April 16, 2014, 03:20:33 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 - notapro

Pages: [1] 2 3 4
Business of Photography/Videography / Re: Calumet U.S. Bites the Dust
« on: March 13, 2014, 07:45:04 PM »
Disappointing news here.   It was a great place to go when I didn't want to wait on shipments from Adorama or B&H.

Canon General / Re: $4 Million Photograph
« on: February 25, 2014, 10:02:20 AM »
Pedroesteban mentions a cardinal point in this thread.  It is helpful to note that photography and art are not synonymous any more than painting and art are synonymous.  Painting and photography are among the media from which artists may choose to create their work, and painters and photographers as painters and photographers are not the same necessarily as artists whose media are painting and photography.

I think distant.star (if I have the name correct) posted a relevant point early in this thread about having a an M.F.A. and a camera as opposed to having a camera without the degree.  In the former instance, one could self-identify as an artist.  In the latter, self-identification would be "just" as a photographer.

I would love to expand more, though some of what I might write would derive from and be rooted in what I wrote here in a thread a while back:


I will add that, whether "just a photographer" (i.e., a self-identified non-artist) finds merit-technical or otherwise--in a photograph, whether "just a photographer" finds value in a photograph, or whether the same person derives pleasure from a photograph are not, per se, necessary, essential, or sufficient to the matter of status, classification, or appreciation (for example) of a photograph as an artwork.

My post here is severely limited (I need to get out of here and go to work!), but in conjuntion with the matter presented in the cited thread, it may be understandable why photographs as artworks may evoke incredulous reactions from members of the general public or society as large.

Software & Accessories / Re: Screen gamut
« on: January 23, 2014, 05:02:23 PM »
As others have done here, I, too, have modified the lighting in my home.  All lights are at 6500K.  I will not ever go back to orange or yellow lighting.  I even have urges to change the lamps in my car's headlights to ones with whiter light . . . maybe I should look into finding an ICC Anonymous group.  Carl may be onto something with his idea of other things needing measuring around here.   :D

Software & Accessories / Re: Screen gamut
« on: January 23, 2014, 12:47:34 AM »

You mentioned the NEC PA302W-BK-SV monitor.  When do you expect to purchase it?  I believe that you will find it an excellent piece of equipment.

I have had mine for five or six days, and it is tremendous.  For what it's worth, in the context of this thread, what I see on this monitor is a vast improvement over a more generic 23-inch monitor I was using previously  (an Acer S231HL).  To give a mundane example, the red color of the word "canon" in "canonrumors" at the top of this webpage stands out to me now.  I never noticed it before as a red distinct from the other reds on this site.  In fact, I notice differences in reds across many websites that were not so apparent before I had this monitor, and seeing wide ranges in reds in everyday use is at this point what is most striking to me.

Differences in reds as they appear in photos is noticeable as well, relative to what they were with my previous monitor.  The banding in the in the red background of the attached JPG file is evident, whereas to see the banding with the Acer monitor I was using, one would have to pixel-peep the original image at full size (in the original RAW file, banding was not visible).

Macro / Re: Cicada, Big Insect by EF 100 mm F/ 2.8 L IS USM
« on: January 21, 2014, 11:57:14 PM »
You can see two additional cicada photos here, near the bottom of the page (I hope this link works):


Lighting / Re: Paul C Buff Baby Boomer Arm, Matthews Cheater Adapter
« on: January 15, 2014, 11:49:50 PM »
Hello, jonathan7007.

I had in mind to use the pieces I mentioned--and which I have since purchased--on light stands.  The Apollo Orb alllows for little downward tilting when mounted on a light stand.  A boom does address the issue, and I will be ordering this piece within the month:


Relative to direct mounting to a light stand (and when not using a boom), the Matthews and Buff pieces provide more latitude in downward tilting, and the Matthews adapter has knurling so that incidental movement of mounted equipment is greatly diminished or prevented.  That is a pleasant surprise, as no knurling is present in the adapter pictured on B&H's website.

Lighting / Paul C Buff Baby Boomer Arm, Matthews Cheater Adapter
« on: January 10, 2014, 11:52:09 PM »
Hello, Everyone.

I am wondering whether anyone can share experience they have with either or both of these items.  I am considering them in order to allow more tilt with light modifiers (e.g., 43-inch Apollo Orb softbox).

Paul C Buff Baby Boomer Arm:


Matthews Cheater Adapter:


If I read and understand your question correctly, it seems that the electronic level should still be available during Live View.  When not in Live View, I get the electronic level after pressing the Info button twice.  When in Live View, up to four presses of the Info button may be necessary, depending on your starting point in the menu sequence.  I am using firmware version 1.2.3.

