March 01, 2015, 02:01:53 AM

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 - keithfullermusic

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 27
1
Lenses / Re: so, where is the Canon 35 1.4 II??
« on: February 20, 2015, 04:40:10 AM »
After releasing the EF 11-24 4L, i am waiting for the new ef 35 1.4 II that outperforms the Sigma 35 1.4 Art. Any hints on that?

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?PHPSESSID=1ea857bcc120d70b7dbf621a5fbeb4c0&topic=23437.0

Outperforms? How is that possible?

But seriously, at the price point of the Sigma I'm not sure if Canon will ever release a vii

2
Lenses / Re: Which Lens to buy for Portraits
« on: February 18, 2015, 10:44:51 AM »
the 70-200 2.8 ii is amazingly fast at focusing, and the image quality is unbelievable.  It's not just sharp, but the bokeh and the colors/contrast really stand out.  The image quality and focusing of the 70-200 are definitely better than the other ones you mentioned.

i see that mackguyer mention the f/4 and the 24-70.  if i were to pick between the two, i'd go with the 70-200 f/4.  the distortion you get at 60mm and below is definitely noticeable when compared to the 135mm and above (which i find to be the best).  however, if money isn't an issue, get the 70-200 2.8.  it is probably the most versatile lens you can get.

also, don't worry about weight with them.  even the 70-200 2.8 isn't that bad.  when i do weddings, i have that thing on a body most of the time and it's fine.

3
Lenses / Re: Which Lens to buy for Portraits
« on: February 18, 2015, 08:55:25 AM »
I have the 85L, 100mm macro, and the 70-200 2.8 ii,  and i would hands down day the 70-200. It is incredibly versatile and the IS is amazing.  The 85 is magic, there  is no doubting it, but with most portraits you're using lights and stopped down to 5.6-11, and the 1.2 is of no use. Also, shooting at 135-200 makes a face look better nearly every time.

If you are doing events and weddings I'd  maybe say the 85, but for business portraits it's the 70-200 without a doubt. 

4
Software & Accessories / Re: Adobe Lightroom 6 Coming Very Soon
« on: February 18, 2015, 08:27:57 AM »
Does anyone have any insight on Adobe's upgrade policies?

I still have LR4.   

Will Adobe allow an upgrade from LR4 to LR6?

If not, Will they give me a free upgrade to 6 if I upgrade to 5 now?  (I know they are likely to do that if I made a purchase of 5 now due to the short time to the new version release)

Prior to the PS-CC rental nonsense Adobe had announced that there would no longer be any generation skipping for PS upgrades but that policy was never implemented as CS7 never happened.  I wonder if they are going to apply it to LR?

I'm not sure, but I have CC,  so i'm assuming that I will just get it like I do with photoshop.  Also, i'm not sure what you mean by nonsense.  CC is hands down the best deal i have ever seen in terms of software.   $10/month for the best photo editing program out there with lightroom and other online resources.

5
Macro / Re: Menage a trois
« on: December 29, 2014, 02:55:58 PM »
daft question; but @ 6inches wide surely you could achieve this level of depth of field @ f22?

i think it is 6 feet

6
Macro / Re: Menage a trois
« on: December 29, 2014, 02:47:51 PM »
You might not call it macro but...there are 375 images that were stacked and merged...6' wide!      ;)

very nice, but out of curiosity - why?

7
Lighting / Re: Studio Light Power Question?
« on: November 22, 2014, 03:58:22 AM »
I am not very experienced with studio lights but I've researched them a bit in the last few months and I would like to add a couple comments.

First is that from my understanding, the Ws rating is not really a normalised and directly comparable measure. It should be comparable within a given brand, but might not be between brands. For example, the light output from similarly rated lights might differ because of the tube and electrics\electronics efficiency, reflector geometry and reflector efficiency.

Second, because your actual flash has 5 stops does not mean that a lower powered flash will also have five stops. You might pretty well have a 4 stops 250Ws light that has the same minimum output as your larger strobe. Apparently, the actual precision and range of adjustment appears to be one of the most evident compromise of cheaper strobes.

