Messages

1

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 70D Coming in July? [CR2]

« on: May 21, 2013, 05:02:22 PM »

Has anyone done any testing on the SL1 sensor to give an idea of what might be in store for the 70D? It seems odd that you can buy one at B&H but no one has done an in-depth review.

According to this comparison, SL1 IQ doesn't seem exciting at all, which I expect to be the IQ of 70D. 
If Canon is listening, who cares if iso is expandable to a gazillion, I just want super-clean at iso 3200.  Really.

Canon SL1 / 100D Rebel Hands-On Review | with Canon 7D & Nikon D7100 low light comparison

Here at Canon we are listening to our Customers.  We have created such a camera!  It's called to 5d mark 3 and the 1Dx.  Thanks for choosing Canon!

2

Animal Kingdom / Re: Wrong Photography Ethics?

« on: May 21, 2013, 02:25:20 PM »

yawn... this thread is boring... I swear... worrying about altering an image?  For the love of god, anyone who thinks national geographic doesn't alter their images, anyone who doesn't think photographs in some way shape or form was altered at print competitions and fairs, anyone who things a simple head shot hasn't been smoothed, blemishes cloned out, filters applied, double chin and loose skin warped and removed... You are just fooling yourself...  I can almost guarantee you that the only images that haven't been manipulated in some way are those who have no access to photoshop, but then it can be argued even posing someone can be "altering" a natural photograph... get over it, it's not worth 12 pages on canon rumors discussing the "ETHICS"... my lord.... (then again i'd rather talk about this than some pixel peeping nerd debating the file quality of a 7d or 5d or such...)

Disagree, I think both pixel peeping and photo ethics are perfectly valid subjects to discuss on a photography forum, even a rumors forum (since there are sections meant to discuss things other than rumors).  12 pages is nothing on here, some of the threads go to what, 30 or more pages?

I do agree that worrying about whether an image has been altered or not, can be more of a trivial waste of time, in this day and age. 

However, I also agree with Don Haines, because pictures with an intent to deceive, could very likely be done by some of the same sort of people who would use the IRS to gain political power, or perhaps even to begin "cleansing" a certain group of people...and I don't mean with soap!  "The end justifies the means..."

Pictures with the intent to deceive...  Golly... then any photograph with green screen, any movie with CGI or green screen or stunt actors or.....  It's not like we are forensic photographers trying to cover our butts from defense attorneys who may blow up your photo in court and try to discredit your photos...  with the rare exception of scientific photography, photography is an art form, it is what you want the viewer to look at, i just think this is a topic that has beaten to death... just let it be. 

3

Animal Kingdom / Re: Wrong Photography Ethics?

« on: May 21, 2013, 10:07:51 AM »

yawn... this thread is boring... I swear... worrying about altering an image?  For the love of god, anyone who thinks national geographic doesn't alter their images, anyone who doesn't think photographs in some way shape or form was altered at print competitions and fairs, anyone who things a simple head shot hasn't been smoothed, blemishes cloned out, filters applied, double chin and loose skin warped and removed... You are just fooling yourself...  I can almost guarantee you that the only images that haven't been manipulated in some way are those who have no access to photoshop, but then it can be argued even posing someone can be "altering" a natural photograph... get over it, it's not worth 12 pages on canon rumors discussing the "ETHICS"... my lord.... (then again i'd rather talk about this than some pixel peeping nerd debating the file quality of a 7d or 5d or such...)

4

Lenses / Re: Best Lenses for Canon EOS 5D Mark III according to DxO

« on: May 17, 2013, 10:25:35 AM »

That was fun potty reading... I'm surprised they ranked the 135L near the bottom...  and the 100mm 2.0 so freaking high...  oh well.. 

5

Lenses / Re: Who has pre-ordered or will order 200-400

« on: May 15, 2013, 02:17:24 PM »

Where's the option "i want one but by doing so my wife would kill me, hire a hit man, or divorce me" option?

6

EOS Bodies / Re: 5D Mark III with Continuous RAW Video Recording

« on: May 14, 2013, 10:15:44 AM »

I shoot mostly stills so I don't really care either way. It's a nice hack I will neve use.

