December 25, 2014, 01:29:18 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 - Aglet

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 73
Post Processing / Re: DNG vs. original RAW in the long term
« on: December 22, 2014, 10:27:33 PM »
hard drives are cheap; 6TB for <$200
I store everything in native raw formats + some editing intermediaries for things I want to re-process.
If I like the finished results, then a low-compression jpg at full rez will do just fine for archiving the finished image.  I save the sidecar with the raw and toss the intermediaries.
DNG probably loses too much OEM-specific meta data and I don't like that it's develop data is embedded; it's convenient, but risks corruption.
I don't trust optical media for long term, I keep migrating everything to newer HD tech as it comes along, fortunately, that's not very often.  last big move was from SCSI and IDE drives to SATA.

for long term, I also archive some software AND the machines required to run it.  Been doing that since the Mac Plus, and still have one that runs.

this is interesting, not sure where I'd make use of it altho it would make storage of my processed, finished files a bit smaller, perhaps.

some story at

Canon General / Re: Sensor life
« on: December 15, 2014, 12:13:31 AM »
I've heard that (older) outdoor security cameras can suffer from fading color response, likely due to the CFA aging/fading.  not likely to be an issue with DSLRs and even mirrorless types are likely to be lost or otherwise broken down before suffering from CFA fading.

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: FYI: D750 light leak issues
« on: December 14, 2014, 01:36:36 PM »
I don't have that body to play with but it looks like, if you got it in just the right position, it would also affect stills.
Looks like an internal reflection within the mirrobox.

Lenses / Re: Are macro lenses essential for jewelry shooting?
« on: December 09, 2014, 09:31:45 PM »
A close focus lens such as the 500D for a long lens or extension tubes for a short zoom will do well.

If you have a very good point n shoot or higher, try it. Some of them have a ridiculously short minimum focus distance.

I have an old SX130 IS that can focus from under 3" and with the right lighting takes fantastic jewelry pictures.

Lighting is key on the lesser cameras... less than ideal lighting reduces image quality quicker on lower end cameras...

the 500D is an excellent add-on to a longer lens and I've managed excellent images using it on a variety of host lenses.  It'd probably work well on the 55-200/250 mm kit lens which is handy for typical uses as well.
And I often use a G11/12 for close-up work.  Good light and base ISO on some of these compacts can give you decent results too and the smaller sensor provides greater DoF quite readily.

Technical Support / Re: What kind of photo printer do you use?
« on: December 09, 2014, 09:20:31 PM »
If you want a book done, send it out, less hassle.

If you want to print at home, and it sounds like you do, then be prepared for the cost and fun.

I'm considering a Pro100 for the wide dye color gamut but the ink cart's are way too small to be viable.

Otherwise, I've had great success with my Epson r3000.  It can sit for MONTHS without a head clog. Output is very good except for some expected gloss differential in very high key areas on non-matte papers.

I've recently acquired a shiny new Epson 9900.  Fabulous machine!  no problems so far except for ONE head that will regularly fail nozzle checks.  It's got nothing to do with humidity, the other 9 heads work perfectly and can sit for days without problems at 30% RH.  the LK head will fail the nozzle pattern within hours of of a major run.
I think the problem is with the valving system.  Since the ink cart's are considerably below the head, if there's a slight leak in any of the valves then the ink could flow back from the head to the cart just from gravity.  This seems to be what's affecting my machine but I'm loath to let some service guy come in and start messing with the whole thing to fix one minor problem.  This head gets back to work with one quick clean cycle on that head and the output is impressive and the speed is quite adequate.
This is the machine that finally allows me to make more money selling my images as I no longer have to farm out the printing work.  BUT, it's big, expensive and does need fairly regular attention. Kind of like a pet, it's happier if you can afford to keep it fed and exercised.

Third Party Manufacturers / try a different raw converter
« on: December 07, 2014, 11:43:00 PM »
I've downloaded the new beta 3 of Irridient Developer to try on my older Fuji files and found the new v3 demosaic also to be quite competent; I'm seeing increased detail and accuity from old XE1 files that rival what I get from my XT1.
You might want to compare what it does to deBayer vs DxO, C1 and ACR modules.

mac only tho, I think

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Samsung NX-1 Review - by The Camera Store
« on: December 01, 2014, 02:40:27 AM »
have a look at TCS review video:

I won't spoil it for you. ;)
wait... did I hear them compare its low light IQ to FF?..

That does sound odd. Maybe, as you say, you received a defective one. I've been shooting BIF's with the 100-400 no problem. Not in low light though. That may have been a factor.
Not sure but the lag I experienced was not unique to my experience alone.
Light level was decent enough that the ML bodies with slow long glass could outperform it handily.  i was more impressed with my EM10 than disappointed with the 7d2 in the conditions I was testing.

I wanted to use the rig for BiF and similar types of shooting, where the 7d2 should really excel.  I might try another 7d2 in the summer; hopefully they'll have attended to any early production glitches by then. I really liked the 7d-series handling and controls.  Until then, I'll use my 60d with the 100-400 and my Oly with the 75-300mm when I'm packing light.

