Messages

1

Animal Kingdom / Re: Wrong Photography Ethics?

« on: May 11, 2013, 01:19:05 AM »

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?

+1

Mick, are you saying that no photos published in Nat Geo has been post processed?

Good question, because that simply isn't true.

Ever hear of Wasatch Rocky Mountain Wildlife? They provide "wild animals" for the film and photography industries. National Geographic is one of thier best clients. Go look them up on the web and look at thier client list and credits list.

National Geographic passes off trained rent-an-animals as wildlife..... and Mick would have us believe that they are so ethical that they do no post-processing of images.....  National Geographic has a long history of manufacturing articles that runs all the way back to faking Peary reaching the north pole.

I believe I've even seen some HDR in a NGM not to many months ago...

My favourite is the February 1982 issue where they moved the pyramids closer together on the cover shot.....but that was done in a darkroom so it must be ok......

Lol!  Yes, perfectly acceptable in that case...

2

EOS Bodies / Re: *UPDATE* A Bit of EOS 70D Info [CR1-CR2]

« on: May 11, 2013, 01:18:00 AM »

Sigh...

Yeah...even visual evidence derived FROM HIS OWN evidence isn't even enough! Oh well...guess a Zebra really can't change its stripes.

Indeed!  I think there was some biblical quotation that went something like: "no man is wrong in his own eyes"
But I'm not positive...

3

Animal Kingdom / Re: Wrong Photography Ethics?

« on: May 11, 2013, 01:05:39 AM »

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?

+1

Mick, are you saying that no photos published in Nat Geo has been post processed?

Good question, because that simply isn't true.

Ever hear of Wasatch Rocky Mountain Wildlife? They provide "wild animals" for the film and photography industries. National Geographic is one of thier best clients. Go look them up on the web and look at thier client list and credits list.

National Geographic passes off trained rent-an-animals as wildlife..... and Mick would have us believe that they are so ethical that they do no post-processing of images.....  National Geographic has a long history of manufacturing articles that runs all the way back to faking Peary reaching the north pole.

I believe I've even seen some HDR in a NGM not to many months ago...

4

Animal Kingdom / Re: Show your Bird Portraits

« on: May 11, 2013, 01:03:39 AM »

jrista.....by the power not vested in me, you are hearby awarded the photographers Purple Star for injuries sustained in the line of duty

-edit-

I think this would make a cool thread..."What I had to go through to get the shot"

I would like to wade and make my way through all that stuff to get the shot but I'm always worried about these...

I saw one grab a huge Great Blue Heron a few weeks back and in one fell swoop, it was gone! 

5

EOS Bodies / Re: Bye Canon?

« on: May 11, 2013, 12:46:08 AM »

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.

Doesn't matter.

Exactly.

Okay, that was funny! 

6

Animal Kingdom / Re: Wrong Photography Ethics?

« on: May 11, 2013, 12:44:02 AM »

This is a pretty stupid topic. It's all opinions vs opinions. It's never going to go anywhere. To the OP I like your photo either way, heck put the trees back and add a thunderstorm enter it into a contest and win. Heck if the contest doesn't state you can't edit photos then go for it! Everyone else has access to the same tools as you do. People can take photos of cheetahs if they want to. What's the big deal? No one wants a boring photo, if that's what the OP saw but nature changed before he could get the photo then recreate to how it was in the minds eye. If I bought that PHOTO from the OP I wouldn't care about the edit because looking at it everyday would better my mood. Is the film negative the photo and everything after is a print or copy of the photo? This debate will be even worse 100 years from now, when photography will probably have evolved yet again. How about Instagram are those photos or digital art? Just enjoy life and take photos or whatever you want to call them! Print them share them sell them. Enjoy what you and others create and stop wasting time criticizing!

This is a pretty stupid topic.

Enjoy what you and others create and stop wasting time criticizing!

That was a bit critical, no?    Seems like, "I like his image" would have been more apropos!

I did say I like his photo! And I truely do, ethics shouldn't apply to this. If that's what he wanted the photo to look like or how he saw it and he's got the ability to make it so then by all means do it.

Sorry Kenne, you did say you liked his photo.  I was just pointing out the bit of irony that you were criticizing the thread about people criticizing each other in the thread... More appropriately, I should have said; "Seems like, "I like this thread" would have been more apropos!  Just trying to lighten things up, I did however misstate my thought and I apologize.  No hard feelings I hope!  All the best!

7

Animal Kingdom / Re: Wrong Photography Ethics?

