August 29, 2014, 06:31:53 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 -

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 98
Photography Technique / Re: Cropping
« on: August 27, 2014, 12:09:07 PM »
Excellent discussion.

I don't think I've ever seen it talked about here, and I think lots of folks will find it very helpful.

EOS Bodies / Re: Are you planning to purchase a 7D2
« on: August 27, 2014, 11:52:48 AM »
I'm pretty certain I'll never buy another DSLR.

After a few months with the Fuji X100S I'm convinced the steamroller of miniaturization will crush the DSLR. Like it or not, a mirrorless camera is in your future.

My prediction is Summer Olympics 2020 -- mirrorless cameras will dominate and the stonemason will be working  on a DSLR tombstone.

Meanwhile, I'll continue blissfully happy with my 5D3 and ride it to the final curtain.

I have had two... the same one actually, but I think I lost the first one... the reason I think I lost the first one is because my house is a Mess with a capital M.  It very well could just be hiding under that pile of dead cats.  :/

Maybe I'm doing it wrong, but I don't kill the cats after taking their pictures.

PowerShot / Re: New Large Sensor PowerShot Rumor [CR2]
« on: August 23, 2014, 02:01:48 PM »
It's only "crow" if you actually believed what he was saying.

These people lie -- all the time and for many different reasons. I'll bet Sony didn't believe what he was saying!

If this is true, I wonder how Canon executives find the taste of crow:

"...he ruled out the idea of a larger sensor camera along the lines of the Sony RX100 to offer more of an image quality distinction between smartphones and compact cameras. 'I think the market does exist but it wouldn't be very large. We think we have a good balancing point in terms of price, image quality and size. Lots of other combinations are possible, but, once you go below APS-C the next logical size is 1/2.3 inch', he says."

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Canon mirrorless: Status?
« on: August 20, 2014, 03:22:52 PM »
Canon is doing a classic rope-a-dope. The champ lets the challenger wear himself out, then he throws a knockout punch.

The steamroller of miniaturization will prevail, and mirrorless will be the near-term future.

My prediction is the current DSLR dies with the 2020 Olympics. Mirrorless will be the dominant camera technology at that event. After that, game over.

Portrait / Re: People at work
« on: August 20, 2014, 12:02:27 PM »
Serious question:  Have you had any bad experiences taking pictures of people working?  I imagine that some workers might object.

A presumption of "bad experience"? That speaks volumes. My easy answer is that if you're afraid of people or don't get along easily, don't take pictures of people. Get a good macro and live among the flowers.

With all the snappers around, this world is growing more photo resistant by the day. I'm going to do a separate post about that with a photo from last weekend. Anyway, working people, at least in this country in my experience are so badly treated and regarded, they generally fear what pictures will probably mean. They presume it can't be good. Is it someone who's going to call their company and complain? Has the boss sent someone out to document what they're doing, or not doing? Is it union related -- for or against? Is it OSHA or some other meddling government agency threatening their job? Is it a reporter putting their picture in the paper or on the Internet? Did a lawyer send them out related to some court case? They've got enough to worry about already and mostly just want to do their work and go home and have a beer. So, naturally, they're going to be curious. It's only going to be trouble if you as a photographer make trouble.

I always start shooting unannounced. Eventually someone in the work group will approach me, and I'm glad to talk. I want to alleviate any fear and put them at ease. That's why I always carry my "Who the hell are you?" card -- what people in the commercial world call a "business card." Like arjay, I offer to send them pictures, and my photo site is listed on the card so they can go look at the pictures if they like. That keeps things calm, and they can work and I can take pictures. In some instances you get to meet really interesting people.

There was a guy working on high-voltage power lines nearby. His home was several states from here, and he was working 12-hour days, six days a week. He was living here in an RV, and he owned a plane he used to take himself home on his day off. A railroad runs past my home, and I always go out to take pictures of the train going by. My main interest is the boxcar graffiti. After a year or so, the guys running the train stopped one day, got out of the train and asked why I was always taking pictures. They were really nice guys, just curious. When I told them it was for the graffiti, they said, "Oh, we'll have to find you some better boxes."

Here's a bus driver. He asked me to take his picture as I was getting on the bus. One of my first with the Sigma 35 Art [f/2.8, 1/125 @ ISO 100 on 5D3] in April 2012.

Portrait / Re: People at work
« on: August 19, 2014, 12:01:33 PM »
American Diner

I sure miss seeing your work, Bob!!

Portrait / Re: People at work
« on: August 18, 2014, 08:38:26 PM »
I've got a whole gallery devoted to this. Here's one:

Post Processing / Re: Smart objects
« on: August 18, 2014, 12:52:03 PM »
Tim Grey answered this question in his "Ask Tim Grey" newsletter today. He told me it was okay to post his answer here in its entirety. From:

Today's Question

Could you explain on a more technical level exactly what a Smart Object is and how it differs from a "dumb" object? This question is raised because of your remark about "de-smarting" by using Layer > Rasterize > Smart Object. So I guess it's not rasterized. But what does that mean?

