September 17, 2014, 04:07:34 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 - AUGS

Pages: [1] 2 3 4
1
I agree.  I just spent 4 months driving around Australia (I'm Australian), and used the GP-E2 all the time.  I find it useful to actually locate where the photos were taken.  One day I must have photographed 6 waterfalls and they all start to look the same.  To remember which is which is hard without writing down all the details as you go, but the GPS data just means I have to look it up.  The battery in the GP-E2 (lithium AA) lasted about 10 days (100 hrs).  I'm possibly going to start selling some of my landscape photos in the near future, so having a location is important - to me.

I also use a GPS tracker (Amod 3080 - US$50) and GeoSetter software (free last time I checked).  The Amod device uses 3 AAA batteries (which last about 20-30hrs tracking) and creates a text file that you can download to your computer using a USB port.  All you have to do is ensure you have the camera set to the correct local time to synchronise your photos in the GeoSetter software.  It is especially useful to track how you got to that special location too.  I used as a bit of redundancy on my trip.

2
Lenses / Re: New Wide Angles Lenses in 2013 [CR2]
« on: March 14, 2014, 06:03:20 AM »
The f stop value of a lens is defined by the focal length of the lens divided by the diameter of the objective lens (front element). so a 300mm lens with a 100mm front element has an f stop value of f2.8. That's how it works.
I'm not sure you are correct.  By this formula, the new 24-70LII has an f stop of about 24/64 = 0.375.  But its a 2.8 lens.  While the approximation approaches this as the focal length gets longer and the angle of view becomes narrower (telephotos and telescopes), it is not true for all focal lengths, and especially the wide angles.
My understanding is the f stop is calculated from the focal length divided by the apparent iris aperture via the optical formula of the lens (which includes all the magnifications of the optics).
I may be wrong, so I'd be happy to be corrected.

3
How many images do you need to capture in a session/day/whatever?   Personally, with cameras that have a single card slot, I have two equal-sized cards, when one is full I swap them, transfer the images to the computer, and leave them on the second card until they're backed up from the computer. That means have two copies of each image from the time I first transfer them.  I format each card when it goes back in the camera.  That way, I also have an emergency extra card.

So, if 16 GB covers a shooting period, IMO 2 x 16 GB is better.

+1
As Neuro said, it really depends on what you shoot, its "value" to you and how much you shoot between download opportunities.

I have only ever had one card issue, but multiple cards means you can still get on with your shoot even if it means being a bit more conservative with your shots.  Only after I have multiple "off-card" copies do I even consider re-using the card.

4
There actually can be degradation of a digital file... And far faster than analog. The best way to ensure archival of a photo remains a print and a negative. I heard a few years back that Hollywood briefly attempted to archive via digital format only until they lost a whole film. The response was to reverse course and make an analog master print of every movie made (including ones shot digitally) to ensure future revenue years down the line.

The archival standard in photography is at least 100 years of durability. Digital has yet to be proven by this standard. Burning to DVDs, maintaining RAID drives, or even storing on SSD are all rife with potential failure and loss of data. Each successive copy made over the years increases the likelihood of a corruption of data and loss of access to your images.

I have yet to gain faith in the likelihood of my digital images being around in 100 years but I remain confident that my negatives will.

Back in 1859 there was a solar flare from the sun which was so big and catastrophic that it destroyed most of the world's power stations. Anything with a coil, capacitor or tuning circuit just melted or fried. It was the largest solar flare in recorded history. It's been widely considered that if such an event occurred today, there would be little of today's technology which would survive. Anything with a micro chip, silicon, or tuning circuit would literally burn out. Every computer hard drive would be wiped, every laptop battery would fail, every TV screen would burnout, every CPU would frazzle, every car would fail, every power station would melt...society would roll back to the 18th century over night. Our beloved digital files would go the way of lost static and the cameras would become empty shells. It's not possible to shield against such a huge electromagnetic wave of this magnitude.
So I think that if and when such an event occurs again (it may not be in our lifetime) and all of our digital history and data is lost, old fashioned photographs may be the only record of our society left.

http://news.nationalgeographic.co.uk/news/2011/03/110302-solar-flares-sun-storms-earth-danger-carrington-event-science/

And yet even if there are not cataclysmic events, and even if the data survives on the media, will there be supported devices to read that media anyway?

In 1986 a 20Megabyte hard-disk was considered big, 5.25 (360kb) inch floppy disk drives were common, and 3.5 inch floppy (720kb and 1.44Mb) drives on the horizon.
Jump to 2014.  I'd fill that 20MB disk with a single frame from my 5D3 (RAW, of course!).  Many laptops don't come with CD drives as standard, and floppy disk drives are a thing of the past.  Where will you read your CDs and DVDs, BlueRays of today in 2024, let alone 2114.  Will hard-disks be like last generation vinyl records?

The only obvious longevity plan is keep transferring the digital data to the latest technology to at least give it a fighting chance.

Maybe film and archival prints are best after all??