« on: May 11, 2013, 12:30:16 AM »

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?

+1

Mick, are you saying that no photos published in Nat Geo has been post processed?

Good question, because that simply isn't true.

8

EOS Bodies / Re: No 7D Mark II in 2013? [CR2]

« on: May 11, 2013, 12:28:48 AM »

Lets move on.  So with 7D2 coming in 14, and a 1 series high MP coming in 14, that would make for only two notable DSLR bodies next year  (ok 70D would be three if it waits that long), plus the obligatory new Rebels, of course, which hatch frequently.  I guess i don't see whats so spectacular about the number of  2014 DSLR Bodies, and what a great year it will be --  beyond of course the fact that we may see Canon's price interpretation of what a high MP body should command from the market, and whatever they reveal in the 7D2.   is anyone anticipating more than this?

Canon has repeatedly said that the 7D2 will be "a significant upgrade" and "a game-changer". The safest bet is new sensor technology and improvements to AF, burst rate, video, and remote control. At the minimum it should be the unveiling of sensor performance that the rumoured high-megapixel camera will have.... and it is possible that they will skip over the .18 micron technology to something else... who knows?

And that's the crux of it.... "Who knows?" In the meantime we wildly speculate. We have no hard evidence to back up our speculations, but it's fun to dream.

I'll probably get one when it is released.... but I am patient enough to wait, plus my 60D works just fine.... I bet it has at least another 15000 shutter releases on it before the 7D2 comes out

Yea I'd rather widely speculate on that then about what doesn't matter to rl.  I'm wondering if we will see only 2 or more than 2 bodies

[sigh] the kids are fighting again....

It seems obvious that the current technology has gone about as far as it's going to go.... No real increases in APS-C land since the original 7D, just improvements in accessories and in-camera jpegs, but very little change in the RAW files. FF is about 2 stops better, mostly due to the larger pixel sizes. Look at the T5i..... the dial goes around.... that's it for improvements over the T4i! Current technology is at it's limits!

I can see things being slow in the non-rebel segment until new tech and methods break things loose. It makes sense to hold back until they are ready.... and when they are ready I can see a quick wave of upgrading the 7D and the entirety of the FF line. (quick being a year and a half)

and when they are ready I can see a quick wave of upgrading the 7D

I see that so many 7d owners are 7d fanatics and lovers... I also see that the consensus is huge of 7d owners that the high iso performance is the biggest issue for all or most.  If they address this issue by at least a 1 stop improvement and tweak the AF to a new level or standard, I see the 7D MK II's flying off the shelves, especially for current 7D owners. 

Many of them have refused to jump to the 5d3, never wanted a 5d2 maybe due to price or fear of losing reach with the ff specs and the 5d2 really wasn't an upgrade for most 7D owners.  And drool as they might, many, many 7D owners cannot afford the 1Dx.

Canon has an opportunity to make a huge upgrade but I believe that even if it's a reasonable upgrade that does a good job of addressing those 2 issues, it will be one of their biggest sellers ever... The other wave of 7D Mk II buyers will likely be the 60D owners that didn't jump on the 70D...

There you have my $.02!   

9

EOS Bodies / Re: *UPDATE* A Bit of EOS 70D Info [CR1-CR2]

« on: May 09, 2013, 06:03:36 PM »

Sigh...

10

Animal Kingdom / Re: Show your Bird Portraits

« on: May 09, 2013, 06:02:23 PM »

Ah, this was a better day. My lens is still soft...dropped it again after getting it back, so its softish (i.e. I can't resolve feather barbs anymore, regardless of the distance to the bird...where as before the drop I could.) Scaled down, and carefully processed with LR, Nik, and Topaz, I can extract every ounce of quality possible from them though. I just can't get razor sharp shots, which bugs me every time I go out.

Plus...I got these after spending about 30 minutes acting like a bush. Continuing from the debate with RLPhoto...I was wearing camo, had LensCoat RealTree HD on my tripod, Jobu Pro 2 gimbal, and a LensCoat RealTree raincoat on my lens. The birds moved down shore, both directions, when I scooted up. Took a while before they were satisfied that I was just some kind of odd-looking dead bush, and were willing to get close. About another hour after that, they were comfortable enough to allow me to inch closer and closer. Most of these shots are near MFD...so, about five to eight feet out, maybe ten at the most.

Still...If I had a BETTER TOOL, I wouldn't have had to wait at all...I could have set up shop at a distance the birds were more comfortable with, and started getting good shots right off the bat! Wow, imagine that!  

