April 19, 2014, 08:43:28 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 - GmwDarkroom

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5
The question is whether someone has the $12K -- plus the cost of support equipment -- to get the better quality.  Most don't and I don't think that we're talking about some Bower/Vivitar/Pro Optic lens.

However I found this comment interesting and even a good selling point.  A softer image is better than none at all:
With the Tamron 150-600mm, I had complete freedom of movement and could track the owl easily as he flew past me.  The key is that it can be hand-held.

In fact, had I been using the gimbal-mounted Canon 600mm instead of the hand-held Tamron, I’m really not sure that I would have captured that Snowy Owl shot.

Hey fellas, what's going on? Jack Douglas is using the same bird at the size in the thread about the 300mm f/2.8 II with stacked 1.4 and 2xTCs


Jack's photo is at iso 4000, and he complains that he is not impressed with the results. Download Jack's and Don's image and compare. To my eyes, the stacked TCs have given a significantly sharper image. But, the conditions are different. I have uploaded Jack's here (apologies Jack).

The handheld 60D photo looks pretty damned good to me.  By 60D standards, of course.  Pitting the results of a 60D and a 6D is hardly a fair comparison, though.

Based on TDPs image comparison tools -- since I don't have a 6D to compare to my 60D -- I'd say that the results are at least equivocal.  Certainly the 150-600 is more versatile, less cumbersome, and less convoluted than stacked teleconverters and a prime.

Excellent review.

I am definitely putting this lens on my shopping list.  An extra 200mm over the 100-400 is just what I could use for bird photography.

EOS Bodies / Re: The Next DSLR Will Be Entry Level [CR3]
« on: January 17, 2014, 11:02:49 AM »
Seriously, anytime you feel like hauling out the "but Canon sells more!" argument ask yourself if Budweiser really is the best beer in America.
This is not a valid analogy.  If Budweiser were $8-$10 a six pack instead of $8-$10 a case -- or whatever it costs -- the analogy would be valid.  In the case of the Nikon and Canon entry bodies, the pricing is close enough to not matter.  If the D3200 was $800 or more, I'd agree with your statement.  But if Bud were $8 a six pack, nobody would buy it.

Now when Neuro says that Canon is leading because Rebels outsell the D3x, you'll have a valid argument.

Lenses / Re: 6d/100L macro/Kenko 2X TC lockup
« on: December 26, 2013, 04:00:10 PM »
Thanks for your replies. Shutting off AFMA solved the problem, but as my 100L needed a +9 AFMA, not sure the overall solution will be satisfactory...
Back to the original question:

If you're going to be doing macro that close, I'd suggest going to Live View so that the mirror is up when you take the photo.  That kind of vibration can affect the results at that close of a focus distance.  If you use Live View, then the AFMA isn't necessary for accurate focus.

What I don’t get is, why they have to revise the RAW files with every camera model.  It’s my understanding that they’re ‘improving’ the codec, but is that really necessary with every camera model?  What can you improve in the Codec?  You can make the files smaller, and/or compressed faster.  But DNG continue to be slighter smaller than RAW files.  What gives?
From a programming perspective, any given camera's first duty is to quickly and accurately get your RAW file to the cache and then to your storage.  It doesn't matter if your camera has 10fps, if the system can't write the files fast enough so I assume they squash down the files to the absolute minimum bits.  Doing so would mean that even a small change to megapixels or ExIFF data would mean a different file format.

I have a (probably dumb) question. If everytime a new camera comes out and we need a new version of LR to utilize the RAW files, can we convert those files to DNG first and run the DNG file in a previous version of LR?

Is that why the Adobe DNG converter is free?? So you can do that?
Yes, assuming that Adobe doesn't change the format making it incompatible with previous versions.  Given that it's an open standard, I would hope that changes would be extensions not alterations.

Software & Accessories / Re: The Bane of Adobe Creative Cloud
« on: December 10, 2013, 09:29:58 PM »
I don't trust adobe as far as I can throw them.
So out of curiosity, what do you use for image editing?

Software & Accessories / Re: The Bane of Adobe Creative Cloud
« on: December 10, 2013, 06:59:17 PM »
Worse, if you use LR, whenever you open images in Photoshop, it always opens in CC. The worst part is...there seems to be NO WAY to configure LR (either v4.x or v5.x) or other Adobe apps to use the Photoshop version of your choice...your STUCK with CC, unless you uninstall it...and then, you have the hassle of getting CS6 working again. Frustrating, and annoying...Adobe should allow their users to choose which version of Adobe products are used, rather than automatically forcing you to CC.
I do not have CS6, but I have LR4, LR5 (from CC), PS CC, and PSE 10.  I had no problems creating an "Edit in" shortcut in both versions of LR to open a file in PSE instead of PS CC.  Not that I have any real use for PSE anymore, but as an experiment it worked fine.

It is true, however, that installing CC took over the default "Photoshop" source for LR.  Not sure if a re-install of CS6 would take it over or if there's a registry setting.

