April 16, 2014, 04:05:09 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 ... 10 11 [12] 13 14 ... 50
166
Canon General / Re: What's so bad about HDR?
« on: August 01, 2013, 08:47:09 AM »
Quote
As far as I am concerned, just give me a camera that can capture the same light my eyes can see. If I have a need to artificially boost shadows and color and can't do so by 3+ stops - so be it.

No dslr or film stock has ever come close to recording what the human eye is capable of seeing. We are capable of seeing 256 shades of grey total. In optimal conditions the average human eye can see up to 100 shades of grey at once with that number falling lower depending on lighting conditions. Every single variance of photographic format and technique is simply a representation of what we see as human beings.

The terms "accurate" and "realistic" are highly subjective when it comes to photography representing what we see.

I use 2 different techniques when I want to expand the range of tones in a scene in the digital format. The first being a manual merging of bracketed shots in photoshop (if I am going for the "realistic" look) and the second being the automated HDR technique via plugin software (when I want a more stylized look).

Both require a ton of effort in post to pull off successfully. Most "HDR" photos that I see suffer from 1 or 2 critical mistakes. Either mishandling of the technique (wether it be inappropriate lighting, insufficient bracketing, or straight up slider delirium ie overcooked file) or unfinished post-production after the file emerges from the HDR process (halos not corrected, noise not being corrected, localized color shifting not being addressed, etc )

The only attempts I find egregious are the files where the tonal range ends up getting anhialated and file photo looks like a chalky washed out mess. Whenever I use either method I try to protect and enhance my tones throughout the scene (zone 1 through 10) making sure that I still have rich shadows, rich highlights, and pure blacks and whites.

In the hands of a proficient photographer these techniques can be very useful and successful.

Ahh...let the light shine in...you are totally on target.

167
Canon General / Re: What's so bad about HDR?
« on: July 31, 2013, 11:10:52 PM »
so just to /thread:

HDR is fine as long as it's made so realisticly than you can barely tell it's HDR. Artistic attemps of over cooking might have good intentions but, even well done, quite a few people hate them.

Can we all agree on that? Group hug!

Yes...and the other end of that spectrum is....if I wanted all of my images to look like Kodachrome 25 from 1967 (with no fill flash). Then I would not have spent all of this money on a digital camera system and a powerful computer.  We can do so much more now....I love to bring more tonal range out of images with the new tech...

168
Canon General / Re: What's so bad about HDR?
« on: July 31, 2013, 10:25:14 AM »
I don't have a copy of this image on my ipad but this is a link to one I did in Yogyakarta while staying at a hotel. I bracketed a few very dark exposures to get the reflection and lights the right color.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/zanjum/6852135367/#in/set-72157628661905185


Very nice balance!

169
Canon General / Re: What's so bad about HDR?
« on: July 31, 2013, 10:23:08 AM »
I think there is a general misunderstanding regarding the term HDR. Most of the "HDR" images we see on the internet these days are not an example of basic HDR - they are an excellent example of tonemapping. Basically, simple HDR is just adding dynamic range to the image by merging several exposures. The "HDR" look that many complain about is not caused by extending the dynamic range but by the optional and additional tonemapping process which actually takes the extended range created by the HDR, and then compresses the number of tones and colours. This results in the image looking very overdone at times and to many - garish. I use HDR to overcome impossible exposure situations (much like dodging and burning) however, I am definitely not a fan of the overdone tonemapping that people have incorrectly assigned the general HDR term to. The unfortunate thing is that many of the HDR tools that are available, automatically add the tonemapping process as part of the default HDR process. This has added to the confusion between the two terms.

Well said!

170
Canon General / Re: Canon Press Event on August 21, 2013
« on: July 31, 2013, 08:11:39 AM »
 ::
.
Don't get your bloomers in a twist!!



You're both wrong.

Company Name:   Canon Inc.
Founded:   August 10, 1937
Headquarters:   30-2, Shimomaruko 3-chome, Ohta-ku, Tokyo 146-8501, Japan

And it's not 'new'. Blooming Americans.


 ::)

171
Canon General / Re: What's so bad about HDR?
« on: July 31, 2013, 06:16:09 AM »
Cool shot, infared. Nothing wrong with grunge on something that's actually grungy.