Well, it would have been more convenient wouldn't it! LOL!   Just jesting of course with regard to the images, throwing back to someone's ridiculous remark that 7D is a crappy camera, still irks me!  Every time I see good or great 7D images I have to smile!   

Aye, the 7D is a great tool. Takes skill to use it right, but it can get some great shots. Certainly not as convenient as the 5D III or 1D X with a 600mm or 800mm lens and a teleconverter (or even a 7D with either of those lenses). It also requires you to be a little less respectful of birds and wildlife, as you have to get closer to get similar quality. The key with the 7D is to use as many pixels as possible. Fill the frame, and noise drops, detail improves. Definitely NOT a crappy camera.

Agreed, I love mine but I never imagined I'd be grabbing the 5d3 so much more than the 7d for my wildlife shots.  I really expected to use it primarily for portraiture as the 7d just isn't as good for that, with regard to location shoots, IMO...

I still love my 7d but if you were to ask it, it would probably tell you I don't!

11

EOS Bodies / Re: No 7D Mark II in 2013? [CR2]

« on: May 09, 2013, 05:59:10 PM »

I recall seeing a Nat Geo Special about how photographers could never get close enough to hyenas during a kill to video it nicely. I can't find the video (It was shown on cable) but one of them got off the truck and with time, eventually got close enough to video it. Now they said it was impossible, And I'm not a wildlife photographer.

Even so, That nat geo guy wagered that the better shots are closer. It was true, because of its extreme difficulty. They could have shot it at a distance but It didn't look as good.

It's the same that even though someone having an amazing 1Dx with a 600L, If you got close enough with that A1400 and got a great shot, It would better than those 600L shots. No doubt in my mind.

So yes, an Great A1400 shot from a unique perspective can best a 600L shot from every other perspective everyone's been shooting at conveniently.

Just to be clear Ramon, I have no problem with your work, Regardless of your gear, I like it!

12

EOS Bodies / Re: No 7D Mark II in 2013? [CR2]

« on: May 09, 2013, 05:56:00 PM »

Let's get back to the fundamental principle here.

A great shot from a A1400 from a never attempted perspective very close to an animal very difficult to do so, would destroy anything ever done by any super-tele + $$$$$ 1D combo. That's the principle. It's Irrelevant how its done, but that's what makes a better picture. The photographer.

And it would destroy a close shot with a 5D3+some short lens too? Even if it was some stunning dark evening crazy glow lighting and the large sensor of the 5D3 captured more light and gave it some radical low DOF pop???

Although, the gear they used to take Neuro's head shot, wouldn't be convenient to get the image of the Grebe... But it would matter... It would matter because if you tried it, you'd not get the image... but it's great technology and very expensive "gear"...

13

EOS Bodies / Re: No 7D Mark II in 2013? [CR2]

« on: May 09, 2013, 05:53:47 PM »

Ask not, what you can do for your camera.  Ask, what can your camera do for you?    I think some president said that!

Or perhaps it was; Ask not, what your camera can do for you.  Ask, What can you do with your camera!  Hmm..

14

EOS Bodies / Re: No 7D Mark II in 2013? [CR2]

« on: May 09, 2013, 05:52:02 PM »

Ask not, what you can do for your camera.  Ask, what can your camera do for you?    I think some president said that!

15

EOS Bodies / Re: Bye Canon?

« on: May 09, 2013, 05:50:06 PM »

The whole MF vs. 35mm format argument in this thread, went on too long.  I did not read it all, but however much I read...was more than enough...too much.  Why?  Because both sides got redundant.  Camera format first and foremost, is just a personal choice of the photographer.  People are different.  Yet fanboys in forums are very much alike...talk about children flailing their arms around!

I challenge each of you, from now on, to make your point with fewer words, and stop being redundant.  It looks very silly.  If you put as much effort into your photography as you do in typing about your opinions about hardware, you might not care so much about typing the same things over and over.   

Hmm. I never made my responses overly lengthy, just the ones who don't know what their talking about.

I challenge each of you, from now on, to make your point with fewer words, and stop being redundant.

Well just because it is an argument or heated discussion, the nature of such is going to be redundancy from either or both sides, no?  Making one's point over and over again, employing different words or strategies to try to entice the other to come over from the dark side or at least to get to a point where there is a clear winner, even if it's only in one's own mind?  That being said, a myriad of examples presented in different  forms can somewhat quell the redundancy, yet only on the surface...