December 21, 2014, 10:28:17 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 - infared

Pages: 1 ... 9 10 [11] 12 13 ... 68
151
Canon General / Re: Lens Cleaning Techniques/Opinions
« on: August 22, 2014, 02:49:11 PM »
I just clean the front surface of the filter that is on my lens pretty much all the time.  ;D
I agree...I use only the best filters, though.I am a fan of Lenspen and similar products even for my expensive multi coated filters.
1. Use blower for loose dirt
2. Use brush
3. Use cleaning end of the Lenspen with the Carbon-Laden swab
4. Use brush an/or blower if necessary

Works like a charm and no abrasion.
If someone tells you to use "Lens Tissue"...RUN LIKE HELL!!!!   8)

152
Beautiful Lens, someone should jump on this!
I would think? The lens is like new! No bites yet...but it's not a lens for most....it's so special....

153
Portrait / Re: People at work
« on: August 21, 2014, 08:33:26 AM »
Serious question:  Have you had any bad experiences taking pictures of people working?  I imagine that some workers might object.
I have never had a problem photographing people.... you ask first :) If they say yes, go for it!, if they say no, just say thanks and move on....

I always like to ask first.  I know that I don't like it when people take my picture with out letting me know, so I assume other people may not like it too.

Of course these days, if you take a picture of a person you are automatically a stalker/creep and if you take a picture of a building/structure you are a terrorist. (facepalm)

If the workers are in a public place, or visible from a public place and you are not trespassing in any way...you can take all the photos you want..whether they like it or not!  :-) At least that is the law.
Most police don't know this either. (oh..big surprise there)...and the there is nothing in the Patriot Act or Homeland Security that takes that right away from me as an American Citizen.  As soon as a cop approaches an artist and tells him to stop, the terrorists have won by instilling FEAR and taking away are democratic rights, which is why it was so great to live here in the first place?????    8) 8) 8)  Everybody needs to get on the page....

154
Animal Kingdom / Re: Mary had a Little Lamb
« on: August 21, 2014, 04:08:04 AM »
That's actually a kid (goat) Anil.

 :-X  :o  8)

155
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Canon mirrorless: Status?
« on: August 20, 2014, 02:45:25 PM »
How about a mirrorless full frame camera stuck in an AE1 type body?  No autofocus, full manual controls and good
battery life.  Oh, wait - that's a Fuji XT1 in manual mode.

But the XT1 doesn't meet your criteria ... it's not full frame.

LMAOFOTF!!!!!!  AWESOME! :o  (XT1 does look like a cool camera though!)

156
Lenses / Re: Image quality with or without filters
« on: August 20, 2014, 02:41:00 PM »
B+w on all my lenses. The difference between is negligible and if your shooting a strong enough back light to get flare off the UV filter, your probably already getting flare from the lens anyway.

However being able to wipe off my lens with a shirt, drop them in and out of bags with no lens cap, grab and touch them anyway I want, avoiding dirt and dust on the front element, and potentially protect against a stray object finding your front element out weigh any nearly invisible difference in IQ. Plus when you resell, the front element looks absolutely perfect.

The times where the filter comes off is when using my LEE system or a polarizer on UW lenses.

+++1000  ;D

157
Lenses / Re: Image quality with or without filters
« on: August 20, 2014, 02:38:01 PM »
As usual Roger over at lensrentals.com did it:

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2011/06/good-times-with-bad-filters

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2010/12/the-glass-in-front-of-your-glass-all-about-filters

Yah gotta love Roger!!!! Anyone the would pose for an avatar with a lens sock on his head is my kinda guy.
His test says it all to me!  :'(
I use B&W MRC Clear nano filters on all of my L, Zeiss, Sigma glass...all the time. I defy someone to see the difference in the  images from any of my lenses with and with out the filter. The filter has saved my $2000 lens more than once out on location. Its just foolish not to. ..but that is just my opinion. I have sold many..many..many images...no one ever asked if I had a filter in front of the lens...or said "Hey, this would be a lot sharper if you hadn't had that filter in front of the lens!"  8) 8) 8)

I also can't buy say an "L" lens and put a $2 filter on it...but hey whateva.

