Messages

1

EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: Need help with video lighting!!!

« on: May 15, 2013, 04:01:06 AM »

3-400 dollars for lighting? You wont even get 1 decent light for that... well, maybe a couple of used open face Arri or Mole lights.

With lights you still get what you pay for.

Tungsten lights like Arri, Mole etc. is top of the line. They have the best color spectrum around.

As soon as you move to Kino Flos and the like you start getting small spikes in the spectrum. Even HMIs are not perfect.

When you then move down to CFL, and if we head straight to the cheap ones, the color is visibly worse than any tungsten light and a camera set to 3200K.

LED is another ball park again, since even the decent brands like LitePanels don't render color good enough. The best LEDs I've seen is the Arri L7 which has a pretty nice color rendition.

In what I would consider the budget end, the K3200 LEDs would be the best bang for the buck.

In the tradional light end, you'll get better results buying a tungsten worklight and either bounce and control it or diffuse it that wasting your money on CFL / cheap LED lights.

The worlds best cinematographer Roger Deakins still uses good old tungsten lights bounced on muslin etc for his interior shots. That says a lot....

2

Portrait / Re: The official: Portrait Humor Thread....

« on: May 09, 2013, 02:21:31 PM »

Heh... I haven't got anything as funny as those, but this situation made me chuckle anyways

3

Canon General / Re: new canon lens caps

« on: May 03, 2013, 07:15:17 AM »

Just got a set for myself as well... all 82 mm caps.
Cost me about 8 dollars in total (including shipping which actually was free). They are the same as the ones the OP have, but without the Canon brand.....

8 dollars vs 100 dollars.... Not a hard judgement to make, and yes, they are every bit as good, and who the hell gives a F about the Canon brand on them.

Just take note, they will take some time to get to you, but if  you're not in a massive hurry, then what's the rush? They are freaking lens caps.

4

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: EOS 5D Mark III Firmware 1.2.1 Available for Download

« on: April 30, 2013, 05:45:23 PM »

Wauw... they really dropped the ball on this firmware upgrade. What a complete waste of time and hype.

I know it's mainly a still camera, but hey, those so-called video upgrades are worthless.

Magic Lantern is doing better things for the 5D than Canon themselves.
I guess that is just what Canon is about.

5

Animal Kingdom / Re: Zoo Pics 2

« on: April 04, 2013, 03:22:41 PM »

My little Z

6

EOS Bodies / Re: Shooting video with the Mark II?

« on: October 30, 2012, 03:52:30 PM »

Lots of limitations.... it's a DSLR, it wasn't made for filming.

Anyhoo, here's the worst:

- Lack of XLR audio inputs
- Lack of XLR audio inputs.......
- Terrible sound quality beyond the lack of XLR inputs (compared to proper video and sound gear)
- Rolling shutter
- Aliasing
- Morie
- DSLR lenses are terrible at racking focus.

Again, Canon is like Apple; full of fanbois who swear it's amazing.

But hey, you can still get some amazing shots out of it that somewhat resemble what people think is cinematic.

If you are getting this for the video part... don't get it. Look around. Sony are better at making sensors and they are crushing Canon on EVERY area right now.

For still photography in the DSLR class, Canon is still ok, but they really have to shape up.

Remember, the number 1 reason so many people adore Canon is because they are tied up in Canon lenses they don't want to part with.
Fortunately in the video area, the market for adapters is large and therefore you don't NEED a Canon body to use their pretty good lenses. But again.... they are still only DSLR lenses.

7

Lenses / Re: HELP - Which lens is best for blown-out white background

« on: October 30, 2012, 03:44:48 PM »

Just use any... the difference will be negligible.

8

Software & Accessories / Re: Need great Photo editing monitor

« on: October 24, 2012, 10:36:41 AM »

+1 on Eizo... I would go any less than that. Makes no sense what so ever spending lots of money on gear, if you can't see what the heck you are doing afterwards.

The Color Edge line is awesome and definitely worth the money!

Consider also the amount of burn hours you get from a monitor.

Buying a cheap one means it will probably become unstable and uneven after a year or so.
An Eizo will stay useable for several years.

9

Lighting / Re: Need Assistance on how to improve skin tones with strobes

« on: September 14, 2012, 04:48:34 AM »

This has nothing to do with the equipment and certainly not the lights.

Canon has always been a bit on the red side, but with all due respect to the man in question here, I would bet that this is pretty close to the normal rendering of his skin. You just don't notice it in every day life.

Now... you can turn down the sat a bit in the camera, but that will affect everything in the image. You can't make the lights look any different because their color temperature is fixed.

And even when I was assisting high end photographers in London when they shot Canon we would fix all this in post.... that's just the way, even on top paid models. Caucasian skin is red, end of story.
Once you know what to do, it doesn't take long to fix red skin.

So keep on playing with Photoshop and find a workflow that is consistent...

EDIT: Also, I'd keep the contrast and settle for toning the reds down, keeping them in nartural key areas and a tip for next time would be to always keep cotton pads with you or buy some very light concealer in three different skin tones, so you can lover the amount of shine in his face.

