Messages

1

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 1D X Product Advisory

« on: June 18, 2013, 12:55:00 AM »

I guess mine will have to be 'inspected and repaired free of charge'.  Rather annoying...

Crap...mine too.

2

Lenses / Re: Favorite portrait lens for annual pictures of your our kids

« on: June 16, 2013, 02:40:43 PM »

For portraits of just one child when I don't have control over the background, I use the 85/1.2L II, and usually at f/1.6-f/2 for sufficient DoF.  So the 85/1.8 would be a good choice.  With >1 kid in the picture, f/2.8 or narrower is usually needed for sufficient DoF, so I'd go with the 24-70/2.8 II for that.

As for the 6D, weren't you previously asking about a smaller camera (NEX, Fuji) for Disney?  Now you want to carry a pair of full-size dSLRs? 

Well it was just a thought. I think the 85 1.8 sounds good. I do have the sony nex 6 but its not a dslr and the controls are harder. I do like the iQ but do not want to invest in glass for two systems. I just thought prime on one body and 24-70 on the othe so I could just switch bodies based in need. I could use a second body back home also so it would not be just for this trip. Again that was a thought that most likely will not happen. I will probably go with what I have and accept my focal length or dof limitations as a trade off for having fun on my vacation. Really wish canon would have release that supposed ver 2 of the eos m so I could have brought that. Do you find the focusing slow with the 85mm for active kids?

The 85L II gets a bad rap for slow focus. For sports...yes, too slow. It's fine for your needs and the IQ is amazing.

3

Street & City / Re: 5DIII and 1DSIII does Kashmir and Rajasthan

« on: June 12, 2013, 04:18:22 PM »

Hi kasperj...I bookmarked this page because I wanted to come back and look at all of the images after glancing at the first few last week. Have you deleted the images? I've opened this thread in different browsers on my computer and now my iPad and the images don't load. I would love to see them!

4

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Why do my photos appear bright first and then dark later?

« on: June 09, 2013, 08:40:22 PM »

What you're seeing first is a jpeg preview, then when the RAW loads, it is displayed. RAW files are mean to be processed, hence the lower contrast and saturation.

Because of this.

Because of that.

 

This here is the reason. 

5

Reviews / Re: Horrible experience with Adorama camera

« on: June 04, 2013, 06:56:52 PM »

Not to devalue your frustration at all, but wire transfers are very finicky things. The slightest irregularity perceived on the receiving end by the receiving bank and the transfer is refused. The fault was probably not Adorama's, I doubt they have a wire house on site.  It was likely the sending bank didn't coordinate properly with the receiving bank, or they would have known that an address was required.

I hope you get your gear soon. Tell us, what did you get? That is the fun stuff!

+1
Wire transfers really can be a pain.
I've never had a problem with Adorama...or B&H for that matter

6

Lenses / Re: Are there custom lens hoods for canon L lenses??

« on: June 03, 2013, 01:56:37 PM »

Hmmm...I've never really given this a thought. But don't the 70-200II & the 85II hoods look similar? Now I wish I would've put my 85 in the bag today. I don't have it with me.
Just a tool to me.

7

Animal Kingdom / Re: Boa Constrictor - up close and personal - C&C please

« on: May 27, 2013, 02:31:33 PM »

I love the shot and don't think you need to do anything to the colors.
...what about a little contrast?

A few suggestions for what they are worth.

1. Composition- I'd just really work with the angles and framing here to come up with more dynamic shots. Look at the entire right 1/3 side of your image, All I look at is that little weed popping up in the foreground. Now if that weed was the snake's food, that's a different story. Then the snake head is just kinda floating in the middle, with no more significance than the rest of the image. My eyes don't know where to look.

I want there to be something in the foreground in the bottom left of the image to balance with the flow of the head.

An even lower angle would also give a more unique perspective. I don't want to get that close to snakes, but it looks like you are fine with it, so you have the ability to show people something new.

I made a quick crop of your image to show a different visual flow. I wouldn't necessarily have cropped this shot square, but from the image you provided, it was the best I could come up with.

2. Focus- I'd make sure you nail focus on the snake's head to make it pop out at you. The top of his head looks like it is behind the plane of focus.

3. Contrast- It is pretty flat. Even the histogram I pulled looked like it was missing the whole right side.

The macro is cool, but again, it's a standard straight on shot. Play with angles and composition!

Thanks for the suggestions!

As for contrast - it's actually interesting.  This is what a normal boa constrictor looks like (random image pulled off of a google search...



This animal has lots of contrast, obviously.

