March 04, 2015, 03:32:42 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 - Famateur

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 32
1



My regret was not bringing in a second strobe to totally control the scene but would have required a third assistant.


Hindsight is often 20-20. Gotta do the best you can with what you have and expect. The image above is excellent as well. I see what you mean about wanting to have the remaining sunset behind him on that one...

2
Lenses / Re: Canon ef-s 17-55mm 2.8 is usm GONE
« on: March 02, 2015, 02:34:39 PM »
Canon should solve the dust problem in this lens, it´s  slowly time for that.

Canon should make a true 2.8 equivalent lens (Like the Sigma 1.8 zoom)

this lens is actually a f/4.4 lens! And so are all other "2.8" lenses used on crop bodies.
Aperture is written as a ratio - focal length divided by a number representing the effective maximum diameter of the lens aperture. It describes the brightness of the image on the sensor (or film, in the old days). An f/2.8 lens resolves an image of the same brightness no matter what size sensor the camera has. You can set the camera to manual and use an external light meter and if the light meter says 125th of a second at f/8 you can dial those settings in on a crop camera, a full frame camera or even a medium format camera and the exposure will be right on all three.

I've seen statements on these forums several times claiming that the effective aperture of a lens is different on a crop camera than on a full frame camera, but I haven't read that justified anywhere. Someone even pointed me to a dense article on equivalence which I ploughed through, but it didn't convince me that I'm wrong about this. Can anyone explain this assertion so that a bear of very little brain can understand it?

This is how I understand it (and feel free to correct me if I'm wrong):

  • For exposure, no difference between F2.8 on crop or on full frame.
  • For depth of field, there is a difference, but only if you maintain the same field of view.

The reason for the difference in depth of field is that to maintain the same field of view between crop and full frame, you have to change your distance from the subject, and that is what changes depth of field.

When you see someone say "F2.8 on a crop sensor is really F4.5 equivalent on full frame," they're talking about the depth of field for equivalent framing only, not exposure.

Teleconverters are another story (and might contribute to the confusion for some), because they DO affect exposure. I believe the reason for this is that it changes focal length (one of the inputs for the aperture value), which changes the ratio, affecting the light that can hit the sensor, and thus, exposure.

Any experts want to chime in to set me straight? :P

3

Thanks, I agree. I actually shot this both ways but from the left he was too dark on the right and since we only had one light... I stuck with this composition. We scaled a 120 foot cliff with one very expensive strobe and about 15k in camera lighting. Locations shooting ain't that easy... there's always next time.


Ah...makes sense, especially with a single light. Sounds to me like you made the right call, especially for an unexpected opportunity. There are always compromises, and given the additional info, I'd say you nailed it. Even more impressed now than before... :)

4

"Great shot. I love the colors, balance, expression and tone of the light for both the background and your subject."  +1    " the shadows are falling on the sun side! " 


pourquoi pas? Sand and figure of a man do not have a strong light and shadows from the Sun.


It's subtle enough that it doesn't spoil the image, but if you look at his face, the sea/sun side falls into shadow (look at the nose shadow and the darker right cheek to camera left). There's also a shadow from his body against the surf board. Finally, the surf board is lit when it would naturally be in shadow opposite the setting sun.

Again, it's subtle enough that the image is still excellent. Having the added light follow the same or similar path as the natural light would have put a little polish on an already fantastic image. Still a praiseworthy photograph, especially the balance between added and ambient light levels...

5
Drake at Panther beach, Santa Cruz, California.

5D3 + 85 f/1.2 with Elinchrom Quadra into a 1 meter Rotalux Octa.


Great shot. I love the colors, balance, expression and tone of the light for both the background and your subject.

Only one suggestion on a shot like this: if possible, light him from the other side so the direction of light from the strobe matches the setting sun (this would also mean switching the board to his other arm so as not to leave it in shadow -- those colors are brilliant). You did such a great job getting just the right quality and intensity of light to compliment the ambient -- it's just that the shadows are falling on the sun side! Had you lit from the left, then only the catch lights would have given away the use of additional lighting.

Still, very nicely done.

6
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 11-24mm f/4L Shipping This Week in United States
« on: February 23, 2015, 04:54:21 PM »

I see this lens as a prime money maker, not hobby lens. 


But this is a zoom lens. ;)   You knew that before you clicked the Pre-Order button, right?  ;D

7
EOS Bodies / Re: Possible Canon EOS 5D Mark IV Spec Talk [CR2]
« on: February 23, 2015, 04:30:00 PM »

I'm wildly speculating, but it's all in the realm of reason and plausibility because Canon has the Tech to do this. Now whether they can cost effectively fabricate this right now is another question... Gonna be a fun year!!


Speculating on juicy stuff like this is the whole fun of this site, so carry on! :P

Agreed on the possibility/plausibility. It comes down to product positioning, internal road maps and manufacturing hurdles. I'm excited!

...I just don't know how much  of an overhaul it is to retool to get the signal flow they designed in their patent and get everything on ONE die. I'm sure it's expensive, but is it so expensive as to make it non-feasible.


My hunch is that there is a new process (hopefully on-die ADC of some kind), and it's taken Canon a bit longer than anticipated to bring it up to production-ready status, especially if DPAF is involved. For some reason, I get the feeling DPAF is proving more challenging to produce (yields). Still not sure if it's that or just product differentiation that has kept it from the M (a natural recipient) or even the newer Rebels.

The recent downward movement in price for the 1DX and 1DC sure seem to signal that successors will arrive (or be announced) this year (e.g. 1DXII and 5DC?). This would point to the process being ready, whatever the chip technology is. I hope it's something cool!

