January 29, 2015, 11:28:12 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 - Sporgon

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 144
1
I think the tonality "issue" when trying to lower exposure of a overexposed sky is due to the fact that the closer we are to clipping all the channels, the harder it is for an individual channel to stick out and be visibly dominant. When we, in post, drag our sliders down, we are stuck with values that's perceived as closer to a "tinted light grey" (240 240 255), than a "subtle blue" (170 170 185).

How about that as a thought?

I think it has something to do with blue being the 'weakest' or 'darkest' wavelength of light, and the camera processor is applying more amplification to blue.

Certainly red and green are not as effected by overexposure, but it is there if you are extreme enough.

2
I haven't used a color picker to check saturation, I judged by looking at the pictures in the second set. Anyway, the brick wall does not look like it has identical exposure in both pictures.
I am wondering how the OP has done his adjustments. I think that using sliders in any software is not going to produce a linear shift of the values. I haven't tested it yet, but the best bet would be to use the curve tool and shift linearly everything.

They were not identical exposures, the second was two full stops over, then reduced two stops in DPP before converting to 16 bit TIFF.

I don't use 'sliders' to alter an image, this was tweaked in curves to balance the appearance. A very minor adjustment but I can't remember now, and these files are deleted anyway.

Using a small amount of ETTR is well established for assisting in a number of circumstances, and often something that I would do if faced with a single exposure shot of something in high contrast. However my point was made because of the LL article advising that the 'correct' exposure for a black cat in a coal hole is to expose the raw as virtually white, even given the date that this was produced.


3
Software & Accessories / Re: Photostitch ain't perfect, or is it me?
« on: January 28, 2015, 11:30:57 AM »
Mr. Haines,
The thing that sort of surprised me is I did this shot with the TS-E 24 but shifting left, center, and right. I am totally on board with the perspective changing and curving straight lines as you rotate. But, since I had the tilt shift vertical (as close as I could tell) and was merely shifting and not rotating, I didn't think the seams would fail to line up. But, they did.
Tanispyre,
I was using a solid all metal tripod, a 6D and a TSE-24mm that's new to me, but purchased new 6 months ago from B&H.
I'll mess with it some more and see what happens next.
Thanks for all the advice!  :)

Irrespective of the software you're using, what you are finding is how not to shoot a pano. Be aware that if you are both straight on to your subject and in the middle you are going to find it much harder to get a satisfactory result. Add the fact that you're very close to your subject, the subject is a straight line and you've gone quite wide; you'll need a fair bit of manual tweaking with any program.

My advice: don't try and do this type of thing as a pano.

4
Lenses / Re: Canon prime rumors? 50mm f1.4, 85mm f1.8 and 100mm f2
« on: January 28, 2015, 09:15:12 AM »
I doubt Canon will produce an updated version of both the 85 and the 100. Of the two I'd be pretty sure they'd go for the 85.

Theoretically the 85/1.8 is designed primarily for portraiture, the 100/2 more for sports etc. The 85 is less corrected for CA and produces a nicer bokeh - at least if you can see any difference most of the time. This is why people complain more about purple fringing on the 85 more than the 100 yet despite this it is by far the most popular of the two.

I would guess that the delay in introducing the 50 and 85 is Canon are scratching their heads wondering how to produce a worthwhile update in optical quality, with IS, at a price  point where it is worth it for them to produce and the customer will buy. From f/2.8 the current 50 is a stellar performer across the frame, easily able to aquit itself on an upcoming 'high' mp camera. The 85 also. This wasn't the case with the predecessors of the new IS trio, so I think Canon were getting their ducks in a row on those focal lengths.

5
Thand any Pentax 67 LS lens can be shot via adapter  (full manual).

If you are talking about using old Pentax 6x7 lenses on a 645z you'll likely get a shock. No doubt fine for portraiture, but they were never the sharpest lenses on medium format. Highly regarded for portraiture, yes, but will be left wanting on the latest 50 mp DMF sensor.

6
I think that if you really need and/or want 50 mp then you have done the right thing, irrespective of what Canon do with a higher mp FF sensor. 50 mp on a FF size sensor is a total waste in my opinion.

Personally I prefer to stick with FF and stitch for the sort of work I do. It is so easy to stitch now, especially if you are using a lens who's entry pupil is close to the camera body. Obviously with your portrait work you cannot stitch.


