September 21, 2014, 12:36:01 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 - privatebydesign

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 158
1
EOS Bodies / Re: Just for Jrista: 2014 Market Data
« on: Today at 12:34:02 AM »
so a pro is still using a 30d? no kidding. My second shooter does as well. pros or part timers aren't in it to buy the latest camera gear. My second shooter and i usually get a kick out of how many people attending whatever event we are working have better gear than he does. me? well, i think i have some pretty sweet gear, but nothing like many of you guys.

It's sad, but many enthusiasts judge the skill of a photographer they know nothing about based on the caliber of their gear. It seems to really stroke their egos when they see a pro with lesser gear than they have. I don't list my gear in my sig because I like to keep people guessing ;D

It reminds me of when I first started posting here, revealed that I made a living shooting with a 5D classic, and was promptly ridiculed as a troll. The many demands to post sample images of this impossible feat were quite comical to say the least.

Meanwhile, I know many very talented pros that are still shooting with 5DIIs, 1DIVs, and 1DsIIIs. One pro friend of mine just finally retired his 1DsII after eight years of field duty!

Agreed..........

A 1DX with a 400mm f2.8 IS MkII and a trip to Manhattan beach doesn't make you a surf photographer.

2
Canon General / Re: Have you used CanonPriceWatch's Street Price connection?
« on: September 20, 2014, 11:52:42 PM »
I have used it, they fixed me up with a Canadian supplier for a 1DX that carried a North American warranty and no sales or import taxes.

You might not know the exact dealer before the transaction, but you do know the full details, particularly for the important stuff like USA, Grey, warranty etc etc.

I highly recommend the system and won't buy new without trying them out to see what deal I can get.

Are you in Canada or the US?

YES.

I used CPW-SP last thursday. Although I haven't received the lens yet(selected free shipping option), but I was on the phone with dealer(yes, US authourized) to confirm: US model, Canon 1yr standard warranty, sealed never been opened etc...

So far, I'm very happy with CPW service.

I know you can't publicly reveal the dealer that you were connected with.  Was the dealer one you had heard of before?

Please let me know how things are once you've received the lens.  Congrats on your new purchase.   :)

I am in the USA, the dealer was one of the biggest and most respected Canadian Canon dealers.

I have zero qualms about recommending the system, I know it sounds a little strange but you know who your money is going to before it gets sent and can pay by CC so the deal is protected by your CC company, and it isn't that secretive.

3
Lenses / Re: how to get 300 2.8
« on: September 20, 2014, 11:18:43 PM »

I understand your points.

Besides me, there are few more of us out there call it as "compression".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pGQuuhEKN-g (@ 6:03 to 6:05)

And that makes it correct? I don't see the smug satisfaction in refusing education and reveling in repeating inaccurate statements from self taught YouTube experts. But hey, have at it.........

I appreciated your attempt to correct my word. If you and the world both understand the term compression in photography, then why are we having this discussion?

Sorry OP for Hijacking your thread..........I'm done.

Because "Lens compression is a bullshit term used by people who don't know what they are talking about to describe a phenomena that visual artists have well understood for hundreds of years and is universally called perspective."

Just like so many memes, if it isn't corrected by anybody then the true learners can't learn. Understanding and controlling perspective is unutterably more important than thinking focal length changes anything, besides, you even introduced dof into the confusion that has become "lens compression".

I am not being elitist or pedantic here, I am just pointing out a commonly (and increasingly so) held misconception, I even posted two illustrative images to demonstrate how wrong the saying is.

Again, if you want to wallow in your own ignorance then have at it, but don't think you are doing those trying to learn any justice.

4
Lenses / Re: how to get 300 2.8
« on: September 20, 2014, 08:51:26 PM »

I understand your points.

Besides me, there are few more of us out there call it as "compression".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pGQuuhEKN-g (@ 6:03 to 6:05)

And that makes it correct? I don't see the smug satisfaction in refusing education and reveling in repeating inaccurate statements from self taught YouTube experts. But hey, have at it.........

This conversation is starting to piss me off...

When I was 19 I was "dating" this really hot dumb blonde girl... and I mentioned to her grandfather that we were off to play some billiards... and he indicated that billiards is specifically in reference to a table with no holes...

Per the dictionary, yes, the billiard table does not have any pockets... BUT the world's vernacular has morphed into billiards meaning what we call pool/8 ball etc. 

You may be technically right, but it doesn't mean that the world isn't leaving you behind.

And far be it for me to piss you off, I am so sorry.

There is a big difference between language morphing and uneducated dumbing down, please forgive me for trying to accept the former whilst holding firm against the latter, but like I say, if it makes you happy have at it. I can understand people not knowing, I can't understand people refusing to learn.

I have been doing this photography gig for over thirty years, I still learn stuff here from other members and pretty much every week out in the field. I find learning stimulating and exciting, I don't rail against it, and, on the occasions my experience and education have been found wanting and have made mistakes I invariably apologize, not that I want or expect anything back, but why the hostility to a simple, accurate, correction.

For years I fought against the "pixels on duck" meme, pointing out that the theories just don't pan out in the real world, now those observations of mine are being accepted as closer to the truth, was I wrong to stand my ground? There are too many "teachers", pontificators, and theoretical adherents, it causes confusion especially when there is already 100% accepted terminology for the false observations that they believe they are seeing.

Lenses do not cause compression, that is just a fact.

I have posted this illustration many times in similar discussions, one is with a 200mm lens and one is with a 17mm lens, shot from the same place the "compression" which everybody with any hint of a photography education knows as perspective, is the same.