158
Site Information / Re: NEW ___ Sell Your Gear - Beta Test
« on: August 19, 2014, 02:56:16 PM »
Only a small handful of users have asked to try out the buy and sell forum, at this point, I'm wondering if the effort already expended was time wasted.

Has anyone sold anything or received questions?
I have had a lot of lookers, but no questions and no buyers. I think my item is priced right for what it is. I have it listed on eBay, too (for sale, not auction), so I am not sweating it and in no real hurry to sell. The lens is definitely high-end specialty item...so I have to find just the right buyer who wants to save some money.

159
Portrait / Re: People at work
« on: August 19, 2014, 01:48:07 PM »
American Diner

I sure miss seeing your work, Bob!!

Shot that out at a diner in Frackville, PA. I get goose bumps every time I go in there. Place is spotless, perfectly maintained, people are real and the food is simple and cheap!  It was 6:30 AM I was havin breakfast on my way to a photo-shooting day. Left my Canon in the car....used my Oylmpus E-p5 w/VF4 & Olympus 12mm f/2... Killer street shooter, puts the "M" to shame IMHO...can I post that here! LOL!   I call it my "poor-man's Leica"! I would love for Canon to make a killer mirrorless.

160
Portrait / Re: People at work
« on: August 18, 2014, 10:44:31 PM »
American Diner

161
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Canon mirrorless: Status?
« on: August 18, 2014, 02:55:43 PM »
I'm probably in the minority here, but I think everyone who wants a soup-to-nuts 'yes, we offer that' in mirrorless would be wiser to leave Canon/Nikon immediately.  Fuji, Sony and the m43 gang will far, far better support your ambitions.  They have multiple mirrorless body price points and all sorts of tiers of tiny/average/big sensors and cheap/okay/semi-pro build qualities.  Plus, they have a ton more lenses that are native to the mount than with EF-M.

I also do not understand why folks want reach for these microscopic bodies.  I might be way off here, but mirrorless needs to be small.  Period.  The minute the camera gets above length X with lens attached -- let's say 6-8" -- I think the upside of that tiny body is lost.  Sure, it will pack in a bag far more efficiently when you take the lens off -- and I see a lot of folks rave about how small it truly packs down to -- but I always have a lens on my camera, so that awkward 'T-shape' of camera plus lens will still be a pain to deal with.  In my mind, Canon should cap mirrorless to a FF equivalent of 85mm perhaps.  Otherwise you get something like this (see attached) and I have no idea why on earth you'd do that without the bigger body as a counterweight and grip to properly wield that thing.

I think mirrorless ought to be well served from, say, FF equiv 24mm to about 85mm and stop there. Who wants to hold a pickle jar of a lens with a body as big of a deck of cards?

This also might serve as a way Canon could nerf (make less appealing) the EOS-M in an intelligent way to protect SLR sales.  Rather than withhold vitally needed tools (like a viewfinder) or cripple the performance (the AF), just limit the focal length options.  Think of this sales pitch instead of what we have now:  "EOS-M will give you stellar shots with all the viewfinder comforts and knobs and switches you love and great AF performance, but only from 24-85mm FF equivalent.  If you want an ultrawide or a tele, please see our terrific line of EF-S and EF mount cameras."

But if you want Canon/Nikon to evolve all their hardware -- lenses, bodies, flashes, etc. -- into the smaller format, give up now.  Won't happen for years and years.  Again, consider a company like Sony/Fuji/m43 who is actively trying to build up their mounts with more options.  You'll find more joy there.
- A

That's what I did...I have two MFT cameras that complement my 5DIII.
I have two "full" kits...and let me say that my MFT kit is more than adequate for a LOT of my photography. It is high quality and a pleasure to use.  It is too bad that Canon does not pursue this wonderful compact solution to photography in any really meaningful way.  They could lead the pack.  "To me" the M is not much of a camera.
..but I know that everyone does not feel that way..and that's ok.