7
Canon EF Prime Lenses / Re: Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM
« on: January 26, 2015, 03:28:18 PM »
I find that as long as you are quite close to subject and really nail the focus the EF 50/1.4 is useable at f/1.4

Canon 5DII + EF 50/1.4 @ f/1.4

Sleeping Piggies

8
Lenses / Re: I'm conflicted please help
« on: January 26, 2015, 01:31:47 PM »
My point is that in the uk the 500mm is £8000 the 400 is £1100 and most of the time can be found for <£800 if 20% reach one stop and IS is worth £7000 extra... By learning a little more about the subject and also learning some hunting/tracking skills and wearing camo your images will be better, your arms and body not as tired and your wallet will be a lot larger.

Most of the time to get enough DOF With birds you shoot higher than F5.6.

I would probably look at bigger, but the weight puts me off especially for a full days shooting.

Never mind that. Where are the pictures from your Amazonian expedition ?

9
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Difference in image from APS-C to FF
« on: January 26, 2015, 10:47:58 AM »
Here's one big difference between APS-C & FF - the pixel density really brings out the flaws in lenses - check out the purple fringing in the 7DII vs. 1DsIII from the latest test on TDP - yikes:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=397&Camera=963&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=397&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

Is that pixel density doing that or distance from the chart ? I presume these are shot on the same framing so the 7DII will be further away.

I think TDP is a very useful and well executed resource, but I'm not sure allowing direct comparisons between APS and FF reflects real world results.
I'm no optical expert, but I would think that the abberations would improve the closer you get towards infinity focus, so I would think it's the pixel density.  I noticed this same phenomenon with my fast lenses, particularly with the 24L II and 50L when I was shooting with a crop sensor.

Yikes ! Yet another point then, to add to my list of reasons to get hold of another 5D mark one.

10
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Difference in image from APS-C to FF
« on: January 26, 2015, 10:30:48 AM »
Here's one big difference between APS-C & FF - the pixel density really brings out the flaws in lenses - check out the purple fringing in the 7DII vs. 1DsIII from the latest test on TDP - yikes:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=397&Camera=963&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=397&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

Is that pixel density doing that or distance from the chart ? I presume these are shot on the same framing so the 7DII will be further away.

I think TDP is a very useful and well executed resource, but I'm not sure allowing direct comparisons between APS and FF reflects real world results.

11
Lenses / Re: Prime vs zoom for landscape?
« on: January 25, 2015, 03:22:40 PM »
Sporgon, is there a large difference between primes and zooms at this f stop?

In the context of common focal lengths for landscape, Canon have rewritten the rule book with the 24-70/2.8II and the 16-35/4.

However looking at other common FF standard or wide zooms such as the 24-105, the 24-70 IS, 17-40, 16-35/2.8II, a good quality prime is better edge of frame to mid, and in the four corners at f8. Centre can be identical. I am bearing in mind that 'landscape' normally means trying to define and resolve small detail that is a relatively long way away.

At f11 I cannot, for instance, see any difference between my 24-105 @ 50mm and my EF 50/1.4 at the same aperture, even at 100% on a studio tripod.

When shooting subject that are closer to the camera I find at f8 the differences are much slimmer, but landscape is a different ball game. This is why until recently the large format cameras reigned supreme in this sphere, and even now you are better with a larger format for serious work due to the greater magnification of the subject.

12
Canon EF Prime Lenses / Re: Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM
« on: January 25, 2015, 02:57:20 PM »
The EF 50/1.4 has been out getting some love again, and I'm left thinking maybe I've been using the 40 too much lately.

Swans of the lake at Londesborough Hall where I had been to shoot a panoramic. The sun had given up for the day, but then just managed to sneak out for a few minutes before setting.

5DII + 50/1.4 @ f2.5

13
Animal Kingdom / Re: Your best animal shots!
« on: January 25, 2015, 02:51:26 PM »
Love is.......being a piggie

5DII + 50/1.4 @ f1.8

14
Animal Kingdom / Re: Your best animal shots!
« on: January 25, 2015, 02:43:41 PM »
Swans on the lake at Londesborough Hall where I had been to do a panoramic. The light had gone but then the sun managed to just sneak through again before setting.

5DII + EF 50/1.4 @ f2.5

15
Lenses / Re: Prime vs zoom for landscape?
« on: January 25, 2015, 02:33:03 PM »
Forgive me if I'm wrong. But aren't most lenses perfectly sharp at f8-f11? What would be the difference between a the 35mm 1.4 and the 24-105 f4l at F8? CA?

I find that there can still be a real difference mid and edge of frame between lenses at f8, but they all do seem to begin to gravitate together at around f11 and beyond. Not that you have to take landscapes at f8. With wider lenses in particular you can go significantly wider than f8 with great dof.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 144