Lens compression is a bullshit term used by people who don't know what they are talking about to describe a phenomena that visual artists have well understood for hundreds of years and is universally called perspective.

5
Canon General / Re: Have you used CanonPriceWatch's Street Price connection?
« on: September 20, 2014, 04:58:05 PM »
I have used it, they fixed me up with a Canadian supplier for a 1DX that carried a North American warranty and no sales or import taxes.

You might not know the exact dealer before the transaction, but you do know the full details, particularly for the important stuff like USA, Grey, warranty etc etc.

I highly recommend the system and won't buy new without trying them out to see what deal I can get.

6
Lenses / Re: how to get 300 2.8
« on: September 20, 2014, 04:33:25 PM »

I understand your points.

Besides me, there are few more of us out there call it as "compression".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pGQuuhEKN-g (@ 6:03 to 6:05)

And that makes it correct? I don't see the smug satisfaction in refusing education and reveling in repeating inaccurate statements from self taught YouTube experts. But hey, have at it.........

7
EOS Bodies / Re: Just for Jrista: 2014 Market Data
« on: September 19, 2014, 10:50:58 PM »
Crucify me. I've already been hanging on a cross for a while now, not like it's going to matter. :P
Oh please spare us the self-pity. You've been on the attack for months now. Every time you are proven wrong you change the goal posts or pull out the "poor me" card. It's time to move on.
+ several million

I don't cry when I get set upon

"Just as you sow you shall reap": Stuart Adams.

8
Post Processing / Re: Overall "brightness" when printing
« on: September 19, 2014, 10:36:31 PM »
25-30% is normally pretty close for screen brightness. The other key point is what light is going onto the print, it must be good even light of a similar temperature to the screen.

9
Post Processing / Re: Overall "brightness" when printing
« on: September 19, 2014, 06:35:30 PM »
Invariably your screen is way too bright.

Think about it, if your screen is brighter than a piece of paper then the print will be darker than it looks on the screen. Lower your screen brightness and increase the light onto the print.

10
Photography Technique / Re: Postprocessing brush instead of cto/ctb gel?
« on: September 19, 2014, 04:11:19 PM »
Good photogs will probably cringe at the mere though, but I dare to ask anyway :-o ...

... my enthusiasm for "correct" flash gelling has recently diminished a bit because for many scenes with defined edges or surfaces, correcting the white balance (temperature, tint) with the postprocessing tools in Lightroom work just fine. Plus often I need to tweak the local wb anyway since 1/4 or 1/2 cto doesn't necessarily hit the correct spot, and even "real" shadows are often too blue, so why bother at all with gels?

Am I missing something here, is postprocessing wb different than flash gelling? As far as I see it, the flash blocks some up some light frequencies and taking away these from the raw file should amount to the same thing?

Note that this only applies if you can quickly smudge over whole areas with a corrected wb, for fine foreground/background details gelling the flash is the work-saving way to go.

You are not missing anything, I gel but often in very mixed light source venues it is impossible to get everything "right" without going to extremes like gelling windows etc. Nowadays it is easier, quicker and cheaper to use the WB in the brush tool on LR.

11
Lenses / Re: What do you use your wide angle lens for?
« on: September 19, 2014, 04:01:39 PM »
You can use the T/S lenses to put people on the edge of the frame with no distortion in wide and ultrawide images. Just shift away from the person and reframe, that way they are at the center of the image circle but the edge of the frame.

12
Gino, it isn't 5-6 hours work, it is 5-6 hours on the wedding day at the same location as the couple, with probably another 5-6 in travel, getting gear ready, ingesting the files etc etc plus all the pre and post production work.

$2,000 is the budget end for stills and video, at that price I would probably look to get two separate people in for around $1,000 each to cover the event, this is really on the low side but you will probably find two better people than one good one that is working for so low a price. I would be very suspicious of any photographer who was offering that kind of package for that money.

Questions; ask to see their work, if you like it then keep talking. Ask for references from previous couples, at least five or six, and get in touch with them. Ask to see their contracts, good shooters have good contracts.

Other than that, just talk and play it by ear, but don't think for one second it is 5-6 hours work.


13
Photography Technique / Re: Cropping
« on: September 19, 2014, 02:00:22 PM »
Just did another video for people without Content Aware Scale, also this method will work better for many images. Knowing the various ways to do things gives you the flexibility to use the most appropriate technique for any particular image.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/4wm56wtcjvn543u/Aspect%20ratio%20conversion.mp4?dl=0

Hope this helps.


14
Photography Technique / Re: Cropping
« on: September 19, 2014, 11:57:44 AM »
Sorry for the delay in answering, but I just got back from my travels.

I thought a screen capture video would better illustrate the technique so here it is.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/12hc32ci12qscvx/content%20aware%20scale.mp4?dl=0

Obviously I am not very good at videos and was using a laptop through my desktop screen and kept using the wrong keyboard, and the audio sucks! But hopefully this is a good illustration of the technique and will continue the discussion.

Of course you can fine tune the technique and do the conversion in stages to better control what gets pulled etc, as I said, every image and output will probably require a different combination of techniques.

15
Lighting / Re: How to Extend Flash Performance (Life on Site)
« on: September 19, 2014, 01:36:22 AM »
Well Tabor tha is a mighty big upgrade!

The Einsteins make the 600's look like toys, I highly recommend the Cyber Commander as well for remote power control of the Einsteins.

The flat three holed plug fits in the side of the 600 under the rubber cover.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 158