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Samsung NX-1 Review
« on: November 27, 2014, 01:17:10 AM »
The tricky part is not making the mirror go up and down ten times a second, it's all of the things that have to happen between each frame while the mirror is locked down for a thin fraction of a second. Focus tracking, evaluative metering,  iTR face recognition and vibration damping and a whole host of other things which are still done off of the mirror. In addition the mirror has to be down long enough to allow the photographer to continue viewing the subject and compose the frame during fast paced action while all of this is happening. Then the mirror has to  get out of the way of the shutter but without causing any image degrading vibration.

If you had any appreciation for the engineering feat this represents I doubt if you'd still go around calling them mirror-slappers. But maybe you would, who knows.

don't forget, when you get that flapping mirror out of the way, that makes more time available for actual imaging to happen, and AF.
Have another look at Nikon's 1v3 mirrorless and tell me that kind of performance is not useful for action or wildlife! :)  Ya, small sensor, needs decent light, but similar functionality with larger sensors is what the mirrorless machines will allow.  Mechanical shutters will only slew at limited speeds so smaller sensors = higher fps. Fully electronic shutter effect can be implemented at blazingly fast speeds, uhmmm, that's video.

So, as much as us tech junkies may appreciate the impressive mechatronic ballet that goes on in a DSLR, getting that mirror of there opens up a lot of new possibilities and the economics of silicon vs hardware will likely show up as a performance-to-cost ratio lead for mirrorless, if they're not already there.

My 7D2 has zero focus lag with the 100-400L or any other lens I've tried it with. Yours, or your lens, may have had problems. I assume I'm using the same firmware. The 100-400L is not known for being a particularly fast focusing.
I expected it to be, at least, no worse than my 40D or 60D with that lens.  That was not the case.
7d2 I had exhibited a definite and significant pause before driving the lens to focus and it hunted, and missed, far more than the 2 older bodies.  7d2 AF was very zippy with a few shorter zooms and lenses but that's not what I needed it for.
I only mentioned it in this thread because my Olympus EM10, a consumer-grade, CDAF-only mirrorless, with a 75-300mm lens that's even slower aperture than the 100-400mm L, would confirm AF on the same target, in the same low light, before the 7d2 even started to drive the 100-400mm.
I think the 7d2 will perform very well for AF, but there seems to be some buggy ones out there (There's a thread on that topic here somewhere.) and I'm not about to hold onto another buggy camera, waiting for a fix. 

All I can say is...WOW. I'm hooked on the NX1!! :P I think it may be my new high speed birding camera some time next year, assuming the lenses pan out. I think I'd get this before I got an A7r I am well and truly impressed.

I also find Samsung's entry into higher end ML to be quite interesting and might consider one myself, especially if there's a nice post-intro price drop next year.

Did you read the link in the post I made a while back?

it mentioned a bit about the hardware tech inside the camera, an aspect of which I think that you, given your vocation, might find extra appealing. :)

I returned my 7D2, mine had some serious initial AF lag issues which may well be improved in a firmware update but for now, ALL of my ML bodies and comparably long lenses can AF faster than the 7D2 I tried with its initial firmware. EDIT:  that's with the long lens I tested it with, the venerable, original, 100-400mm L.

I'm about to go the same route, I'm picking up a Pentax K-5 iis next week, my first film camera was a Ricoh. S

A friend of mine who is my photography mentor has a K-5 and he loves it. The K-5II is even better.   He almost talked me into getting a K-3 and I am not sure I made the right decision in not getting it.

I haven't bought the K3 (yet), but it looks to be a better performer for AWB and metering than previous Pentax bodies.
I use K52s, K30, K10 and I find the metering is often quite different from every other mfr body I use, and often in a way I find inconsistent and less predictable to compensate.  So I waste a lot more time chimping my histograms with Pentax than with other brands. Even then, and even when using full manual, I find I often need to tweak a bit in post.
When nailed, the IQ is excellent, so I've generally only used them for non-action work where I can re-shoot as needed.
Pentax lenses are another odd thing compared to others; their test results are usually not very impressive but the resulting images are generally pleasing. 
Pentax users are often quite avid about their equipment and I can often see why from the results I've obtained with my gear. (Tho I'm wondering about the results I'd get using a Sony A72 with K-mount adapter instead)

Photography Technique / Re: uneven polarization
« on: November 24, 2014, 12:24:19 AM »
I find I can achieve a similar enough effect, with more consistency and less color-shift, in post.
I only use a polarizing filter when I need to kill specific reflection issues but even then, things can be done in post.
It's my least-used filter.

Photography Technique / Re: how NOT to use studio lighting
« on: November 24, 2014, 12:20:18 AM »
I think the guy is just too lazy to get the flash off his camera, set up properly, or fix anything in post.

shot #17 from this batch

... is just a lesson on how to make an unattractive shot of an attractive model. The rest of the set is sub-par too.
The few other 'togs who do these shoots do a FAR better job of lighting than this ego-maniac.

IMO, JACK BOLAND, your lighting technique blows chunks.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 73