefit proposition of the Pro-100's large prints. (I also like having the extra 1/2" border around the outside edge when printing 12x18 on 13x19 stock, as it makes it easier (for me, anyway) to tape it to the back of the mat.)

Lighting / Re: Best way of setting up the lighting
« on: December 12, 2014, 10:48:59 AM »
Here's an example from a 4-light 'corporate headshot' setup.  Key and fill are each a 600EX-RT in a Lastolite 24" Ezybox, both on Manfrotto 1051BAC stands.  The key has a round mask diffuser panel (for catchlight shape), and the fill is gridded.  The hair light is a 600EX-RT with a Honl 1/8" Speed Grid on a Manfrotto 420B Combi Boom.  Background light is an Buff Einstein 640 with a white shovel background reflector, on a Manfrotto 012B backlight stand.  The backdrops are Backdrop Alley muslin on a Manfrotto 1314B background support system.  Speedlites were radio triggered with an ST-E3-RT and the monolight was optically slaved.

The setup in your diagram is virtually identical to what I use, except I shoot the key and fill lights into umbrellas, I light the background with a third 600 Speedlite diffused with a Spinlight 360, and I don't typically use a hair light. (Thanks to your post, I may now have to buy another 600 and stand!)

Like Chauncey, I run the camera from EOS Utility on a tethered laptop. I love the ability to tweak and tune the output of each of the 600s from the Utility!

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 21