Messages

1

Animal Kingdom / Re: Wrong Photography Ethics?

« on: May 09, 2013, 04:29:39 PM »

Those who are capable of making awesome changes/modifications will continue to do so while those who are incapable will continue to crib that it is unethical.

Bingo.

Blanket statements like "compositing is not photography" don't hold up in all cases. HDR photos are composites of several shots. Are they not photography, simply because they were combined after the fact? You could have achieved the same thing if you used a grad-ND filter, so does using a filter mean the photo is 'not photography'? What difference does it make if you did the composite before the click or after?

Also, compositing doesn't always mean introducing something that wasn't there. The photo below is 3 different exposures, composited together in Photoshop. Point to the element that wasn't actually there.

2

Technical Support / Re: Urgent Help Requested:Photos for my website

« on: April 24, 2013, 10:58:49 AM »

save the original, then image > image size > 72dpi

If you have to do this 1000 times, save yourself some time and skip this step! 

3

Technical Support / Re: Urgent Help Requested:Photos for my website

« on: April 24, 2013, 10:56:49 AM »

If you do not use Photoshop, consider hiring someone to prepare them for you. 
 
Photoshop has a Save for web feature that lets you optimize a image and play with the parameters to see how you like the image as well as see the size.
 
You should not find it necessary to have over about 25-30 K image size.
 
Here is your competitors front page image reduced from 1.8MB to 36kb.  He seems to be vastly overdoing it. 
 

That looks way too compressed; the pillows on the couch are just blocks. 25-30k is too small for an image of that size and detail. Should probably be at least 60-80k to look nice.

4

Lenses / Re: I have just lost confidence with Canon Rumors & B&H

« on: April 17, 2013, 04:00:06 PM »

The most confusing things about this thread are A) This particular lens is not listed in the latest rebate announcement, and B) both Amazon and B&H are still showing this lens at $2049. So I have no idea what the OP is talking about.

5

EOS Bodies / Re: Congratulations Canon to another great Camera release!!

« on: March 21, 2013, 11:23:53 AM »

Canon, you just lost a potential sale because you don't realize that the baby DSLR could be for newbies and advanced users who want portability.

What, is it not portable?

6

EOS Bodies / Re: Congratulations Canon to another great Camera release!!

« on: March 21, 2013, 10:26:19 AM »

Do people think the new low-end budget model was supposed to break new DSLR ground with revolutionary new features never seen on a camera before?

7

Landscape / Re: Beautiful sunsets

« on: January 23, 2013, 05:29:28 PM »

Sunset over Cincinnati, Ohio, 1/20/13.

8

HDR - High Dynamic Range / Re: Post your HDR images:

« on: January 14, 2013, 11:01:50 AM »

9

Reviews / Re: Review - Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L II

« on: November 07, 2012, 10:57:40 AM »

While IS is great and I'm reluctant to use it on lenses past 70 mm,

Really? I thought longer lenses were what IS was really made for. It's harder to handhold 300mm than it is 24 mm.

10

Reviews / Re: Review - Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L II

« on: November 07, 2012, 10:33:49 AM »

I think one factor  to explain the missing IS is that this lens is aimed at landscape photogs who are always shooting on a tripod and turning off IS anyway.