Thanks, fugu!

172
Canon General / Re: Canon Press Event on August 21, 2013
« on: July 31, 2013, 04:04:16 AM »
.... at Canon’s new headquarters in New York.

Canon's new headquarters is not in New York City. It is in Melville Long Island.

You're both wrong.

Company Name:   Canon Inc.
Founded:   August 10, 1937
Headquarters:   30-2, Shimomaruko 3-chome, Ohta-ku, Tokyo 146-8501, Japan

And it's not 'new'. Blooming Americans.

Header at the top of this discussion from the "Canadian" Canon Rumors Guy, that we are all responding to:
"From Canon USA
A press event has been scheduled for Wednesday, August 21, 2013 at Canon’s new headquarters in New York."

I believe we are all talking about the blooming USA Headquarters, as stated at the top of the discussion???

173
Canon General / Re: What's so bad about HDR?
« on: July 31, 2013, 01:18:01 AM »

174
Canon General / Re: Canon Press Event on August 21, 2013
« on: July 30, 2013, 10:23:37 PM »
It's a colon. Medical camera you swallow.

Possibly...or it could be a Fart Cloud?  :o

175
Canon General / Re: Canon Press Event on August 21, 2013
« on: July 30, 2013, 12:30:52 PM »
.
Thanks, Mr. Bob. Glad to see I'm not the only one who knows the difference between the city and Lon Gisland.

Canon's new headquarters is not in New York City. It is in Melville Long Island.

https://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en-US&q=melville+NY+map&ie=UTF-8&hq=&hnear=0x89e82962c59108ef:0x88ea719fc2564a4e,Melville,+NY&gl=us&ei=fa33UbfaLLbd4AO86oGwCw&ved=0CCsQ8gEwAA


LMAOFOTF !!
I said to myself: NOW what has the old man (me), missed in the news...who is Lon Gisland?"  So I Googled "him"!?!?
LOL! Ya got me on that one!
Yes, New York is New York....
....and Long Island...is of course Lon Gisland!!!!

177
Lenses / Re: Sigma 24-70 f/2 OS HSM Coming? [CR1]
« on: July 30, 2013, 01:37:24 AM »
This is intriguing news! I would love to see more fast Art-Line Primes (like a killer 50mm)...but hey, this could be entertaining. I own the Canon 24-70mm II ...and I doubt that a Sigma f/2 IS lens could come close to the sharpness of the Canon II...but they are on a roll lately, so who knows. The new Sigma 35mm is fantastic..I own one and love it! This rumored new Sigma would have to be somewhat bigger than the Canon, too.... I would imagine.

This sounds like a much more sensible rumor regarding the recent Sigma Liberation-Teaser Ads that are running. I am also reading speculative rumors that Sigma is supposedly releasing a MFT mirrorless camera...That one is total bunk....
..this rumor here makes much more sense...and based on Sigma's teaser ads, the new zoom would have to be reasonably priced..or there is no "liberation" from the Canon system.

178
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Lomography Petzval Portrait Lens
« on: July 26, 2013, 07:01:31 AM »
Hmmmmmm...this lens has some very unique Bokeh...quite different from my lensbaby lenses...actually a lot different.
I include two samples:
Building shot with Optic 80mm
Clock shot with Sweet 35mm

Can't say I am going to run out and buy a Petzval (I need to use the things that I already have!!! LOL!)...but the Petzval is definitely interesting. ..Based on the amount of support they have received on Kickstarter, a lot of people apparently like what they are seeing! Definitely warm and fuzzy.

I don't look at these types of lenses as novelty items...to me..they are tools...they may work for some shooters' style...but not for others...but more choices is always better, no?  Looks like a fun piece of glass.

179
Yeeeee...Haaaaaaw.....bring on some more Full-Frame Primes Sigma!!!

180
Canon General / Re: Canon Testing a 75+ Megapixel EOS-1 Body? [CR1]
« on: July 21, 2013, 10:50:32 PM »
With dual Digic 6+, it might even hit 3 fps...   ;)

Or...it could just catch on fire....

Pages: 1 ... 10 11 [12] 13 14 ... 50