8
EOS Bodies / Re: Possible Canon EOS 5D Mark IV Spec Talk [CR2]
« on: February 23, 2015, 03:50:09 PM »

I'm wildly speculating, but it's all in the realm of reason and plausibility because Canon has the Tech to do this. Now whether they can cost effectively fabricate this right now is another question... Gonna be a fun year!!


Speculating on juicy stuff like this is the whole fun of this site, so carry on! :P

Agreed on the possibility/plausibility. It comes down to product positioning, internal road maps and manufacturing hurdles. I'm excited!

9
EOS Bodies / Re: Possible Canon EOS 5D Mark IV Spec Talk [CR2]
« on: February 23, 2015, 11:15:48 AM »
I think I'm in the camp of others on this thread suspecting the body (and specs) in question is a test bed for specific technology and not a prototype destined to become an actual product as-configured.

What stands out to me is the fact that as I read the rumor, I was thinking, "This sound like a 1DX," and then read this: "It was stressed that the above is NOT the EOS-1D X Mark II. There will be a quantum leap in fps, dynamic range and a bump in resolution for that camera."

Now that sound exciting! I might never own a 1 Series body, but a new breakthrough in that series is good news, nonetheless. I'm surprised these odd-ball 5DIV "specs" are even being talked about when a "quantum leap" in FPS and dynamic range is rumored to be in the pipeline.

Of course, if the source is the same, then it might be as bogus as this 5DIV spec list. :P

10

3rd party monitor stands cost as much as monitors, so i guess i'm better off getting a new monitor.


You might consider looking on www.monoprice.com for monitor arms. They also have cables for dirt cheap, too. I've been pleased with them...

They are based in the US, i don't know if they ship to Italy, and, even if they do, there would also be a lot of crap involved from customs.  :-\


Ah...gotcha. That's a bummer.


Now, for the colorimeter: i really don't have a clue, and i need your help! :D


I've been quite pleased with the X-Rite i1 Display Pro. It's pretty easy to use, and I've been pleased with the results I get between my printer and the Dell IPS display I calibrate it with.

That reminds me...It's been a month or two since I calibrated last. Better go do that now... :P


11

3rd party monitor stands cost as much as monitors, so i guess i'm better off getting a new monitor.


You might consider looking on www.monoprice.com for monitor arms. They also have cables for dirt cheap, too. I've been pleased with them...

12
Lenses / Re: Which Lens to buy for Portraits
« on: February 20, 2015, 12:42:25 PM »

I have shot on many occasions at 2.8 and bigger in a studio with strobes for effect.  Here:

http://shields-photography.com/p1071533385/h3BCECE62#h270b96b0


Great shots, PureClassA -- thanks for sharing. No doubt, you couldn't get that confetti shot without the wide aperture. Good tip on the ND filter, too...

13
Lenses / Re: Which Lens to buy for Portraits
« on: February 20, 2015, 02:28:15 AM »
Benique, if I've read correctly, here are the nuts and bolts of what you've described of your needs, followed by my opinions:

> You mostly shoot at F5.6 - 11.

This, to me, means spending big money on wide aperture lenses is a waste for the majority of your work. If you're stopping down to F8, or something, the advantage of an F1.2 or an F2.8 lens is lost. That's good news because it could save you a LOT of money.

> You shoot in somewhat limited space. Without exactly defining what that is, it's hard to know what the limits are going to be for focal length. Some have said a 70-200MM is wholly inappropriate, but then they recommend an 85. If your space isn't too tight for 85MM, then the 70-85 end of a 70-200MM will work, too. :P

> You currently shoot a crop body but have plans to upgrade to full frame in a year or so. This plan, to me, means don't let the crop factor affect your choice. You'll likely have the lens far longer than any body.

When I add this all up, I like MackGuyver's suggestion of the 70-200MM F4 IS more and more (I also happen to have and love that particular lens...for portraits...on a crop body). The zoom ring is so smooth and can turn with a single finger. It has excellent sharpness, great flexibility with the zoom, is much smaller and lighter than the F2.8 version and has a relatively friendly price (especially with rebate).

If it was me, I'd be choosing the 70-200MM F4 IS. If you can fit an 85MM, then you can use a 70-200. The move to full frame will only improve its usefulness in limited space.

14
Software & Accessories / Re: Adobe Lightroom 6 Coming March 9
« on: February 19, 2015, 12:48:45 PM »
I was wondering what Adobe could do (without eating too far into Photoshop features) that would make me want to upgrade from Lightroom 5.

> 32-bit HDR blending?
> Panorama stitching?
> GPU processing support?

I like it!!!

I already use LR/Enfuse for HDR and a separate third-party program for panoramas, but if I can do it all with native Lightroom features (effectively), I'll be thrilled.

For the HDR and Panos, I wonder if it will automatically group the RAW files that have been merged to reduce visual clutter.

I'm guessing it will just create a new merged file, but it would be interesting if it merged HDR/panos as a non-destructive effect on a virtual file from the RAW files. Once merged, you could still tweak the processing of the individual input RAW files and see the result updated in the merged virtual copy. That would be sweet.

Face recognition will be cool -- as long as it's not through Google and/or connected to any third parties (especially government) or even Adobe, for that matter. I'd like it to just operate locally, leaving privacy intact.

Anyway, I'm looking forward to this release with some excitement!

15
Canon General / Re: Lost half of my Canon DSLR
« on: February 18, 2015, 01:13:00 AM »
Just pondering a little more on crappy situations like this...  I've concluded that I'd rather be dealing with some financial loss and heartburn over security than be the one stuck with the meth habit that drives me to steal.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 32