5
Canon General / Re: Why Scott Kelby Switched to Canon
« on: January 21, 2014, 01:34:29 AM »
And just maybe he has a little advanced notice of what is coming down the road in a private meeting. Who knows? Maybe 45+ to 75 MP are not just a rumor.
This is very optimistic, but could be very much true following Kelby's move. If Canon does have plans producing a new sensor with more DR and megapixels, they'll benefit more from testers that stayed with Nikon due to those features.
I was told by a Canon dealer that there was a 75MP body under field test. It was eating  batteries like a kid M&M's. Is that true. I have no clue. I'd like to believe it. What's a few extra batteries for the best IQ in the land? If indeed it turns out true there will be some restless nights in the land of medium format 80MP bodies and backs that sold for 40k+ with very limited lens coverage.
I don't see why a 75mp sensor would "eat batteries". The power required to read out the sensor is minimal, a fraction of what is required to drive the lens, and still quite a bit less than what is required to move the mirror and actuate the shutter. There is more data to transfer, but assuming Canon has updated DIGIC accordingly, it should be able to process faster at lower power than DIGIC 5+, so I still don't think the increase in megapixel count is going to result in such a massive increase in power usage as to "eat batteries".
(snipped)
Not sure if it was directly related to the 75Mpix reference above by MovingViolations, but this did appear back in September 2013 regarding the High Megapixel camera:
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=17139.msg317072#msg317072
It was eating batteries in 4K video mode.  Maybe there is an element of truth to all the rumours.

6
I agree with Neuro and others to head towards a quality system.  All ND filters have some colour cast, and Cokin has the most.  I personally use HiTech (Formatt) and Lee.

You asked about hard and soft edge filters.  It really depends on what you are shooting.  If it has a definite straight separation I will use a hard edge.  If it doesn't, say like a mountain range, I'll lean towards a soft edge.  I also find I'm using the 2 and 3 stop filters the most, but I shoot sunrise and sunset landscapes.  I rarely use the 1-stop versions.

An anecdote on a holder or hand-holding.  I was shooting a seascape a few weeks back and decided to change lenses.  In doing that, I dropped and lost my adapter ring.    :-[  So I left the UV filter on the lens and used chewing gum to hold the filter in place for my 30 second exposure.  I wouldn't recommend it as a permanent strategy, but I got my shots.  I now carry a small ball of blue-tak in my kit just in case.  The holder is best solution, but you can survive without it.

So my recommendation would be to get a 2 stop hard and/or a 2 stop soft edge Lee or Hi-Tech filter in a 4inch (100mm) wide system and worry about the holder at a later date.

Hope this helps.

7
Canon General / Re: How to teach a friend Photography...
« on: November 07, 2013, 03:12:49 AM »
I’ve had a few similar requests over the last 2 years, too.  Here is what I have found works well.

Firstly, I ask the person to buy a scrap book or two.  This will sound nerdy, but it serves a purpose.  For the first week or two I get them to paste photos from magazines or newspapers they really like, and to write next to the photo what they like about it in their own words.  This gives you an idea how “artistic” they are and a general understanding of what they already know.  Secondly, it gives a good insight into the type of photography they like – I use this to target their learning sessions.  After each lesson when I teach them something new, I ask them to add more photos about that lesson to the scrap book and again write why they like the image.  This means they are actively looking, and hence reinforcing, the idea – and if they don’t get it you’ll soon know.  I try not to get technical until we both have an understanding of what exactly they want and how quickly they absorb the information - a lot of people are afraid of technical jargon and detail and are happy to stay on the green square.

After each lesson I let them have a free week or two of just taking photos on the lesson.  Get them to print a couple of their favourite and worst photos, and together you can critically analyse why they are good or bad at the next session.  You learn just as much from your successes as your mistakes.  If you can, relate back to their scrap book of photos.

But most importantly of all, make it fun.  Photography is and should always be fun.

Hope this helps. 

8
Software & Accessories / Re: Looking for information on a "beam tripper"
« on: October 05, 2013, 06:49:37 PM »
There are quite a few out there, including this one:
http://www.cognisys-inc.com/stopshot/stopshot.php

Coming from an engineering background, I've started designing my own, but I'll buy their components and sensors.

9
Landscape / Re: First landscape submitted for critique
« on: October 02, 2013, 10:56:41 PM »
Great location and composition is interesting and balanced - I like it a lot.

With landscapes, it is not what you photograph, but when.  I'm positive if this was shot with early morning or late afternoon golden light hitting those cliff faces and not with flat dull lighting ("argh" as you described), this would be a really special photo.  But you can only capture what is in front of you at the time, and I think you have done that well.

On days like this, I often put on a polarising filter, and then convert to black and white - it can give the "flat" image a bit of a "pop".

10
Software & Accessories / Re: How big do you print?
« on: September 27, 2013, 03:59:39 AM »
Printing big is addictive!
If you haven´t, do it!