I didn't really think about that - different brands having different ratings, but it makes sense.  Fortunately, I have two Bowens 500R's and I'm thinking about getting the 250R's to go along with them.  I would imagine that they would have similar performance, only the 250's would be a stop dimmer at both ends compared to the 500's - the 500s are 15-500, and the 250s are 7-250.

8
Lighting / Re: Studio Light Power Question?
« on: November 21, 2014, 09:18:27 AM »
You have 5 stops of adjustment over a six stop range. For example if you are at full power, 500Ws, you can come down five stops to 15Ws. The settings on the flash would be :Stops dial 1, Tenths dial 0.0, for 15Ws, now go up to 5 on the Stops dial and you have gone up four stops, then go to the Tenths dial and go up 0.9 stops for a 4.9 stop adjustment range across a 5.9 stop output range.

If they had a zero on the Stops dial and you could input just 0.1 on the Tenths dial you would have full adjustment range of your actual output range.

You are right, the numbers are straightforward, 400Ws is close to 1/3 stop less than 500Ws and 250Ws is one stop less than 500Ws.

great - thanks for the clarification.  i was debating getting a 250W light for the background.  I often find that even with my main lights turned up all the way, and the background light turned down all the way - the BG is still too bright.  this is because i often have large modifiers on my main lights (which eats up the light), and just a standard reflector on the BG.

a 250W light should essentially be 1/2 the brightness at its lowest stop compared to the 500W at its lowest stop, which would be great.  I would also assume that the 250W at full power would be the same thing as my 500W at one stop below full power.  clearly, the recycle time on the 250W is going to be slower, but I think it will be ideal.

9
Lighting / Re: Studio Light Power Question?
« on: November 21, 2014, 09:14:06 AM »
I have this site bookmarked as it has a lot of good information.  I hope it helps you too.

http://www.scantips.com/lights/flashbasics2.html

In your example (1-6) that does represent 5 stops as there are five increments between 1 and 6.

thanks for the link.  it was very informative.

10
Lighting / Studio Light Power Question?
« on: November 21, 2014, 08:29:18 AM »
So, I have have two Bowens 500R studio lights.  They are rated at 15Ws-500Ws over 5 stops.  But what exactly does that mean?

To me I'm guessing that every time a turn it up a stop, it doubles the Ws - but I might be wrong.  I would think that it actually has 6 stops which go as follows:

1 - 15Ws
2 - 30Ws
3 - 60Ws
4 - 120Ws (roughly 125)
5 - 240Ws (roughly 250)
6 - 480Ws (roughly 500)

I should also note that I have two dials:

The first is for complete stops (1-5)
The second is for 1/10th stops (0-1)

It actually goes up to 6 (the full stop dial turned to 5, and the 1/10 dial turned up to +1.0), so did Bowens list that incorrectly?


THEN, that leads to my next question - how much dimmer are the 400W and 250W lights?  Is the 400W less that 1 stop at full power compared to the 500W, and is the 250W exactly one stop less than the 500W at full power?

I only ask because I'm looking to get a two more lights, and I want to keep my options open.  Thanks.

11
i am posting just to see how many squares i have.

12
Lenses / Re: More EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II Talk [CR2]
« on: October 28, 2014, 12:38:35 PM »
i'm not sure how "quite a bit smaller" is dependent on the photographer?  either way, i bet a lot of people are waiting for this lens.  i have the old one, and while it's not perfect, it's still sweet.

13
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: So what makes a camera a "pro" camera?
« on: October 18, 2014, 06:03:35 AM »
http://www.k2focus.com I'm currently updating it, but the layout is done.
Did you post this in the wrong thread?  Looks like it belongs in the "show your website" thread

Ha,  you're right. Sorry about that.

14
Portrait / Re: Post photos of other photographers in action
« on: October 15, 2014, 08:31:21 AM »
a couple more of a friend of mine when i was living in michigan.  the one in the building is the packard plant in detroit.


15
Portrait / Re: Post photos of other photographers in action
« on: October 15, 2014, 08:21:33 AM »
i took this one of a buddy of mine when he came to visit us in glasgow

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 27