The animal in my pictures has actually been selectively bred for several different traits.  The first is what's known in the hobby as "pastel" - it's basically just a reduction of black that gives a washed out look.  The reason this is so popular is because as they age, most boa constrictors darken and the little black specks increase in number.  This trait is an attempt to minimize that to allow the color underneath to remain move vibrant and appealing as an adult.  "Pastel" is a polygenic trait in boas (like skin color in people).

The animal in my pictures is also exhibiting another trait known as "hypomelanism".  For those without a background in science, "hypo" means under, low, less, beneath, etc. (think hypodermic needle - a needle for injecting under the dermis, or hypoglycemia - low blood sugar).  Melanism refers to black pigment.  So, this animal has less than normal black pigment.  That sounds like the above trait, but it's very different.  The above trait just kind of washes the dark pigment away, the hypomelanistic trait actually removes it to a large degree.  It's especially noticeable in the latter half of the body - for instance, look at the first picture and at the lower left corner - those orange blotches (known as saddles) are generally surrounded by black but in a hypo, the black has been mostly removed and the color underneath shows through.  Hypomelanism is an incomplete dominant trait meaning when a "hypo" is bred to a normal animal - 50% of the babies will receive the hypo gene.

So, this boa is a pastel hypomelanistic boa.  It's kind of a double shot of black (contrast) reduction - so it should appear to be absent of contrast.

This animal is also hiding a trait.  What I mean by that is that it also has a recessive trait - albinism.  Albinism is simple recessive meaning BOTH parents need to contribute the gene to the offspring for the offspring to express the trait.  In this case, the mother was an albino and the father was a pastel hypo.  So, this animal received the pastel and hypo trait from dad (low odds of happening in one animal) and one copy of the albino gene from mom.  So, when this boy is bred in the future, if bred to an animal with one or two copies of the albino gene (either non-visual or "heterozygous" like my male or a visual albino aka "homozygous") he could produce pastel hypo albinos which are GLOWING pink/orange animals like this:



Again, the above image was just pulled from a google search.

So, adding contrast to the photo (I did play with it based on your suggestions) actually end up misrepresenting the animal and actually, in a negative way.  People want the washed out coloration and pay more money for it as it results in more beautiful hypo albinos (known as sunglows in the hobby).

JB!! How have you been? Weird seeing you here!

I personally like your image. Having been in the boa breeding industry myself (yes...I'm that Brett, JB), I appreciate that the image is color accurate. I also like your choice of composition and depth of field. I do understand the critique of others who suggest a greater dof and getting a lower perspective. But, too much lower and you would reduce the viewers ability to see the saddles which is a must.

Are you using Lightroom? If so, which version? I think you should bump up the exposure just a bit. If you have LR4, you might want to increase shadows a bit and maybe bump the clarity slider to 20-30 which will add a little mid tone contrast...but not a lot.

What was your light source? I see square shaped catchlights in the snake's eye...2nd & 3rd images.

The image you attached from your google search was probably taken with a point & shoot. It's likely that sharpening, contrast, saturation, etc. were all added in camera...which is what P&S cameras do. So, your attempts to add contrast to an already crummy image file cannot be compared to adding contrast to a raw file.

Are you shooting raw? If not, please start. Or at least shoot raw + jpeg so you have a raw file to work with when the jpeg isn't accurate. Does your camera have picture styles? If so, what setting do you use?

How is Rose?

I hope you are well! I haven't talked to you in years!!

8

Animal Kingdom / Re: Your best animal shots!

« on: May 27, 2013, 01:13:22 PM »

Shot with a Canon 200mm f2.0 + Canon 5D III. Loving this lens!

The Falconer's Companion

Wow. Very nice shot TM.

Damn! Just as my itch for a 200 f2 went away, you had to post this. Beautiful image!

9

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Camera wont start - am I doing something wrong?

« on: May 26, 2013, 01:09:46 PM »

Blinking orange is a feature of the 6D charger that tells you, depending on how many blinks per second, how much/little the battery is charged. (See the manual for details.) I found it annoying at first, but now I kind of like it. It can sometimes take a long time to charge a 6D battery. Still, if it goes much beyond the time stated in the manual, call Canon. Also, I just checked my 6D and it powers up just fine without a card. It even tells you it has no card.

Hi,

I had found out about this (pretty cool) feature. It was blinking at I guess 3x/s. I charged it for a really long time (a day) and then again (after trying it out for the first time) over last night. The camera doesn't even start The charger keeps blinking. I guess I'll just call Canon tomorrow, maybe they can help me out quickly.