In the words of Sal Cincotta, innovate or die.  About time you start to innovate starting with video.  =)

7

Animal Kingdom / Re: Wrong Photography Ethics?

« on: May 10, 2013, 04:15:56 PM »

It's when you start adding elements not in the original capture, It's no longer photography.

I could not agree more, adding to the image changes it to photographic art; however, subtracting (the corner of a building, a flying bird, contrails, et cetera) is perfectly acceptable.  Obviously anything you can do it a wet darkroom, you can 'legally' do the same in photoshop.

So I can take a nice portrait shot and delete the everything but the eyes, it's okay?  Or do I have to run that by the edit police to determine what is deletable and what isn't?

BTW, by deleting ANYTHING you are adding as well--you are adding space or order or isolation, etc.  Like the construction crane behind the building example--that's not reflecting reality, it's portraying an enhanced reality that is meets the photographer's tastes. 

 Even just enhancing contrast is a change to reality, yet so many of you are saying "deviations from reality that meet my arbitrary criteria are okay, but everything else is taboo."  That's a bit egotistical, don't ya think?   

Good lord... photography is an art form... altered or non altered, it's an art form... In the film days did you not think they spliced film?  overlapped film?  Added density filters, dodge, burn, enhance, multiple exposure... I would hate to hear someone say ansel adams work wasn't photography because of all the manipulation he did in the darkroom... It is what it is... No one is going to look at a print ANY LESS if it was heavily manipulated vs OOC.  Then you have photographers like Sal Cincotta and Dave Cross shoot some pictures just for post production if needed.  I doubt any of their clients who are spending thousands for his services think his work isn't art/photography. 

8

Canon General / Re: Photographer for Apple uses 5DIII + 24-70mm (Peter Belanger)

« on: May 09, 2013, 10:23:04 AM »

I'm even more surprised he's not using a macro lens for some of the products like the iPhone and smaller like the iPod shuffle.

He's using Large format cameras for studio shots, canon 5d3 for handhold... In the article he shoots in studio a Sinar View camera with a phase 1 digital back... 5d3 is his regular go to camera for everything handheld.  View cameras extend the bellows you voila, a macro lens

9

Software & Accessories / Re: Adobe to Stop Making Packaged Software

« on: May 08, 2013, 12:25:46 PM »

So, if I read your quoted part correctly...

I could join CC paid....download the archived version (current version?) of CS6, which would run stand alone, not requiring CC account, and then quit and still have CS6 which would run indefinitely?

If so, that sounds like a bit of a bargain...?

cayenne

Nope... with your account, they issue a license code, much like any current adobe product... you cancel your account, the code is canceled, and any further access is canceled without that code being active... so otherwise it wont work beyond that point.

But wait, current CS6 doesn't phone home, right?
I was assuming that the 'archived' old versions they spoke about, would be stand alone CS6...
So, it sounds to me like you subscribe for a year, you can get the CC for a year, BUT you can also download CS6 (maybe the Production suite?), and have that as a stand alone download.

So, you have that, complete your year CC, and still have CS6 standalone you downloaded, which doesn't phone home...that you can use to your hearts desire?

Of course, they haven't said which legacy apps they'll have for this, but it sounds to me like you can get the old non-phone home versions of things you can download and use, they'll be unsupported, but if you got the CS6 Suite for the year of CC price, at the end of the year, you could quite and end up with CS6 suite for less than what it costs now?

cayenne

It depends... At my home computer I have CS5 stand alone... at my work office I have CS6, but that is through the CC... That is controlled through the adobe device manager... the device manager does the phone home stuff...  So yeah...  If we were to stop paying the CC i'm fairly sure eventually I would lose CS6

10

Software & Accessories / Re: Adobe to Stop Making Packaged Software

« on: May 08, 2013, 10:41:38 AM »

The mandatory move to CC subscription licensing only affects products in the current "CS6" range. Bundled products without a CS6 badge (including Lightroom and Acrobat, plus all the "Elements" versions) will continue to be available under perpetual licenses as they are now.

All paid CC members will have access to a select set of archived versions of the desktop apps. Starting with CS6, select older versions of the desktop creative apps will be archived and available for download. Archived versions are provided “as is” and are not updated to work with the latest hardware and software platforms.

