I wonder if this is going to affect the eurozone prices as well...
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.
It very easy, buy Ligthroom. Shoot raw, import into ligthroom, do your adjustments.
For 90-95 % of your photos, its all you need.
- read on internet what Ligthroom can do.
There are various workflows using Lightroom and Photoshop. It gets complex if you have several people involved in the process, each with a different task.
Martin Evening has his, Scott Kelby has his, Victoria Brampton has hers, and lots of other book writers have theirs. Each explains the reasoning why they do it their way in their books.
Some publish their preferred method, but have no technical reason for doing things in a certain order except that it works for them.
Just search on workflow for Lightroom, or for Photoshop, or whatever editing software you use. If there is no explanation as to why they do it the way they do, and you need one, look elsewhere until you find someone who does.
To me, photography is an expression of point of view. I really like when everybody is allowed to have his own point of view, especially when it comes to beauty. As such, I do appreciate the fact that photography tools allow every single one of us to express ourself in our own way.
You choose your lens, body, shutter speed, light color, vantage point, ..., you name it, according to what you want to capture.
Post processing should not differ from that. It should give you the freedom to represent whatever you want to convey.
If all post processings were the same, how would you stand out from the crowd? How would you envy someone else's work? How would you admire the effort put on it? Wouldn't you get borred at yours if you do the same thing over and over again?
I see post processing as another tool on top of my shooting parameters in order for me to better express myself. It helps alot in learning how to shoot too.
To explain myself, see below pictures (Sorry for the quality, I am not a great retoucher).
The first one is what I have after ACR (I don't use Lightroom).
The second is my "standard" post (magenta).
What I saw during Zombie Walk was really a World War II mood but my camera couldn't give it to me. I had to modify my standard workflow to get there in post.
It pleases me that you are eager and mad about it. Was there a year or two ago and still searching for my "way". Some photogs simply don't want to know anything about post and some of snapshooters just want the magic solution (click and poof).
When I began, someone made a suggestion; choose one book that you like, focus on every single detail in it and don't jump all over the place, it will give you a nice head start; the scientific part you want to discover. Later study the internet and find your own style.
He suggested this one, but choose what suits you best.
Serious wide angle lens for landscapes? Didn't feel any necessity there yet. And no, no stars. Yes, I do own the 100/2.8L Macro lens and yes, I did use it for portrait in the past. I also have a 50mm/1.4 which is better for portraits in most cases. Yes, the EF 24-70/2.8L II sure must be nice. But also quite expensive as you say. I basically know I've got to get it if I go FF but not sure that will be right now. Any recommendations for a standard zoom lens that is in the <$1000 price range?
Hi. I'm hoping to prevail on the collective wisdom of CR regulars for advice on building my lens kit after making the change from crop sensor to FF (I've got the 6D - great camera). I got rid of the last of my crop sensor lenses, leaving me with the following lenses: 24-105 f4L, 50 f1.8II, and an older Sigma 70-200 f2.8 APO HSM (no OS) that I've had since my Elan IIe days. I shoot landscapes, occasional portraits, and I would like to get into macro. I don't shoot sports and don't plan to. I see two possible paths forward: go mostly with primes or rely mostly on zooms. In either case, I plan to keep the 24-105 because of its versatility as a walk around lens.
Plan 1. Add the 24mm f2.8 IS, 35mm 2.0 IS, 100mm f2.8L IS, and 200mm f2.8L. Sell the Sigma. Perhaps add a Rokinon 14mm manual focus later. On hikes when I want to keep the weight down, I could go with the 24, 35, and 100 and have most of the bases covered.
Plan 2. Add the 17-40mm f4L, 70-200mm f4L IS, and 100mm f2.8L IS. Sell the Sigma 70-200 f2.8. I don't want to buy the Canon 70-200 f2.8L (IS or non-IS) both because of the weight and the fact that for most landscape I don't need shallow DOF. Similar comments apply for the 16-36mm f2.8L. On hikes when I want to minimize weight, I would go with the 17-40, the 50, and the 70-200 f4L. I suppose that I could add macro ability by swapping the 50 1.8 for a 50 2.5 macro.
Any thoughts about either of these plans or other recommendations? Thanks.
- Long time exposures at nightfall / night
- Temples / Shrines / other interesting buildings (no, I don't have or want shiftable lenses)
- Flowers / insects / small animals (close-up and macro)
- Portraits and Cosplay (from close-ups to groups)
Based on that: stay with your 550d :-) at least it runs Magic Lantern (timed bulb exposures, unlimted hdr bracketing, focus stacking for macro).
The 70d sensor isn't a significant upgrade, and you don't seem to have the need for a better af system. A full frame isn't really better in all cases, as it has a more shallow dof and this is what you *don't* want for macro, and for landscape it depends on how much you want to boost the shots in postprocessing.