Messages

1

Animal Kingdom / Re: Wrong Photography Ethics?

« on: May 21, 2013, 06:05:37 PM »

In essance this is a pointless debate. Times are changing and whatever any one feels Photoshop is here to stay, adjustment is here to stay and whatever people such as me think, its a fact and wont go away.

Therefore the debate is a differant one, whos the better photographer, the one who captures the image in camera or the one who doesnt with the end point being more important." I can do what the photoshoppers can do, but can they do what I do?" I dont mean me but i hope you know what I mean. Its a general point.

A comment made on here alluded to the idea that those who ant that good with computer software are only a bit jealous as they arnt that good with the computer. Maybe they may not be good with a computer but are you any good with a camera? If you are such a great photographer, why do you need to spend days on your image? Is it really that bad, are you really so poor you need to spend so long adjusting it? Or is the new world of photography one where the end is more important than the original image do the dinosaurs need to wake up and smell the coffee and realise its a whole new world out there?

Its a debate with no answer. Technology has changed and computer adjustments are here to stay. I may not like the fact someone cant take a decent picture and needs a computer to to do a decent image, but i have a nice warm feeling that im a photographer but also realise im a worse graphic artist.

2

Reviews / Re: Review - Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II

« on: May 15, 2013, 06:16:29 PM »

I have Canons top zoom, new 500 and the 300. Im no pixel peeper and if it needs to be said Ill say it. If its good, ill say its good, if its bad ill say its bad. I rate Canons top primes at 9.9/10. The new ones are damm near perfect. I have Canons top zooms which I rate at 9.9/10 (for a zoom and damm close to a prime). I rate the new 300 10/10. Lazer fast autofocus, less weight, 4 stop IS that works, etc etc all good. But for some reason and I dont know why, every time I take the 300 out, the pics I get back have an x factor I have never seen in another lens. I love Canons new lens's but the 300 is king.

3

Lenses / Re: EF 200-400 f/4L IS 1.4x Announcement Tonight

« on: May 14, 2013, 01:37:18 PM »

Fantastic lens but the cost is a lot. USA £7800, UK£ 12000. Over a third more expensive. Ouch!

4

Animal Kingdom / Re: Wrong Photography Ethics?

« on: May 11, 2013, 06:05:32 PM »

If you feel your photography is exceptional and you are a top photographer, try sending your images to Nat Geo.

They only have one rule. You must send them the RAW image aswell. If its tweeked, its in the bin.

Dont believe me? Then give it a try.

5

Animal Kingdom / Re: Wrong Photography Ethics?

« on: May 10, 2013, 06:54:12 PM »

My view is quite a simple one. If you look at National Geographic magazine you will see photographs beyond what we see on here. Yet,they were all taken in camera. If such can be taken in camera, why do you need a computer to make your images look better when they dont?

6

Lenses / Re: Poll: Most Wanted New Lenses of 2013.

« on: May 06, 2013, 06:04:24 PM »

100-400 all day but I just wonder if it will ever see the light of day considering Canon have the excellent 70-300 IS L. A bit to close to bother bringing out the 100-400? I hope not.

7

Street & City / Re: Question about long exposure and filters

« on: May 05, 2013, 06:20:46 PM »

A daylight shot with Lees big stopper.

8

Lenses / Re: EF 100-400 Replacement in 2013? [CR2]

« on: April 30, 2013, 01:38:37 PM »

Thanks for the advice everyone.Fantastic idea to rent one. Never thought of that. Actually, think I know someone who has one. I was pretty impressed by the comparisons in the digital picture, for what i want, seems to be a good lens. Holding its value used aswell.

9

Lenses / Re: EF 100-400 Replacement in 2013? [CR2]

« on: April 30, 2013, 02:58:48 AM »

On a slightly different tack, I was wondering what the old lens is like? I need a zoom of this range for animals and sport moving toward and away and I've missed a few shots with the 300 prime. The prices seem ok, used top quality ones are a decent price. Best buy one before the price changes. New one will be a bit sharper, better I.s and lighter but way more expensive and for what I need the old one seems good enough. So is it any good? If not any alternative zoom? It's the wide range and a zoom I need.

10

Sports / Re: Cycling

« on: April 28, 2013, 05:27:57 PM »

Thanks guys. The event took place in the most beautifull area imaginable for cycling, the wild moors of County Durham in northern England. It was once a place where a lot on lead mining took place hundreds of years ago but as the mines closed the area got to grow wild and is now the biggest Grouse moors in Europe. Its wild and desolate but now looks totally like nature intended. Its hilly and the cyclists have to work damm hard. Its a route that goes round the second biggest man made resevoir in the UK Derwent Resevoir. #
http://www.britishcycling.org.uk/road/article/roa20130427-Road--Opie-draws-first-blood-in-Reservoir-0

11

Software & Accessories / Re: How long does one wait for the Lee Big Stopper

« on: April 28, 2013, 05:16:24 PM »

Ive got one and can testify how good they are. Only problem I have is they put a cool blue cast on the pics. Otherwise, the best filters around. Good luck with the big stopper, youll love them but getting the timing right is a bit hit or miss.

12

Software & Accessories / Re: Screen calibration frustration!

« on: April 28, 2013, 05:13:45 PM »

I calibrated my wifes Asus with my Colormunki and it was crap. Did the same with my PC and its brilliant. Profiled the paper and printer and what I see is what I get. I really rate the Colormunki. Its so easy to use and gives excellent results. I was talking to a supplier of a top paper brand and he said todays screens are designed for gamers and are always to bright to contrasty. I bought a $400 LG HD monitor, got it calibrated and its excellent. But boy does it change over the course of a week.

That said my mates got the same set up as Neuro on here and hes never had a problem.

13

Sports / Cycling

« on: April 28, 2013, 03:24:24 PM »

Never done any cycling shots so had a look to a local event. Got a spot pretty much on my own. Popped the 1D4 in my paws, 24-105 some Lee filters 2stop hard grad, a tweek of the focusing and just over a second burst hand held. Amazingly, it worked. Did a few others to. Wanted a few slow shutter shots but had to go home due to work.

14

Reviews / Re: Can we have a 16-35 2.8L II review next please?

« on: April 24, 2013, 06:33:47 PM »

All I can tell you about mine is this. Ive dropped it three times onto rocks. Its been covered in sand, sea and rain. It works perfectly. Is it the worlds sharpest lens?  Center wide open its excellent, stop it down and its pretty good across the frame, good enough I cant see any problems on my A3 prints. Its not a 500 f4 but its never going to be. For a wide angle its very good. It has its distortion problems but again its a wide angle and a quick tweek in lightroom and its gone. I managed to use a 14mm prime to take some shots at the same time as my 16-35. Both pics look exactly the same. Ok ones a little wider. Tones and colours pretty much identical. Sharpness? Well I couldnt tell any differance until I zoomed way in and the prime had it, just. But a little post sharpening and theres not much differance. Again I had to zoom way in. Can the human eye detect the differance at the sizes I print is doubtfull. Perhaps edge sharpness was just a bit less than the prime at f16-f22 but its very small on my prints. If I did print bigger stuff then Id buy the prime otherwise I love the 16-35, does what it says on the tin and does it pretty well.

15

Animal Kingdom / Re: Show your Bird Portraits

« on: April 21, 2013, 06:11:56 PM »

A few more from a recent trip.