March 03, 2015, 06:30:40 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 - LOLID

Pages: [1] 2
Landscape / Re: The Antelope Navajo Under ground cave, ARIZONA, usa.
« on: August 03, 2014, 09:35:24 PM »
Thanks for sharing your beautiful photos.

As some members requested more details, I take the initiative to share my own experience.

I went to both Lower and Upper Antelope. They are slots canyons more than "caves". They are both different and you must do both if you can.

Lower is narrow, long and requires you to bend over and go down shabby ladders. Colors are more on the pink/orange side.
Upper is more touristy, wider, easy to walk through and shorter. Colors are more on the yellow side.

You can drive yourself to Lower and pay the entrance fee on site, but you cannot drive to Upper. For Upper you need to make a reservation with the Navajo affiliated tour companies. I used Overland Canyon and was pleased with them.

I would not recommend to get the photography tour for Lower if you have a camera that can handle high ISO. A fast lens (though you may need some longer DoF sometimes) with a bumped ISO should do it.
I would recommend to book a photography tour for Upper (i did not - mistake). My previous argument stands for upper - high ISO should do the trick, but there SO MANY people that you will struggle to get a photo without someone in it if you are (and you will be) rushed through the canyon.

Lower: UWA lens highly recommended 14, 17, 16-35 you name it
Upper: the 24-70 is sufficient

Best time to go: May @ 1pm

Lenses / Re: Safari 300 2.8 Mkii or 200-400 1.4x
« on: July 17, 2014, 12:02:50 PM »
I went to Kruger Dec. 2012. I did not have (still don't) the money to get a 300 2.8 or 200-400. So lucky you on this.
I took the 70-300 L and put it on my 5D3.

My experience:
- 50% of shots @ 70-200 mm
- 30% of shots @ 200-300 mm
- 20% of missed shots + 300mm (I would guess 10% 300 - 500 mm ; 10% +500mm)

This is just my own experience based on my personal way to take photos (don't care much about birds for example).
Anyway you are facing a dilemma that a lot of us would like to confront: 2 combos on 2 bodies and I would stress that you cannot go wrong either way:
- 70-300 L + 300 2.8 with x1.4 and x2 (changing lenses - or in this case the extenders - is not such a huge deal, just have someone helping you and go fast! Plus I bet you will want to put the x2 only if very few situation - 10% or less)
- 70-200 2.8 + 200-400

From what I read the 300 2.8 offers the best image quality over the canon glass range even with the x1.4 (I might be wrong though), so my preference would be the first combo.

Hope this helps a bit.

Pricewatch Deals / Re: Deals: Lexar Professional Memory Cards
« on: May 22, 2014, 04:19:02 PM »
Bought a 64gb, great price.

If you compare to Amazon (and not to the B&H "regular" price), it still is a saving of about 100$ or 50% off in you prefer).

Thks CR

Pricewatch Deals / Re: Sigma 50mm f/1.4 Art Available for Preorder
« on: April 13, 2014, 01:42:27 AM »
I am considering pre-ordering the lens because I would like to take it with me on my upcoming vacation. That means I need to receive it on May 1 at the latest.

But what does "expected availability: April 29 2014" means?
1 - they will ship all orders on April 29
2 - they will start shipping on April 29 following the order of pre-orders
3 - we will all receive the lens on April 29

I am sure everyone is dying to know the response of the "Pro".
Share it if you find it appropriate.

I am also curious to take a quick look at this 40 famous pics!


I think what you should do really doesn't have much to do with the law, but more to do with what's right.

I give you credit, it sounds like you are trying to do what's right and have put your neck on the line by asking for advice here. It also sounds like you have done what I would have suggested in asking the pro or at least, bringing him into the loop and getting his blessing.

While there might be a bunch we don't know here, I am dying to know what the pro's response or advice is.

On an aside, did you give the pro all your pictures or was it just the 40 images? If not all, were the 40 you gave random or what you thought were the best? Are the pictures the bride likes from the 40 you gave the pro or others? This question really is just an aside. I don't think it changes anything, just curious.

I have been in a slightly similar situation where I showed up at a friend's reception and brought my camera just in case they hadn't hired a photographer. It turns out they had hired a photographer but I took some pictures anyways. I didn't think much of it till now, but shortly after the wedding, the bride (my friend) asked if I would share my pictures. I didn't think twice, and sent her all the pictures I took, for free. These were just candids I took at the reception, mostly of neighbors and other guests who were present but some of the bride and groom also.

Hang in there Chris, I know you have taken a beating here, but if your heart wasn't in the right place, you wouldn't have asked. I'm sure you will do the right thing, local laws be damned.


Even though the legal analysis of the situation is quite interesting (for lawyers at least), it is of no help for the OP. One could argue there was an implicit contract (circumstantial evidence, behavior of the parties etc.) employer/employee, or even a mandate given to the OP by the "Pro". And even other better stuff to debate in front of a judge, but the truth is that nobody is gonna sue anybody here even in a small claim court. (BTW I completed my law degrees a long time ago)

Debates can be heated in forums. I experienced it when I made a sarcastic remarks once. Lots of white knights showed up. Let's chill out a bit.
As you pointed out Badger, the OP got kind of hammered in this thread and giving him a break could be nice. I think he knows what to do now.

Reviews / Re: 35/2 IS Review by Dustin Abbott
« on: April 06, 2014, 12:08:46 PM »
Thanks Sporgon and Studentoflight for your prompt and helpful responses.

It looks like in terms of IQ (all factors combined) the 35 /2 IS and 40 /2.8 are quite similar.

I do not intend to shoot video (yet). I have a 5D3 and I believe firmware updates (since 1.1.3) made it compatible. Please let me know if it is not the case.