Tim's Answer:

A Smart Object provides a way to reference a source image to provide a non-destructive workflow approach for various tasks within Photoshop. In most typical workflows you would have the Smart Object embedded within your master Photoshop PSD file, for example, but Photoshop also now supports linked Smart Objects, where the source image for that object is not embedded within the master image.

This differs from simple pixel values in that it is possible to return to the Smart Object and apply non-destructive changes to your original adjustments. In other words, when you're using a Smart Object you're getting benefits that are similar to the workflow benefits of using adjustment layers rather than applying adjustments directly to pixel values in your images.

However, it is important to understand the workflow ramifications of using Smart Objects, which includes both benefits and potential pitfalls. Let's address the benefits first.

Because a Smart Object is essentially a "container" for image data, Photoshop is able to perform tasks in a non-destructive way that simply references the source data in that Smart Object. Let's consider a few examples.

If the Smart Object you're using is a RAW capture, the original capture data for that RAW capture will be embedded within the document you're working with in Photoshop, but adjustments via Adobe Camera Raw do not actually affect the original RAW capture data. As a result, if you open a RAW capture as a Smart Object, you can double-click on that Smart Object at any time to return to Adobe Camera Raw and refine the adjustments you originally applied.

If you are using a Smart Object to apply Smart Filters, you'll see the same effect you would otherwise achieve by applying one or more filters, but you can return to the filter settings later and refine those settings. In other words, you are effectively applying a filter effect in a non-destructive way, as though that effect were being applied using an adjustment layer.

You can also use Smart Objects for more complex scenarios, such as when creating a composite image. By embedded another image into a document as a Smart Object, you can, for example, resize that image as many times as you want within the composite without having a cumulative negative impact on image quality, because each time the Smart Object is referencing the original image data, not modified data.

Of course, as I've mentioned in the past when addressing Smart Objects, they aren't without their pitfalls. Most significantly, using Smart Objects can create problems in the context of a layer-based workflow. For example, let's assume you open a RAW capture as a Smart Object, then perform some image cleanup work on a separate layer using the Spot Healing Brush tool. Later you decide you want to change the appearance of the image, so you double-click the Smart Object to bring up Adobe Camera Raw, and apply changes to the photo. However, you are only affecting the Smart Object, not the layer with your image cleanup work, so the pixels on your image cleanup layer no longer match the underlying photo. It is this sort of issue that causes me to not use Smart Objects for most tasks, despite the potentially significant benefits offered by Smart Objects.

As for rasterizing, that refers to the process of converting an image to actual pixel values. So, for example, in the case of a Smart Object, rasterizing means converting the embedded image data and all of the saved adjustments related to that data, and process all of the information into actual pixel values. You end up with a smaller file (in most cases) but without the benefits of the Smart Object.

Photography Technique / Re: APOLLO missions - image inconsistencies
« on: August 17, 2014, 08:58:01 PM »

I'm retired, and I don't have four hours to sit around watching this kind of stuff. And frankly, I don't really care. The reality is, human beings are incapable of keeping a subterfuge of that magnitude a secret.

Canon General / Re: Gear Realities
« on: August 15, 2014, 11:34:39 AM »
Makes me think of Michael Corleone in Godfather 2:

"If anything in this life is certain, if history has taught us anything, it is that you can kill anyone."

EOS Bodies / Re: Plan B
« on: August 14, 2014, 03:57:15 PM »
My "plan b" was the purchase of a 5D3 in December 2012. No regrets, especially since I'm slowly moving over to the mirrorless world now.

Lighting / Re: speedlite 270ex - broken?
« on: August 13, 2014, 09:56:39 PM »
Looks like your 270 is kaput!

Lighting / Re: speedlite 270ex - broken?
« on: August 13, 2014, 01:29:16 PM »
I don't see evidence of flash in any of them. Does your EXIF say the flash fired?

EOS Bodies / Re: How do reds come out in your 5d3 ?
« on: August 13, 2014, 01:21:15 PM »
I don't have a solution, but I do know the problem well.

1. I simply spend a lot of time in post tweaking things until they're acceptable, if I can get them there. Frankly, at this point I'm leery of red flowers. Thanks, McG, that's a great tip about watching the red in histogram and going against the grain, so to speak.

2. I don't think the OP could have picked a worse lens -- in my experience the 85 1.2 LII is as bad as it gets. (It's a spectacular lens for what it does best, but it's the worst with this red issue.)

3. You could try a Fuji sensor. Working with the colors I get from my X100S has been a pleasure I seldom find with the 5D3. (And I shoot only RAW all the time.)

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 98