I take the protective filter off with my 17-40 and then attach the Lee holder. Other lenss, where vignetting is not a problem, I'll leave the protective filter on.
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.
No, from the article I linked toimages obtained using even the largest, most advanced telescopes today contain scattered light that may be hiding this faint structure [...] Dragonfly is designed to reveal the faint structure by greatly reducing scattered light and internal reflections within its optics. It achieves this using ten, commercially available Canon 400mm lenses with unprecedented nano-fabricated coatings with sub-wavelength structure on optical glasses.
Is this using commercially available lenses with non-commercially available coatings?
...the latest generation of Canon lenses features the first commercialized availability of nano-fabricated coatings...
It achieves this using ten, commercially available Canon 400mm lenses with unprecedented nano-fabricated coatings with sub-wavelength structure on optical glasses.
I only count 8.
Ignorant, facile and bordering on racist. You're not an American, are you?the fact that DxO have embarrassed themselves as "scientists" yet again by claiming the physically impossible.
Hmmm....isn't DXO a French company? I wonder if any of their "scientists" were involved in that faster-than-light neutrino error a few years ago.
R.I.P. Fake Chuck. He and his dirty yet hilarious posts will be missed.I didn't even know about the blog until today, and have wasted several hours reading it today.
I'm fairly new to photography and I just bought a Canon 550D with a 18-55mm kit lens.Congratulations on your new camera!
I am going to New York this winter and am wondering if I should buy a wider lens so that I can get nice pictures of the buildings and wide pictures of the roads/parks. I also want to do a bit of street photography too.
I was looking into getting a 50mm prime lens for it but I don't know if that's a good idea or not.
Any help would be appreciated and thanks for reading this post.
East Wind Photography covered this on the previous page of this thread. The uninstall process leaves no trace of Magic Lantern on the camera.As mentioned over and over, all the information you need in order to install is readily available on the ML forums and the idea that you should understand a bit of how it works before using it is not a bad one. Really, spend a few days reading through some of the active parts of the forum and you should find most of the info that you need.
For me, the few aspects that DO have some degree of complexity are often the aspects that are under development as well as new modules, not included in the standard package and with those, your best bet is the forum as well as any written guide has the danger of being outdated fairly fast.
That said, the 1.2.3 port works great for me and ML hasn't left my 5D3 since I bought it
Does installing the 1.2.3 port render any permanent effects (flags) of ML usage if I ever need warranty services?
Apologies, I hadn't realised you were planning something ifferent.Seriouly, people that have suggestions about shortcomings if ExifTool SHOULD NOT post about it here, but should use the ExifTool forums that exist for precisely this reason.This is for suggestions to replace it, not improve it. We're talking about developing a tool built in Lua or C++ instead of Perl that works as a plugin to Lightroom and Photoshop. Someone who wants to influence the development of ExifTool can post on Phil Harvey's forums, but that won't connect you to me--I don't work for/with Phil Harvey.
Seriouly, people that have suggestions about shortcomings if ExifTool SHOULD NOT post about it here, but should use the ExifTool forums that exist for precisely this reason.I use ExifToolGUI ( http://u88.n24.queensu.ca/~bogdan/ ) to run ExifTool in a nice GUI environment. It is quite efficient for mass editing of EXIF data.
ExifTool and its GUIs were previously discussed. From my perspective, when processing a thousand images per day it eats up time to go back and forth between multiple programs. That also introduces a greater likelihood of generating errors while editing the files and then having to correct them. My time is not cheap to expend long-term and is worth far less than the $ to buy Lightroom and donate a bit to support LensTagger. Which is why the OP asked about a quick batch workflow, not just EXIF editing software.
On the plus side, I liked this particular ExifTool GUI the best and it would probably be my choice if I didn't have concerns of workflow efficiency. It's probably a great choice for a lot of other readers here.
Ideally someone needs to write a plugin that works in both Photoshop and Lightroom. Perhaps I can talk some college CS majors into doing that as a project. If it ever happens, I'll post back about it here. For now, folks who have suggestions about any shortcomings of the ExifTool code can post about it here.