162
Photography Technique / Re: APOLLO missions - image inconsistencies
« on: August 18, 2014, 11:03:42 AM »
Let's see ..we are talking about photos of the moon and somehow you fit in insulting our president.

What would be insulting about being Indonesian (I mean - to anyone who isn't inherently racist)?

And he's not "our" President. Yours, maybe, but there's still a big ol' world out there outside of the US of A...
OK...let me clarify...  I live in the USA. So he is "my" president. Of course that was implied, but I understand that you are a little slow.  The insult and insinuation from the partisan politics people is that he is not a United States Citizen. Bill O'Reilly could pick any country, name one....No  racism implied here...that is all YOU dude.

163
Photography Technique / Re: APOLLO missions - image inconsistencies
« on: August 18, 2014, 10:59:57 AM »
Firstly let me say that I have no interest in whether or not man landed on the moon. However, the whole did we didn't we debate is rather complex.

No it's not!

A very small group of nutters have the totally insane idea that maybe it was faked, despite an absolutely overwhelming amount of evidence that it wasn't.

Nothing complex about it.
WARNING! Sarcasm!
But what about the re-touched images! What about all the images that were re-touched to remove the reticule marks? Surely it could not be as simple as they wanted the images to be cleaner or more artistically pleasing?

Sarcasm warning lifted!

Almost all pictures that you see in print/publication are doctored. An essential kit of any darkroom was a series of greys and a set of tiny brushes for re-touching photos. Now we have photoshop, but it's the same thing.... you edit pictures before publication.

Not photojournalism images! :-)

164
Photography Technique / Re: APOLLO missions - image inconsistencies
« on: August 18, 2014, 09:28:00 AM »
I was in commercial product illustration back in the film days, 4x5, 8x10, giant light kits studios etc...I could be wrong about this..but here is my take on it.  The way I would figure out great photographers photos was to look a a shiny object in the photo...I could see all of his light, where they were placed, what type etc.
Now...what could be a better shiney object than  the front of an astronaut's helmet?  So when I see the photos from say Life Magazine..."some" do not ring true...they look like they were shot on a giant sound stage...(where did the big white reflector come from that is giving fill-light and adding a nice rounding accent to the reflective globe around the astronauts face? The reflector has a perfect rectangular shape, is very bright and on the opposite side of hi helmet than the very bright sun??).  The only explanation I have is that some of the images were heavily retouched by expert retouchers before being presented to the American public.  I used to take advertising Chromes into NYC and have these amazingly talented people work on the flaws. it was all done by the hand of an artist and it was just incredible what they could do! Just amazing...It was an incredible talent mix with technical skill. I revered them.
That is the only explanation that I have when I look at some of the Apollo  images...because they just don't "ring true" to my trained eye. No way.

165
Reviews / Re: Review - Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DG HSM
« on: August 18, 2014, 07:36:35 AM »
The Sigma is one hell of a lense but get's partly beaten by the Samyang 35mm 1.4, especially in the corners. It's sometimes interesting to see how other good competitors are getting less known if someone hypes the new one ;)

If you're willing to pay some attention on the pictures and you're not afraid of manual focus (but therefor with a fantastic focus-ring), you can get the samyang for a fraction of the price.

Just a link, not a picture (it's not that important, but anyway):  http://tf.weimarnetz.de/downloads/35mm_compared.png

pictures (c) by photozone, just taken for comparision

If you have a great photo, you are not really going to "see." A difference between the  Sam Yang and the Sigma. Me..I will take my Sigma and the AF every time. It a way more capable lens for more types of photography.

Pages: 1 ... 9 10 [11] 12 13 ... 68