Thanks again guys, this is an AMAZING forum, the only problem is seeing such fantastic pictures posted and realizing how much I have to learn!

RadioPath

You have a bad battery.  This does happen.  It is not always the battery cell itself, there is a electronic circuit in the battery that can shut it off and not allow it to charge.
 
Unfortunately, you may need to exchange the entire camera, that's what others have had to do.  Its probably your safest option, in any event.

If Mt. Spokane is right and it's the battery, you could always find a local store and buy a battery. This would give you the ability find out if it really is the battery and, since you were wanting to shoot this weekend, you could enjoy the camera then deal with Amazon on Tuesday. You'll want a 2nd battery anyway, so that would not be a waste of money.

10

Software & Accessories / Re: Adobe Creative Cloud - Adobe Owns you!

« on: May 22, 2013, 03:22:29 PM »

Am I the only one who thinks $10 a month is a pretty good price for PS?

Sure, If your willing to pay that for the rest of your life or never open your PSD's again.

Exactly. Plus, if you think the price will remain static for ever...think about cable companies always offering a great deal...good for 6 months...then...

Public corporations brainstorm in think tanks...scheming of ways to increase profits, reduce spending, dislodge every penny they can from their customers and create a scenario where the customer is completely dependent and therefore stuck paying whatever they dictate.

They are daring people to find a better alternative. Unfortunately, there isn't one.

11

Lenses / Re: Who do you recommend for Lens Rental?

« on: May 19, 2013, 07:36:59 PM »

My favorite is lensrentals.com. They make it very easy for their customers. Plus, they won't require a huge deposit like some of my local photography shops.

12

Canon General / Re: If the Japanese Yen is now low, why are Canon prices staying high?

« on: May 18, 2013, 07:31:33 PM »

The Japanese Yen has fallen considerably in value in recent months. Japanese exports should therefore be much cheaper now for buyers, so why are Canon prices remaining so high? I'd love a new Canon 5D mk III but current MAP limitations are keeping prices high and stopping me from buying.

Why would they lower their prices? Just because their margin is higher for the time being?
They will lower their prices when the market forces them to...when demand falls.

13

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

« on: May 08, 2013, 12:27:54 AM »

When zooming in, you are literally pulling your camera away from you and when zooming out you are pushing your camera into your face. Plus, I had to change the way I hold my camera. I usually zoom using a finger on my left hand while cradling the lens in my palm...this wasn't possible with the 100-400. I shoot in manual mode and I'm constantly changing aperture and shutter speed along with continually moving my focus point around the viewfinder. This technique is second nature to me, but the push/pull zoom was very distracting and I know I missed shots that I wouldn't have missed. I just wasn't as fast with that lens.

In the end, I wasn't willing to change the way I shoot to accommodate one lens. I hope version II of the 100-400 will have the traditional zoom. I would buy it in a heartbeat.

You are aware that there is a tension/friction ring on the barrel that lets you adjust the amount of friction needed to move the zoom position, right? If I need to zoom fast I back it off a little so the zoom action is fast and easy

For MF I like the fact that your hand stays in the same position on the barrel (next to the focus ring!). Also, as the lens gets longer your left hand automatically stays on the long end of the barrel which helps to stabilise the lens.

Just another opinion. I love the 100-400 push/pull

Yes...but I couldn't find a comfort zone and, in the end, decided I wasn't willing to try. I suppose I could've gotten used to it with time, but I had to think too much instead of shooting instinctually.

14

Canon General / Re: new canon lens caps

« on: May 07, 2013, 11:51:58 PM »

Hi nda, what is the need behind upgrading, is it aesthetics, ergonomics or mechanics, eg like body, rear lens caps, where early ones are said to create more dust?
Cheers, Graham.

These are much easier to remove with hood attached. It's a pain in the #@& to reach inside the hood of a 70-200 and take the non-pinch lens cap off. Won't matter to most, but it has me cursing myself often.

That's a much easier solution than the stack of 10 UV filters I've been using to get the side pinch cap closer to the hood opening...   

Hahaahaaa! I will have to give that a try!

15

Canon General / Re: new canon lens caps

« on: May 07, 2013, 02:38:20 PM »

Hi nda, what is the need behind upgrading, is it aesthetics, ergonomics or mechanics, eg like body, rear lens caps, where early ones are said to create more dust?
Cheers, Graham.

These are much easier to remove with hood attached. It's a pain in the #@& to reach inside the hood of a 70-200 and take the non-pinch lens cap off. Won't matter to most, but it has me cursing myself often.