Who are you? Adobe rep? Is that official info?

Yes it's official info - I'm an ACP, we speak to the user community on behalf of Adobe but we're not sales reps.

Please read the CC FAQ at http://www.adobe.com/products/creativecloud/faq.htm (it's being updated with new items regularly, including my two points above).

To touch on pricing, as Tom Hogarty said last week, Adobe are looking at how their product offers can best be tailored to suit photographers. That may mean in future there are 'pick-n-mix' bundles at different price points - but it's very early days. As I'm sure you appreciate, feedback is not something Adobe are short of this week 

The position on Lightroom is a little more complex than Photoshop, as Lr is a bundle product (it doesn't sync release dates with CS, this time it's a coincidence). All existing perpetual licenses for Lr4 and earlier will continue to work, perpetual licenses for Lr5 will go on sale when the public beta ends, and Lr5 will be rolled out to existing Creative Cloud and new CC subscribers just as Lr4 was. The only significant difference is that boxed copies are not available - All Adobe software is download-only as of this month, so you buy a serial number (from Adobe's store or through the normal retail networks like Amazon) and download the installer from Adobe's CDN. Of course you can burn it to disc as a backup if you want.

In future there may well be times when new features appear in the CC-bundled version of Lr which aren't yet in the perpetual version, because Cloud subscribers get new features quicker (as SOX doesn't apply).

The questions about Web connectivity seem to have been resolved; to summarize - CC normally pings the activation server once every 30 days. If you don't have connectivity it will run a grace period of another 30 days, then revert to trial mode (which then runs for 30 days) - this gives 99 full days of work before the apps refuse to open. Customers have been asking about how to install CC on firewalled machines or how to work for more than 99 days in remote locations, there will be clarification on that shortly.

So, if I read your quoted part correctly...

I could join CC paid....download the archived version (current version?) of CS6, which would run stand alone, not requiring CC account, and then quit and still have CS6 which would run indefinitely?

If so, that sounds like a bit of a bargain...?

cayenne

Nope... with your account, they issue a license code, much like any current adobe product... you cancel your account, the code is canceled, and any further access is canceled without that code being active... so otherwise it wont work beyond that point.

11

Animal Kingdom / Re: Honey Bees

« on: May 08, 2013, 01:00:34 AM »

where's my industrial sized can of raid when you need it lol

For shame! Honey bees are your friend. It's wasps and hornets that you pull out the big guns and go in with overwhelming force.

Mt Spokane, I don't suppose you could have a bee keeper open one up and get some macro shots of them working inside on the honeycomb? Or do some of them climbing in and out or something. That could be some neat shots

eh all flying insects creep me out.. friend or foe lol

12

Animal Kingdom / Re: Honey Bees

« on: May 06, 2013, 04:29:17 PM »

where's my industrial sized can of raid when you need it lol

13

Canon General / Re: the rebate program... what a sham!

« on: April 30, 2013, 02:37:36 PM »

yawn....  Hasn't the retail industry done this for YEARS?!?  With just about everything?  From clothes to shoes to TV's...  Watch, coming up you will have mothers day then fathers day then memorial day sales...  Prices goes up incrementally just in time for the "SALE"...  Sometimes you get some good deals...  Adorama and BH are a tad more even keel in these regards, but even they got fluxuations, especially on older products (2-3 years old)...  Sometimes you can get an even better deal by getting bundles and such...  It is what it is...

14

Technical Support / Re: 5D3 Focus Screen Cleaning Lesson

« on: April 30, 2013, 10:18:13 AM »

QUICK... while the camera is in warranty, send it to canon, they will replace the screen under warranty.  I had a similar problem... dirt on my screen and I tried to self clean it.... screwed the pooch... I sent it to canon and they replaced the screen free of charge (minus shipping charges)... send it in before the warranty expires. 

15

EOS Bodies / Re: EOS not good for NASA?

« on: April 26, 2013, 10:48:07 PM »

Another reason to dislike nikons...  If you watch mythbusters, the cameras inside red light traffic cameras are nikons, so next time you get a ticket for running a red light, blame Nikon lol