Software & Accessories / Re: PC Monitor for photo editing
« on: December 10, 2013, 11:26:16 AM »
Again, the Asus has the same IPS panel, with very likely a better matte finish to its screen than the Dell, and it costs just over half with the Dell costs.  It's also pre-calibrated, for what that's worth.  I had to calibrate my own by eye...
The Dell U2412 and the Asus PA248Q use the same panel.  The Dell U2413 and the Asus PA249Q use the same panel.  The latter two are more or less within 10% of each other in cost.

I believe that if one a person is taking more than 300 photos on a vacation while walking around is being trigger happy.
Does one really see 300 great images during a single day???? Really!
300 great images?  Probably not.  However depending on your subject matter, you may need to take that many to get the quantity of keepers you want.  Easily, if the subject isn't static.  If I were doing street or nature photography on vacation, I could easily -- and have -- find places I'd take far more than that in a day.
Such a person would need to carry 8+ rolls of 36 exp film in the old days. Wow!
Indeed.  I shot much differently in those days.  I carefully waited for what I thought was the perfect shot.  I held back in anticipation.  I lost many shots I wish I'd gotten, too.  I'd say the fact that we don't need a raft of film rolls anymore is one of the greatest freedoms to photography we could ever wish for.
I think the A7's are superb for the discerning photographer who wants to travel light.
I completely agree, but it has weaknesses.  Battery life being one of them.  Worse so if your vacation doesn't return you to a power socket every night.

For me, it's an interesting step away from traditional mirror SLR technology which has much promise.  Combined with Canon glass and better performance, it'll be phenomenal.  Just like the first DSLRs.

Dell Ultrasharp U2413 is in the $500 range and has a 99% color gamut.  Other Ultrasharp monitors aren't quite as good at 82%.  I have two U2410 -- older model -- and am quite happy with them.  They definitely need color calibration to fix the default blue-green cast, though.

I use a Spyder 4 Elite on mine, but from what I've read X-Rite and Datacolor both do a good job.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: How to spend $3000 now or keep saving?
« on: December 04, 2013, 09:19:14 AM »
I can't think of one thing that is better if you get a Canon sensor.
The available glass selection?  The AF system?  All the DR and megapixels in the world don't mean a thing if the light is out of focus and distorted.

People kill me with that. Their ability to leave is irrelevant???
Theres many of photographers in this world who can make a career. Stop going to the one looking for sex. You walk by a dog that is biting everyone, you expect to get bitten. Sounds like a bunch of nonsense. FOOLISHNESS! They need to stop whining and take their "talents" elsewhere.
Yes, irrelevant.  What you can't seem to grasp is the concept of "perception" and the implication that a career could be affected.  And a career could be changed if the big-time photographer bad mouths the model or if the booking agency penalizes or dumps the model because she booked, but then bailed.  It may even be in her contract that she can't bail without penalty.

And, as I've mentioned before, the perception and interpretation is based on the victim's perception -- at least in the United States.

This is the last thing I'll say about it.
If someone offered a young lady 1,000 to sleep with them, and that young lady(who has the ability to turn down the offer) accepts it, do you call her a victim? No, many people would instead, call her a prostitute.
She used sex as a means of getting something she wanted. She wasn't FORCED, she simply accepted the offer.
And if the model was given the fact that this guy might want sexual favors up front or the agency indicated that it is part of the deal, then I'd agree with this analogy.  The difference is that the prostitute is aware of the nature of the relationship and expectations.  However, even in that case, the pimp -- or "agency" -- might feel differently about her ability to walk.

I don't blame him. I blame the womens love of fame.
I have heard many of stories of him using his name to have sex with women(but how many famous people don't???)
I have NEVER heard of him FORCING himself on someone.

Terry - "Yes I'll shoot you, but can we sleep together"
Model - "Yes, why not, if it'll get me the in front of your camera"

I don't see what the problem is, if she chose to sleep with him based on his name in the business, she's just as bad as he is. They are BOTH the cause of the problem, I don't see either being a victim. Fair exchange is no robbery.

Do you think the ceo who hires the sexy blonde receptionist because she wears revealing outfits to work a sleaze as well???

One thing I DONT understand is why everyone supports his work when it isn't good in my opinion.
My iphone with flash can create the same photos without me even looking. simply point and click
If there was no coercion, then yes the situation is "merely" unprofessional and inappropriate.  The perception of coercion on the part of the recipient is all that matters.

However a person in a position of power to affect the career of another insinuating or outright stating that sex will further their career or the refusal will damage the career IS sexual harassment and coercion.  The ability or inability of the victim to leave the situation is IRRELEVANT to the offense.  The alleged activities in the article suggest that young models felt trapped by his advances because of the potential for career damage.

Lots of careers deal with people who can make or break those who work for them.  The fact that someone can walk away doesn't mean the decision can't affect a career and doesn't make the situation not illegal.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5