10

EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: Canon 5D Mark II or a Real Video Camera?

« on: September 04, 2012, 08:27:58 AM »

We really really need to grow out of this DSLR fetich. Yes, it was amazing to see what was suddenly possible. But the fact remains that the DSLRs are CRAP for proper video work. I can pick out a music video or a commercial 8 times out of 10 if they have been shot with a DSLR... because it looks like what it is. Bad cheap production value.

No short DoF can compensate for what is being churned out........

That is the reason I took the jump and moved on. The FS100 was the first stop... now the F3 is starting to look nice for those corporate jobs and in time the Alexa and F65 will look even nicer on a rental basis.

DSLRs have become the general toy of hopetimists and it's getting freaking boring to look at. A oh god I'm already fearing all the BS slowmo films that will be pouring out of every corner in the world over the next year or so.

Spend money on the proper tool for the job you're doing. If I haven't blown my load on the FS100, I'd upgrade my photo side of the business to a proper Phase One camera as well. There is very noticeable difference between shooting with a camera like that or a DSLR.

To be honest... the most optimal thing would be to throw all my money in optics and lights. Those are eternal and won't degrade as fast Canons "new one every year with 5% tech increase" camera policy.

I know this is hard to take for blinded Canon fan boys, but after having been one myself for so many years, I've finally started to seeing the light, and it's not shining on Canon and their consumer mentality.

11

Canon General / Re: Help me choose a camera & lens combination for beauty/fashion headshots

« on: July 08, 2012, 04:24:17 PM »

I just did the photo below with a 5D mkII and the 70-200 2.8L

Often I find myself playing around with rings so I can fill the frame with more face. That would especially be interesting for you with the lip shots etc. You don't need more than the smalles Kenko ring to get in real close.

Of the 2 options I would hands down choose the 5D package. It's a superior housing and you can always invest in more expensive lenses down the road.

When doing stuff like this I never stop below 5.6... shooting 2.8 or 1.8 is just stupid. People seem to automatically think that because their lens can go wide open that they should... /facepalm.

Beautyshots should stick around F8 imo... The one below is F 9 or something. Remember, when using rings you get more field of depth and if shooting 1.8 you could literally render yourself an area of sharpness within a centimetre or so. That really sucks in beauty photography....

Just bring lights, and you'll be fine.

EDIT: Oh forgot to mention... I shot this at 114mm or so. Length is good, but an 85 should also by ok. I honestly don't know it's quality vs. the other option, but I know my 5D and I love it.... It's just that some of the lower end zooms aren't really that great.

12

Lens Gallery / Re: Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM

« on: July 08, 2012, 03:40:19 PM »

Another one from the same series of shots I did with model Anne Lysa...

13

Lens Gallery / Re: Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM

« on: July 03, 2012, 03:34:57 PM »

Another one from me... I'm not sure, but I think I had a small Kenko ring on the lens. Didn't degrade it in anyway, still dead sharp!

The skin is handmade retouch btw... I detest filters and plug-ins!

Model: Anne Lysa
Make-up: Ditté Larsen
Photo: leGrevé Photography, Copenhagen

14

Lighting / Re: 600EX RT + transmitter + 5d MK2 Sync speed

« on: June 30, 2012, 02:04:58 PM »

Just wanted to add in on the subject. I just got the 600ex rt and the st-e3-rt and used them for the first time on a wedding shoot.

I can confirm that you can enable high speed sync on the st-e3 and it will allow high speed shooting on the 5D mkii... I did syncs in the 1000s and the flash still served well as a fill in daylight sunny.
The mains issue though being that the flash gets hot fast and the batteries last somewhere around 500 shots.

Nevertheless... it possible. I did notice on some of the smaller speeds around the 200/500s that there is some power loss, but I can work out how this all fits together.

EDIT: by the way... I also got the Lastolite Ezybox (38cm X 38cm) and had the assistant fire it up in the air in the churc. At full power, even through the Ezybox, the flash provided a very nice ambient fill!

15

Lenses / Re: Best Product Lens

« on: June 01, 2012, 05:30:27 AM »

It makes sense that the tilt shift lenses would be great for some forms of product photography.

While not the same and less controllable on the DSLR, this is how we use the large format cameras like the Sinar.
Being able to control the focus plane to some degree makes it possible for you to gain on the aperture if needed.
Fx. I almost always shoot 5.6 on 150mm sinar when doing food, to gain that shallow depth of field.

When shooting white outs, I go 16 and get full focus on my 90mm sinar.

For DSLR that would indeed to some degree translate to the 45 and 90mm TS lenses.

However... if doing products with no significant depth, I'd rather go 100mm L macro on the DSLR.

In other words... if you can afford it, go for a TS lens, atleast for the dinner ware it would be nice if you can lay down the focus plane a bit without going too high up with the camera.

For examples of my food photography, check out: http://www.omnifilm.dk/foto/