August 20, 2014, 11:24:54 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 - thedman

Pages: [1] 2 3
1
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 11-24 f/2.8L Coming [CR1]
« on: August 07, 2014, 03:49:21 PM »
If it is as sharp as their recent releases and has IS then I suppose I could sell a kidney...

Jim

Ditto that! I don't even care about the IS.

2
I love mine...
Even put up my 21mm f/2.8 Zeiss on eBay this weekend... Hate to let that go...I needed it when I had the 16-35mm f/2.8L II. The Zeiss just blew that lens away... but not the new UAW zoom.
 I really do not need the f/2.8..and the IS is just what the doctor ordered for most of what I shoot.
I know that is not true for everyone.

That's where mine is heading, and for the same reason.

3
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 16-35 F/4L IS -- Reviews are trickling in...
« on: July 29, 2014, 03:53:41 PM »
Another one with the 16-35... I was really happy with the corner sharpness on this one. Lots of detail in the trees.

http://www.ddphotos.com/nublet.jpg


Lovely shot.  Terrific.  Thanks for sharing.

I'm still a rookie on landscape work -- how on earth did you get the trees in the foreground so bright?  It looks like those trees are below the line of the sun, and your skyline is sufficiently uneven to make using an ND grad pretty difficult.  So how did you get that?  What that a composite of a few exposures?  Surely you didn't just push up the shadows in post...

- A


Thanks! You're right about the composite - it's one shot for the ground and one for the sky. The trees in the middle aren't as below the horizon as it looks... they're kind of coming up the hillside at me. The very tops of them were just getting touched by a bit of sun. Add a bit of curves and you have bright trees.  :)

4
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 16-35 F/4L IS -- Reviews are trickling in...
« on: July 29, 2014, 11:12:25 AM »
I have to say, "never felt a need to take out the Zeiss 21" says a lot about the quality of the zoom. I can't imagine not wanting to take photos with the Zeiss if you have it available at the time. 16-35mm f/4L would have great application as a hking lens to replace a heavier primes kit for landscape. Dragging both the Zeiss and the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 (current landscape and astro-landscape kit, with 6D, tripod, filters, etc - 12 pounds?) up the side of a mountain made me aware that I need to do more conditioning.


Yeah....I have a Zeiss 21mm and the Sigma 35mm Art that I did personal, informal testing against my new Canon 16-35mm  IS.    So...I used to never use my 16-35mm f/2.8 II because the Zeiss and the Sigma blew it away....but damn...these are all very close in sharpness now....hmmmmmmm...the others do offer the faster f/stops though.


Another one with the 16-35... I was really happy with the corner sharpness on this one. Lots of detail in the trees.

http://www.ddphotos.com/nublet.jpg


5
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 16-35 F/4L IS -- Reviews are trickling in...
« on: July 09, 2014, 02:01:21 PM »
Just took it for a spin in Glacier and Banff. So sharp I never felt the need to get the Zeiss 21mm out of the bag.


6
Pricewatch Deals / Re: Canon EF 16-35 f/4L IS in Stock at B&H Photo
« on: June 25, 2014, 01:07:25 PM »
Got mine just in time to take it on a 2 week backpacking trip through the Canadian Rockies. Hope it's as good a landscape lens as it promises!

7
Lenses / Re: The Next \
« on: May 20, 2014, 12:39:37 PM »

8
So do we have an approximate date that these will be available? I know "June", but I'm leaving on a trip June 28th and would love to have the 16-35 with me.

9
Lenses / Re: More Wide Angle Lens Speculation [CR1]
« on: May 06, 2014, 04:13:00 PM »
I would buy two of these three. Which of course means this is a bogus rumor.

10
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Landscape Filters
« on: May 06, 2014, 01:22:17 PM »

and last but not least... most serious landscape photo competitions will disqualify you for doing such editings. for a good reason.

What reason? It's the exact same thing as using a grad ND.

Just google "Lindisfarne Boats".  A great photo, but outside the rules and ultimately disqualified.

That doesn't have anything to do with what we're talking about here. You do realize I'm referring to two exposures at the same time, combined with a gradient mask, right?


11
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Landscape Filters
« on: May 05, 2014, 07:01:04 PM »
anyway in some situations you need a grad filter because doing it in photoshop is not faster and tedious work.

It's only tedious work if you're making it way better than a grad ND could do. If you're just replicating a grad ND, it's a matter of seconds.

12
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Landscape Filters
« on: May 05, 2014, 05:54:30 PM »
there are times when i use this PS technique myself.
simple seascapes with a straight horizon.... yep. no need to pull out the nd grad.

Ironically, that's the only time when your horizon is as straight as your grad-ND edge.

13
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Landscape Filters
« on: May 05, 2014, 05:51:32 PM »
Nice "landscapes."

I use polarizers all the time. Never for landscapes.

Takes the glare off water and foliage just like it does windows.

Just wait for the right light.

There is no 'right light' that doesn't produce glare on water and foliage.

14
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Landscape Filters
« on: May 05, 2014, 04:43:27 PM »
two 8 minutes exposure = 16 minutes.
using a nd grad filter to do it right in camera = 8 minutes.

2 1-minute exposures = 2 minutes
1 1-minute exposure + digging around your bag for your 3 stop hard, wiping it off with your microfiber cloth,  searching for your screw-on filter ring,  screwing it on, sliding in your filter and figuring out where you should align it because your horizon isn't horizontal and the thing is darkening too much foreground = 5 minutes.



i adressed that above. i knew that this question would arise so i edited my post.

What you did was set up a straw-man argument. Replacing the sky is something completely different. So is cranking the saturation to 100, but neither one is what we're talking about here. Nat Geo is fine with doing it digitally.

well you spoke about "speed"... now you added money to the argumentation.
i only anwered to your "speed" claim. ;)

I haven't even begun yet to mention the infinite adaptability, and just briefly mentioned that horizons are never straight anyway so grad NDs are a poor, clunky tool for this task...

15
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Landscape Filters
« on: May 05, 2014, 04:29:22 PM »
long exposures for example.
where you need a ND and a ND grad for the sky.
it´s sure not faster to do two long exposures and combine them in photoshop. :)

I don't see why not. And it's way cheaper!

then there are moving leaves and other objects that can ruin your simple "gradient" compositing. and voila... you need longer editing in photoshop then pushing a nd-grad.

This is about the only example where it may take longer. Still, I'll do the little extra mask modifying and save the hundreds.


of course when you have two images like those in the examples from the tutorial mackguyver posted, it works pretty well. no question. but those examples are tailor made.

Those examples are 99% of why people buy grad NDs.

and last but not least... most serious landscape photo competitions will disqualify you for doing such editings. for a good reason.

What reason? It's the exact same thing as using a grad ND.


that is fine for a photoshop competition but (imo) nature or landscapes should be natural not fictional.

Are grad NDs fictional?

Pages: [1] 2 3