I finally got around to having another go at cleaning my sensor.   I think I'll leave well enough alone at this point.  The current condition seems much improved.  I see three obvious spots, and I feel comfortable ignoring them since they do not show up in "normal" (i.e., non-dust-detecting) photographs, whether the images are processed or unprocessed.  Only though choosing deliberately close levels in Photoshop to look for/find/show dust do these three spots appear.  This will do for now.  It happens to be that the sensor is now cleaner than it was when the camera was new.  That helps take the sting out of the frustration of a few days ago.

To give more information on the cleaning, I cleaned the sensor today with a Visibledust VSwab (green) moistened with VDust Plus.  After taking a test shot, the smears and fibers of before were gone, though there remained a section of droplets on the right side of the image--something along the lines of what an inefficient wiper blade might leave on your windshield (windscreen).

I then wiped the sensor with a second swab moistened with Visible Dust's Sensor Clean, and that got me to what you see in the attached image.  Before and after each swabbing, a Giottos Rocket Air Blower was used, and I insepcted the sensor with a VisibleDust Quasar Sensor Loupe 7x.

In the past, I was able to get a T3i Rebel sensor cleaner than what you see here, and it was when shooting the test image at f/32.  Only one faint spot would show up in the photo.

For the images I've posted, I photographed an overcast daytime sky.  Part of my interest in having dust-free images at f/16 is because I photograph aircraft from time to time, and the shots are taken often in the f/10 to f/16 range.  With the sky as a background, dust spots are easily seen, and when there are upwards of 17 of them (which was the case with the then new T3i), removing them in post is can be a "PITA".

Practice and proper technique are important in sensor cleaning.  As VisibleDust cleaning swabs are somewhat expensive (over US $40 for 12 of the green 1.0x size), there is incentive learning good technique quickly.  In the meantime, I am waiting for delivery of a Lenspen SensorKlear II so that I have another option for future cleanings.

I give my sincere thanks to those who replied with their helpful comments and suggestions.  I also stand with Neuro in his caution against doing more than is warranted under given contexts or circumstances.

I saw the Calumet boom and stand today.  The boom has " a remote crank at the back of the arm controls the direction of the light source mounted at the other end up to 135°" (from product description).  I have to say that the remote crank is a delight to use and operates smoothly.  The whole apparatus can assume a smaller profile, and one need not attach the casters if frequent repositioning of equipment is not necessary.  There is no doubt that this piece is more than is necessary for a 43-inch softbox and three Speedlites, but I am going with this option, as I intend to use more substantial lights and modifiers in the future.  It will be my only boom, and it fits well with my current and future lighting tasks.

As always, I am grateful for the tremendously sober comments and suggestions from the members of this forum.  Many thanks to you all!

After continued review of the helpful replies in this thread, I am leaning currently toward one of the stands listed below.  Initially, I'll have the Orb softbox with three Speedlites (I'll get the Triple Threat Speedlite bracket that privatebydesign suggested), and I think it will be nice to know that I can go heavier with other lights/modifiers when the time comes.  About Harry Muff's suggestion, both Kupo and Avenger have been on my radar in connection with my question.

1.  Manfrotto 085BS Heavy Duty Boom and Stand


2. Calumet Telescopic Remote Boom With Cine Stand


I agree with your idea completely, Neuro.  I wasn't complete in the description of what I did before the wet cleaning.  I took a shot at f/16 and saw an image similar to what I posted.  I used a rocket blower, took a shot, and noticed no difference.  Then I did a wet cleaning (I don't have a brush).

I'm attaching an image of the previous image.  Now that I look at both of them, it seems like I have two versions of "not good".   I'll take some calming breaths and do subsequent cleaning.  I can't help wondering whether some of what I see might be smearing from lubricant, but that's just pure conjecture.

In the meantime, I need to wean myself off the sledgehammer, as it can be just too tempting at times to do more than what is necessary.

Hello, Everyone.

I thought I noticed a dust spot in a photo.  I did a wet cleaning with one swab (VisibleDust green swab, VDust Plus liquid), then took a shot at f/16 with a 50mm f/1.2.  Threw it into Photoshop, brought the levels to where "dust stuff" could be seen, and this is what I got.  Maybe follow-up cleaning could take care of this?  Is shipment to Canon advised?

Thanks, PBD and Neuro.  The products you suggest look to be exactly what I need.

Hello, Everyone.

I have a 43-inch octagonal Apollo Orb softbox.  I wish to to use two or three Speedlites (no preference, but at least two) and would like to know what recommendations you have regarding brackets to use for mounting the Speedlites in the softbox.  I would also welcome suggestions for a suitable boom stand.  I am working with 600EX-RT flashes and an ST-E3-RT transmitter.  Though the softbox will be used indoors where wind will not be an issue, I would nonetheless like to use a robust boom stand.

Thoughts and suggestions, anyone?

Pages: [1] 2 3 4