October 23, 2014, 09:20:53 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 - mycanonphotos

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 6
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Sigma Opens Up About Their Roadmap
« on: September 22, 2014, 03:46:21 PM »
More like a detour...

6 of us

Better than the 1.4X extender on the 100-400 ??...??...??

APS-C 100-400=160-640
Full Frame 100-400 w 1.4X=140-560

If Sigmas 150-600 is anything like their lenses of late...then its a 1-2 punch in the face of Canons new missing in action 100-400...

HDR - High Dynamic Range / Re: My kind of HDR
« on: September 04, 2014, 12:50:41 AM »

Everyone has some real good points. HDR will continue being slung around like mud for years to come. Good the Bad and the Ugly. To this day that old rusted out car with the tin cans in it is one of my favs... That junk yard doesn't exist anymore since it's been cleaned up, wish I could go back and re-shoot it. I have yet to find a more interesting car containing such interesting subject matter...

 8) Jason

Lenses / Re: Help deciding on going full frame
« on: August 26, 2014, 03:39:39 PM »
Dude. New 6D, kit/whitebox 24-105 for less $$...16-35 f2.8 new/refurb and a used 70-300...might seriously want to go with a used/refurb 100-400 since you're at the 100 end on the 24-105...


EOS Bodies / Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« on: August 25, 2014, 12:33:29 AM »
Close enough for me...Where the H#11 is the 100-400 at in all this

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Where do you buy 5D Mark iii?
« on: July 22, 2014, 12:08:47 AM »
That price is a good price. I bought my second body from get it digital without any issues. It came in a kit box but that's ok...I paid $2,810 for it. The day before the 6D came out, I bought my first 5D3 for $2,749 from Adorama via Ebay...For me that's a worthy price compared to standard retail via B&H etc...including any rebate

HDR - High Dynamic Range / Re: My kind of HDR
« on: July 19, 2014, 04:53:56 PM »
I don't do very much HDR anymore but when the scene warrants I'll process it accordingly

HDR - High Dynamic Range / Re: My kind of HDR
« on: July 19, 2014, 04:49:32 PM »
Here is another done about the same time frame...one of my favorites..Again in print its amazing as well..this is how I saw the scene in my head before I shot it...going with a more "Natural" look woud have not done it justice in my opinion..

Technically speaking, and not to be callous, but this isn't HDR. It is actually the result of improper tonemapping during conversion from HDR (which in the truest sense is an image that stores 32-bit floating point values for each RGB subpixel) to a lower integer bit depth (such as 16-bit or 8-bit). It is the use of high precision 32-bit floating point numbers that makes things "high" dynamic range.

This "classic" HDR "look" is effectively the result of a mistake, or a mistaken understanding of proper HDR processing when converting from "HDR" to "LDR". It is entirely fine if you are purposely doing this for the sake of art...but just to be correct here, calling it HDR is technically incorrect. The images here actually have very low contrast, and therefor very low dynamic range.

High Dynamic Range means exactly that. That the actual data in the image contains enough precision and information to represent a high dynamic range.

Personally, I find these kind of "HDR" images to be...well, not my kind of thing. They have issues all over the place that rub me the wrong way. They are relatively "flat"...no real contrast curve...and the lack of contrast actually means there is very little dynamic range in the results themselves. Terrible color in the bright sun highlights is common...I mean, it this case it turns PINK because of the processing. Unusual and unnatural color gradients are common, not just in the bright highlights, but also in the shadows and around areas that would normally have higher contrast. Halos exist around all edges, kind of like a "glow". These kinds of images tend to have this "soft noise" effect to them, which just feels a little weird.

From an artsy standpoint, these kinds of images certainly have artistic flare. I have no problem with people being artistic, and if this look is your artistic goal, more power to you! I just wish we could stop calling it HDR. It really isn't. :P

That's fine if this is not your "kind of thing". But you are dead wrong to say this is not high dynamic range. In this shot the original 4 images contain the one photos single image range. Being able to tone map the image while in Photomatix then further in Photoshop is an added plus for this kind of artsy shot. HDR is widely abused but when it comes down to it the final output was produced through HDR processing weather you enjoy the final outcome or not is in the eye of the beholder.

HDR - High Dynamic Range / Re: Post your HDR images:
« on: July 18, 2014, 11:02:47 AM »

Lenses / Re: Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II [CR1]
« on: July 13, 2014, 01:52:01 PM »
I too prefer the push/pull...If IQ and IS is THAT much better then I'll drop the coin on it


EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Should I buy 6d or 5MkIII?
« on: April 06, 2014, 03:00:07 AM »
Yeah, 6D will be perfect for you.

To me it seems like the Bride is looking into you for a better deal because you were the second shooter. Perhaps your prices might be lower. But what I don't understand is how she knows your photos were not included in the original set given by the event photographer...she must have been told by the event photographer or yourself you were a "tag along" so to speak where the photos were separate...I'd give the event photographer a call and let him know what's up with trying to side step him.. Maybe split the difference with him...

Sports / Re: Your favourite motorsports events
« on: April 01, 2014, 03:17:45 PM »
Panned at 1/160 with the 5D3 and the 100-400

More at my site: http://jasonsphotography.net/f512183673

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 6