March 06, 2015, 11:14:21 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 - DavidB

Pages: [1]
Lenses / Re: Canon 17-40mm & ND filter
« on: January 16, 2014, 12:45:50 AM »
I use a B&H 10x ND Filter on the 17-40, there is definitely heavy vignetting @ the 17MM end but it's easily correctable in Lightroom - although you'll have to go a step further than just using the built in profile corrections for the 17-40mm, I had to go into Manual Vignetting on top of that and adjust to +40.  Here are a few samples, first one is raw straight out of camera, second is processed and vignetting taken out:

Macro / Re: Canon 100mm IS USM L Macro Photos
« on: April 21, 2013, 07:35:57 PM »
Couple pics from a few frozen leaves in our front yard

5D MK III Sample Images / Re: 12,800ISO 5DMKIII Images
« on: March 01, 2013, 10:10:51 AM »
Nice shots tomscott!  Here is one from a recent wedding of mine, ISO 12,800:

I agree high ISO is definitely impressive on the 5D3

Thanks for the test results Michael.  I'm curious though if you did any tests comparing the expansion points on the 5d3 vs the 6d?  In my experience having 4 pt expansion greatly increases the speed of AF in low light on the 5d3. 

Lenses / Re: Normal Lens or High-End Compact?
« on: December 05, 2012, 02:36:50 PM »
If you're taking photos with facebook or flickr as the only location of the end-product, you don't need a DSLR.

Sure you don't NEED a DSLR for Facebook pictures, sort of like you don't NEED electricity to survive, however I can always tell the difference.  Compare side-by-side a 5D3+85MM 1.2L vs an iPhone, and even if the pic is downsized to web quality through facebook, you will see a massive difference.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Convince me to shoot in RAW
« on: November 09, 2012, 10:24:00 AM »
JPG may as well not even be an option for me, I always always shoot RAW.  Storage space and external hard drives are SO CHEAP nowadays the extra space is basically a non-issue.  Lightroom is VERY efficient at processing raws so there is no noticeable extra processing time.  I shoot a lot of low light weddings and sometimes need to underexpose to get shutter speed fast enough, and then push exposure in PP, forget doing this if you shoot in JPG.  I also tweak white balance in PP, and RAW is much more flexible for that.  Why would you want to throw out all the extra information and settle with JPG?  The RAW file also serves as the "Digital Negative" giving you, the copyright owner, the end all proof that your picture is your picture.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Convince me to shoot in RAW
« on: November 09, 2012, 10:22:49 AM »
since you're now shooting photography professionally, then it's important to think of photography as a business.  and in business your back-of-house / logistics is just as important as your front-of-house product.  to get 4 or 6 TB of storage nowadays should set you back about half a grand.  that's not an unreasonable investment (no different than purchasing a 50 f/1.4).  storage & backups are not really an "optional" part of running a serious photography business.

if you do have the time for it, you can go through and delete RAWs that will not be used for final p/p work.  but at the end of the day, there's a cost-benefit to that as well, you need to look at what your time is worth.  if you come back from a wedding shoot with three 16 GB cards full of photos each weekend in the summer, you may soon find that purchasing several RAID drives is in fact much cheaper than wasting time individually checking off photos from your cards as you download them.

5D MK III Sample Images / Re: Post Your Best Hi-ISO/Low Light 5DIII Shots!
« on: November 08, 2012, 11:38:24 PM »
Taken @ ISO 12800, 1/100 sec, f/2.8, 200mm... 70-200 f/2.8L IS II, 5D3

Portrait / Re: Reverse Engineer this please
« on: August 07, 2012, 02:36:24 PM »
The last 2 are taken toward sunset, when the sun is considerably less harsh than mid-day sun.  You can tell by the sun flares, to the top left of her head in the second one and in the far top right corner of the last one.  The 1st one might have been as well, but can't immediately tell.  Taking pictures at this time of day by itself will result in spectacular light with little other light sources needed (e.g. flash, soft box, reflector).  Adding in another light source definitelly helps (especially as you get closer to dusk), but not necessarily always needed.

It also looks like there is a large vignette applied to every picture in PP.  By itself the 50mm 1.8 has a lot of natural vignette when shot wide open, so this could be contributing, however there is definitelly a PP vignette applied.  Either way, the vignette is helping to dim the background around the edges and draw your eyes into the subject.

Portrait / Re: My photos look so dull
« on: June 29, 2012, 02:36:36 PM »
There is something to be said for using good glass (e.g. L lenses), where all the post processing in the world won't help... The 50mm 1.8II is a great lens for the price, but it's just that, good for the PRICE.  It can't compete with the 50mm f/1.2L or 50mm f/1.4 in color, contrast and bokeh (The L lens more than non-L).  Those pictures you posted that you like so much are all taken with either the 50mm f/1.2L or 50mm f/1.4 (at least according to the author's tags).  You pay a premium for good glass for a reason! :)

All these were taken with my old Canon SD600 Point and Shoot, before I could afford a DSLR...

David Billigmeier

Pages: [1]