August 22, 2014, 06:36:09 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 - Sunnystate

Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7
Software & Accessories / Re: To HDR or Not To HDR
« on: August 23, 2011, 12:30:02 AM »
I love the HDR look, even the "painterly" HDR look that puts emphasis on colorfulness instead of absolute fidelity to a scene.  But it doesn't really fit my working style and that's OK.  I have gotten used to working instead with deep black shadows that only suggest forms to shape the bright space left in the photos.

A lot of the time, like the cloud photos dr croubie mentions, or even just birds on branches - I often curse the inability of the camera and lens to capture all that detail in one exposure, but I've given up on bracketing with an eye to future HDR'ing.  Just peek the result and adjust if necessary.  Dynamic range is something I want more than anything else in the next generation of cameras (well, sensitivity could go up a bump too, but I actually am about where I need to be even at ISO 400 with f/2.8 and faster lenses).

This sounds really interesting to me:

"I have gotten used to working instead with deep black shadows that only suggest forms to shape the bright space left in the photos"

But makes me crave to see it!
I am new to this site, maybe everybody else knows your work, but it will be really logical in my mind if when a photographer describes their own work with words, would also post a small copyrighted sample of what they are talking about to, just to make things more understandable.
Thank you.

Lenses / Re: Lens for a big sun in the pictures
« on: August 21, 2011, 10:55:21 AM »
Actually, the moon and the sun are two subjects that are great for mirror lenses.  They don't move very fast (manual focus, live-view), they're bright, and you won't see any bad bokeh.

As for 300/4, sure, that would be nice.  But it's an expensive lens, and you won't need aperture; you'll be stopping down!  So 70-300/4-5.6 gets you the same thing.  That said, you could mount a 1.4x TC on a 300/4.

That may be true, but not for $119.00 price, and 500-800 mm focal range. When you go in to some really large focal lengths, size and amount of heavy glass simply makes physically impossible to build classic telescopes.

This is a shot taken with the basic Meade ETX125 mirror lens which is 1900mm and f15, taken of the flimsy tracking mechanism and mounted on old and pretty heavy Benbo tripod. The moon do not fit in the frame so this is composite of two shots, at manual exposure of 1/500s, some adjustments for sharpness and noise reduction.

Lenses / Re: Lens for a big sun in the pictures
« on: August 20, 2011, 03:04:37 PM »
Just a note on shooting the sun at long telephoto ranges. (and anything at those lengths)
The longer the lens the closer up you get to some of the weird things that happen in nature.
Atmospheric perspective, heat distortion, etc...
This will vary based on your location.  If I shot this in Antarctica there would be less distortion due to clearer air and  cooler climate.

1Ds Mark III + 600mm + 2X TC = 1200mm

Fantastic image!
Most people do not realize challenges involved shooting extreme tele or  astro photography, it is as involved and complicated as extreme macro or micro.
Of course apart from people that can invest some serious money in to it, but than again what's the reason for "glory" than.

Canon EF Zoom Lenses / Re: Canon EF24-105mm f/4L IS USM
« on: August 17, 2011, 12:27:03 PM »
For me this is my preferred lens for portraits photography, here is the sample in very low light situation.

Canon EF Prime Lenses / Re: Canon 50mm Æ’1.8
« on: August 10, 2011, 06:12:25 PM »
^ very cool photo!  How did you pull that off?

Thanks Chewy!

Simple set up in home made lightbox, with black paper as a BG, small piece, about an inch, of incense mounted with piece of clay behind this really tiny engine , two small strobes, 5D, tripod, and cable release.
Taken several years a go, don't really remember to many details, except for difficulties to keep the air still and all sort of try and error to cause interesting swirls in the air.

Canon EF Prime Lenses / Re: Canon 50mm Æ’1.8
« on: August 09, 2011, 07:05:17 PM »
Hands down best lens for the money. Never have need for standard lens, but just to have it the price is awesome.

Lenses / Re: EF 8-15 f/4L Fisheye in Stock at B&H
« on: August 05, 2011, 10:59:59 PM »
In my opinion the price as for 15 mm L lens is not that high, especially with included extra twist of circular range which is extremely limited in use of course (unless somebody has a thing for door viewers or key hole spying) nevertheless it can be fun for a while especially for some video productions.

I will stay with my classic 15mm full frame rectangular fisheye that, I love so much for excellent quality and truly incredibly compact size, it even fits without being much of the burden in the pocket of my cargo shorts and can be with me as spare "fun" lens no matter where I go with the camera.
Just check out the size, people forgot how small some primes really are.

As some have mentioned before, I have learned not to delete photos unless they are 100% useless.
Don't know how you guys, but me every time, I go to my archives totally different captures draws my attention  than before.
This is like my second hobby now, going back to old folders and picking up new "gems" that before just somehow seemed not worthy of my time.
I am sure if somebody is working professionally this may not make much sense, especially once you got paid for the job, but for hobbyist like me, finding those forgotten  good captures is just like receiving some kind of unexpected gift. 