Unless I get comments leaning strongly towards the 35 IS with compelling arguments, I am going to purchase the 40mm. Even though the f/2 and IS would be a clear advantage in low light situations (let apart the build quality as I take great care of my equipment) it cannot justify a $400 (or 300%) difference in price.

Dustin Abbott rightly pointed out that the original pricing of the 35 IS by Canon was clearly off. But even at $599, and even with an excellent build quality, I have psychological barrier to spend such amount on a non-L lens. But that might just be me!

Thanks again.

Reviews / Re: 35/2 IS Review by Dustin Abbott
« on: April 06, 2014, 03:31:23 AM »
This is the third review I read from Dustin Abbott. Great review once again. Very honest.

I was seriously considering the reviewed lens but got caught up by the announcement of the Sigma 50 1.4 Art (not sure I want to buy a 35mm AND a 50mm). Anyway I might end up just buying the 40mm instead, so here comes my

question: how does the 35mm f/2 IS compare to the 40mm f/2.8?

I understand the max aperture small difference, the 300$ price tag gap, and the former being a tad wider, but what in terms of:
- sharpness (@ 2v2.8 and 2.8v2.8)
- distortion
- bokeh rendering
- Dustin's "WOW" effect

Thanks in advance.

First of all, let's not use big words as "suing". Nobody is gonna sue someone for a few pics and a couple hundreds dollars. Just the cost of hiring a good lawyer ($300/h) or a even a bad lawyer ($100/h) is not worth it. Let alone the hassle of going through a trial.
Best of the worst, a mediator would be hired to solve this issue.

Second, I believe this whole experience is perfect learning for you and for the "Pro" as well. Terms should have been agreed when you asked to join him(her) on the job.

If the bride is willing to pay for your pics, you should be compensated. Now, compensation does not mean money.

In my opinion, hurting the Pro's ego will hurt your career in the industry at least as much as getting money on his(her) back. You might get a sense of that out of the tough responses of some forum members, who I assume must be wedding photographers. Be careful with this.
If I were you I would contact the Pro and tell him(her) that you have been contacted by the Bride and that she really likes your pictures (do not mention that she "prefers" your picture). Let the Pro tell you want he(she) sees the situation and the proper manner to deal with it. If he(she) has no idea, the best is for you to propose to give the Pro your photographs and let him decide if he wants to give you a few hundred bucks. 40 pics is quite a fair amount, and if it is true that you are bound by ethics, so is he(she).

If you don't get any money from the Pro, you already got experience and, most importantly, you can be sure this Pro will not "burn" you in the profession. You also should inform the Bride that you gave your photographs to the Pro for free "because it was the right things to do." She might feel bad and give you a few hundred bucks. She might not. But in any case feel free to promote yourself and let her know that she can talk about you in her entourage in order for you to get a paid job in the near future (assuming you register yourself as a wedding photographer, insurance and all good stuff).

In the end, you have nothing to lose. You went for experience, you got it. In addition, you've got good exposure with the pro photographer and you showed your talent to a Bride who may recommend you to friends/family as future customers.
Do the right thing.

Pricewatch Deals / Re: Weekend Lexar Memory Card Sale at Adorama
« on: March 28, 2014, 11:53:11 AM »
There is no deal.
Same price as Amazon.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 5d MkIII reliability
« on: September 04, 2013, 04:13:05 PM »
I have left my 5DIII in slight rain for medium exposures + time to fix tripod.. Same in front of splashing / sprinkling waterfalls for quite some time.

I usually pull out my camera raincoat only for long exposure if it is raining.

Never got any issue.

Reviews / Re: Review - Canon EF 100 f/2.8L IS Macro
« on: August 17, 2013, 06:02:44 PM »
Thanks guys for your advice guys.
I will check AF as you mentioned.
And will get a set of Kenko tubes as the Canon one(s) are ridiculously expensive.

Landscape / Re: Beautiful sunsets
« on: August 17, 2013, 05:54:19 PM »
It looks like some people fell asleep on the saturation slider

Or like some people have never witnessed a Tahoe sunset. Those are the actual colors.

I think LOLID is just a troll. I've seen a number of his posts now, and ever single one has been antagonistic. Might just want to ignore him...

Troll? Don't know what it really means. Is this an insult?

I have been to Tahoe. For sunset.
Still saturation is overdone. I like the third one of the last set.
I have the right to submit my opinion on photos that you choose to submit to the public. No need to insult people because you do not share the same viewpoint.

Landscape / Re: Perseid Meteor Shower Aug. 11-12 2013
« on: August 17, 2013, 05:47:58 PM »
Maybe, I don't get it. No wait, I don't get it.

Import a decent night sky shot into photoshop. Select appropriate brush. Paint a few fine white lines. You get the same result in about 10s.

I would be willing to bet you couldn't replicate how a meteor shower actually looks that way.

It isn't just about getting a photo, either. Its about watching a meteor shower. If you don't go out and watch it, you miss out on the chance to see hunks of space rock burn up as they enter the atmosphere at 30,000 miles per hour, or even better, see a bolide explode once it enters the atmosphere (a fairly rare event.)

You would also be stuck with the fact that your ultimately lying about your work. ;P

I do concur. I still remember an incredible meteor shower when I was 12 years old. Such event is very beautiful indeed.
But my futile point was that the result on a photo does not do justice to it and is aesthetically not very nice.
I want to emphasize that I was not in anyway criticizing the quality of the pics.

Landscape / Re: Beautiful sunsets
« on: August 16, 2013, 12:30:07 PM »
It looks like some people fell asleep on the saturation slider

Pages: [1] 2