« on: May 25, 2013, 08:41:12 PM »
Canon Ixus 105 @5000m altitude
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.
Canon Ixus 105 @5000m altitude
Forget all the high tech guff for a minute...go out and buy a 100D/SL1 slap on a shorty forty, walk down the city street and shoot, shoot, shoot. Go on you know you want too....it's called fellin gooooood! Don't be shy post them here.
Just a note, Cambodia's countryside is not epic. Ive lived here three years and have yet to find those breathtaking views. Im actually out in the provinces now. It's 5 in the morning herre and me and my friend are going out in a while to capture the sunrise. Will see what I get. Vietnam is epic.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?
The thing about this statement --for the most part...nat geo shots are carefully planned voyages (sometimes multiple voyages) to epic locations ---- EPIC LOCATIONS!!!!!!!! (and yes they do post process things too)... I live in Buffalo NY, and while there may be some nice spots to shoot... other than niagara falls is there truly anything epic here? --- nat geo Epic? I do not have thousands of dollars in travel budget...and my wedding and portrait clients don't have thousands of dollars to spend to have their wedding at the top of Mt Everest, or the jungles of Brazil, or deep in greenlands glaciers, or off in the magical hobbit land that is new Zealand...we aren't going to the tops of the Andes, not hiking through Cambodia, no sleek desert dunes of Tatooine (LOL...Tunisia), no engagement shoot at the great wall of China, no South African Diamond Mine, and not in a tribal village in New Guinea......I could go on and on but you get the point I hope. Nat Geo goes to EPIC places!!!!! They also have the budget to wait out the weather if need be. They also have the budget to go back if they wait 2 weeks and the weather doesn't work out. They have their own submarines for crying out loud, subs, helicopters, planes, large boats....so yeah, Nat Geo can hold to a more natural approach...because they are generally going places that are so epic they don't need much manipulation. Most of us don't have EPIC locations at pur doorstep, most of us are engaged in the art of pulling the beauty out of and or creating magic from a mundane scene. LOL... in the portrait/wedding world, it's like wondering why you handle a sports illustrated swimsuit model with full wardrobe and makeup crew differently than a plus sized bride at a budget wedding....
But I agree on your point.
Steve McCurry's Afgan Girl (the most famous portrait / Nat Geo shot ever) was originally shot in a landscape orientation. It was an over the shoulder shot which he gave no thought to. When his editor saw it he "converted" it to portrait by re-shooting the difference using a model and a room set up....and merged the two together. Most of his images are tweeked in some way (vignetting, dodge burn etc) by his editor. So don't think that all Nat Geo shots are a perfect in cam shots....some are quite convoluted and anything goes to get the shot.
Even the late great Ansel Adams used to do extensive post production to each photograph. So I don't see what the problem is here. How can we ask about purity and subject integrity where we are photographing a 2D representation of a 3D world. It's all representation of some sorts.
QuoteIt was mentioned that Canon doesn’t have plans currently to launch more EOS M prime lenses, as they see the segment as “entry level”. I’m not sure I agree with that if true.
Nor I and if Canon have said that then it shows a rather remarkable disconnect with where digital photography is going.
Yeah same here. More and more I see really good photographers drawn towards smaller powerful bodies. This confirms that Canon is completely lost. Maybe they see is as entry level because their current offering is half baked and not selling well.
So could you please elaborate on this subject instead of coming up with these blanket statements?
I don't know about Very Serious Photo Enthusiasts, but some Pro shooters are switching to mirrorless.
Hers's one http://www.damianmcgillicuddy.com/journal/2013/5/15/m43-strutting-its-stuff
And here's another "Good enough for Vogue Italia, good enough for me." http://jonathanposner.tumblr.com/post/40780795719/my-olympus-challenge-10
And a third https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=3dSWa5rcVlw
Hi, thanks for the links, checked out Posner and McGillicuddy. It probably makes sense to some people shooting in certain situations. I guess where resolution, AF and probably other areas I can't think of now matters, people will need DSLRs even in the future. This Posner guy doesn't really come out as very confident explaining his choice. It seems to me he has to justify it to the reader. Does he believe in himself or is it a way of creating buzz around him?
Anyway, as said by me and many, competition is good. It'll be interesting to see where we are in five years.
Okay, that was funny!Ok let's examine history to determine who's correct.
35mm film vs MF film. - MF wins.
Canon 1ds vs kodak DCS MF back - MF wins. (Available on Luminous landscape)
Canon 5D2 vs Hasselblad MF backs 40MP variety - MF wins.
D800 vs IQ180 - MF wins.
D900 56MP camera vs next gen MF 120+ MP - MF will win.
This is because MF is bigger than 35mm. MF has a specific use for low ISOs and slow subjects. There is no replacement for displacement. The bigger sensor/film will always serve better in those situations.
I can only imagine what will be possible when MF will move to full CMOS tech, then you will have the pixel density of a d800 + all the advantages of MF. It's just a better tool for what it does.
We will not approve membership if the account name looks like a advertisement, is a e-mail address, or just sounds phoney, It is definitely better if a account name has some recognizable link to photography.
This is way too subjective and what may be an advertisement / email / phoney to you may just be perfect for someone else. Compound this by the fact that the username will be rejected after one day I doubt a genuine user who is rejected will bother to try again (I certainly wouldn't, but that's just me).
IMHO a captcha is a better idea as suggested above.
Of course, we use captcha.
With human assisted spambots, its no barrier, and most robots read it as well. Those who think captcha is fool proof are out of date, 10 years out. Captcha is like a screen on the front end, each step filters out a few potential spammers. We don't reject someone unless their user name is clearly out of line. Rules are not posted just to help spammers get around them.
We check new signups for duplicate ip's, internet providers, and a warning pops up if they have been banned before. Its far from fool proof, just another screen to filter out what we can.
No security is fool proof and I wouldn't dare to say that a captcha is the "only" solution. That said, I guess we are on opposite sides of the table here with users wanting easier access and the mods wanting a better QC over the sign up process.
Cheers ... J.R.
I found the sky boring and added clouds to make it more interesting.
Do you think this is cheating? I really want to know.
Am very confused. I have made changes but not altered nature. Have I done something wrong?
EOS 100D/SL1 + Sigma 8-16 DC HSM ?