Canon General / Re: Straight Photos with SLR camera
« on: August 02, 2011, 09:02:40 PM »
Probably everybody at least some of the time, do that.
When focused on the scene, and really excited about getting the best of the perfect moment, it is really hard to think about the straight horizon line.
Usually just intuitive adjustment, that of course to many times is influenced by all sort of optical illusions, our own position, other existing lines, like slanted line of the hills, curvy edge of the lake, perspective lines and even visually "heavy" objects in various positions etc.
Unless working with tripod, this is something that we should learn to live with, and just adjust later in PS.

Software & Accessories / Re: Graduated Neutral Density
« on: July 31, 2011, 11:30:54 AM »
Wonder if anybody has any experience/info about cinematographic holders/mat boxes like Chrosziel or Genus.
And what are the limits when it comes to wide angle lenses, any chances to use witch super wide lenses?

EOS Bodies / Re: Cleaning?
« on: July 31, 2011, 11:20:05 AM »
In the time I've had my 30D I've not yet had to resort to wet cleaning. Never say never, but I hope I can avoid it.

My method uses a can of compressed air and a sensor pen. The latter is the real star of the show and should not be confused with a lens pen (although it is produced by the same people).

I give the filter surface a quick blast of air, then carefully use the pen to loosen any dust and finally use the air cannister to blow the loose dust away.

Compressed air needs to be used with some care, but apparently Canon service centres use it so it's a legitimate method. The trick is to clear the nozzle of any fluid away from the camera, then press the can firmly against the table top so that its upright. Lastly - use very short sharp bursts. Don't use long blasts because the air tends to freeze and in effect you are firing ice crystals at the filter!

Compressed air also may contain other contaminants like oils, greases from equipment like compressors etc.
A chunk of grease smashed to the filter under pressure may cause serious problems. If you ever manipulate your photographs in any extreme ways, deep saturation, extreme levels, darkening, dramatic contrasts, you will be surprised to find out how much damage your "perfect and easy cleaning" has done already to your sensor.
My experiences with sensor cleaning are spotty at best, even that, I have pretty good manual training in precision work like art restoration, there are always some surprises, and personally, I am avoiding cleaning as much as possible.

Software & Accessories / Re: To HDR or Not To HDR
« on: July 27, 2011, 03:20:40 PM »
Exactly, neuroanatomist! Everything in excess is bad.

But with HDR, what's excess? The way I see it (pun intended?), the main idea of HDR was to get the camera closer to what the human eye sees. I always felt that's what the grandaddy of HDR, Ansel Adams, thought at least. Now, a camera on RAW has the majority of the dynamic range the human eye does in most situations (i.e. daytime landscapes). To go beyond what the human eye can see looks contrived, tacky and just plain bad. Not only that, but throw in the supersaturation HDRers like to use, and you actually start getting farther away from the human eye. I only HDR to give me those extra one, two, or maybe three stops on both sides of what properly exposed RAW image can give.

Sure you could say, "Well, that's my artistic prerogative," and you'd be entirely right. But then you could take a few torso-up portraits and fill the top with a rainbow gradient fill and suddenly call all those senior pictures you're going to make a couple hundred dollars on "art."

For me, the allure of photography is its commitment to reality.
HDR comes from High Dynamic Range, which means no more and no less than ability to reproduce details in extremely bright areas and dark, without blowing off the whites or producing opaque detail less blacks in the shadows!
It does not mean wired bizarre or as some call  "artistic" effects.
All that, I am saying is that legitimate, perfect technical term was reduced in to description of cheap effects produced by couple of simple programs.

Software & Accessories / Re: To HDR or Not To HDR
« on: July 27, 2011, 01:42:20 PM »
HDR is legitimate term and technique to use in photography.
Unfortunately, thanks to Photomatrix and other, in reality very simplistic programs, HDR become now a "dirty word" describing products of those programs!
Misused and abused without sense and reason.
To bad, wish there were two separate names one for true HDR and one for cheap, plugin filter like products, with all the wired colors, embossed like feeling, haloes over every object that contrast tonally with surrounding BG etc.

Macro / Re: Canon MP-E 65 1x-5x 2.8 Macro Lens example photos
« on: July 26, 2011, 10:29:49 PM »
Here are a couple of recent shots with this lens:

EOS 5D Mark II, MP-E 65mm f/2.8 1-5x Macro @ 5x, 1/60 s, f/11, ISO 400, MT-24EX

EOS 5D Mark II, MP-E 65mm f/2.8 1-5x Macro @ 4x, 1/60 s, f/11, ISO 400, MT-24EX

Excellent work neuro!

For me MP-E 65 is the reason alone to stick with Canon, and I don't even consider myself macro photographer, more like curious photographer or something.
Would like to see people really pushing the envelope with this lens, not just a shots like with let's say 100mm macro with an extension tube.

Macro / Re: Do Moths Have Fangs?
« on: July 21, 2011, 09:26:18 PM »
No fangs, but they have long tubular tongues coiled when not in use. Just like butterflies they drink nectar.

Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7