A few years ago I did a landscape photography tour.  It was absolutely brilliant!  When I came home, I decided it was time to decorate the walls with the photos I'd taken.  I installed picture rails in almost all rooms and purchased a dozen or so custom frames of various sizes from 12"x18" through to 20"x40" in aspect ratios of 3:2, 2:1 and 3:1.

Now, everytime I head out on an expedition, I remove some of the older images and insert some new ones, and I'm getting one pretty big portfolio folder.  Yes, its addictive.

11
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Is it flare, internal reflections or a ghost
« on: September 18, 2013, 07:58:26 PM »
These are reflections, could be internal...
Agreed, definitely reflections.  If you use this image and the drawn centre by Arjay, you will find less obvious (fainter) reflections of the lights as well.  They are not stars as they are stationary and not starting to have a trail like the few stars you can see.
These happen with most lenses when pointed towards or at a bright light source.  Night photography makes them far more obvious because the bright light reflection(s) inevitably end up on a dark sky.  Sometimes you just cannot avoid them.
To fix, I use Lightroom to spot heal where I can.

12
Lenses / Re: A Big Lens Announcement in September? [CR1]
« on: August 29, 2013, 04:04:31 AM »
This would be my bet....
14-24 f/2.8, 16-50 f/4 IS, 400 f/5.6 IS or 100-400 replacement....

Any (or all) of those would be welcome in my eyes. :)
I'd definitely be in the market for the 14-24, with a 400/5.6IS and/or 100-400.

My "left-field guess" is a TS-E 100 f4L Macro, give or take a few millimetres focal length and a bit on aperture.  This was rumored a while ago.

And while I'm speculating I'll add an "outside the box" rank outside option - a medium format lens development announcement with a MF-EF adapter.  This would fit the unusual announcement for a lens only, but I'll expect a body announcement instead.

13
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: ND filters /waterfalls on 5D3
« on: July 18, 2013, 04:29:51 AM »
I borrowed my friend's B+W MRC 10 stop filter, in short, it's a niche product. You will find that you only use it on your 0.001% photos. Also your white balance will get screwed big time and pretty hard if not impossible to adjust back in PP.

ISO 100, F22, with 10 stop filter on cloudy day would give you 15min exposure! Which IMO is way overkill for water shots.

I currently only have a 3 stop square ND filter from Lee, and I think that fits almost all my ND need apart from graduated ones. A 3 stop slows down your shutter speed from say 1/200 to 1/25, or 1/100 to 1/12, which is quite handy most of the times for giving water streams this in motion feel.

The thing 10-stop ND does best is to make sea look like fog, something like that:
http://www.gregorydeese.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/10-stop-ND-Filter-1.jpg

It's not good for water falls.

Agreed.  I use a 3-stop ND at most for waterfalls, as I feel you want to blur the motion of the waterfall, not completely smudge it - but that is my personal preference.

A 10-stop ND is great for removing moving objects from images.  For example, I have used mine to make it look like there are no cars on a typically busy highway, or removing people from a landmark foreground - like people around the Eiffel Tower.  Sort of in-camera photoshop.  I remember seeing a great photo of the Taj Mahal years ago with absolutely no-one in the image and thought that could never happen, now I think I know how it was done.  But I wouldn't use it for waterfalls.

Definitely meter without the filter and then use Manual or Bulb mode, depending on the corrected exposure time, as shutterwideshut said above.

Probably the most important lesson I have learnt about photographing waterfalls is to do it on an overcast day, not in bright sunlight as you may (probably will) have too many highlights and/or lose shadow details.  Also, with overcast skies, you may not need a ND at all if you use a high f-stop as the time may already be sufficient to cause the water motion blur.

14
you may have long exposure noise reduction turned on. It's just a guess on my part though, I may be wrong

+1.  Go to page 144 of your manual (Camera3 tab if the camera is available) and check your setting.  Effectively, long exposure noise reduction "doubles" your image capture time, and sounds like what you are experiencing. You may have just interrupted the process.
Hope this solves your problem.

15
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: digital camera as light meter
« on: December 12, 2012, 06:22:16 AM »
The main reason I would prefer a camera used just for metering, is I sometimes go against what my in-camera meter says, to get my desired result.
If this way works, it would literally be as easy as replacing camera A, with camera B. And saving a lot of film too. 

Yes, you can use the digital camera as a light meter and I've heard people using it for just that purpose. In fact, a friend uses his 5D2 to meter for his medium format 617 film camera.  It may be a bit more trial and error at first adjusting for the appropriate film characteristics to get the exposure you are looking for.  He was using Velvia 50 & 100, which can be a bit more sensitive.  Also remember the reciprocity failure of film for long exposures, which the digital camera does not allow for.

Also, what is the crop factor for say, a full frame vs mf.   (like 1.6x , is for crop and full frame)
This depends on your camera.  Medium format cameras for film come in many form factors, eg 6x4.5, 6x7, etc.
I found this reference useful a while ago:  www.viewcamera.com/images/focalchart.gif
It gives the corresponding 35mm (or full frame) focal length equivalent for different medium and large format cameras, and you can determine the "crop" factor from that.

Pages: [1] 2 3 4