March 02, 2015, 03:56:17 PM

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 - Kernuak

Pages: 1 ... 66 67 [68] 69 70 ... 74
Canon EF Prime Lenses / Re: Canon EF 24mm f/1.4 II L USM
« on: January 15, 2012, 03:29:24 PM »
I finally got out with the camera again and concentrated on using this lens.

Bridgwater and Taunton Canal by Kernuak, on Flickr

Swingbridge by Kernuak, on Flickr

Canalside Drink by Kernuak, on Flickr

Landscape / Re: Post Your Best Landscapes
« on: January 14, 2012, 02:44:52 PM »
I spent alot of my teenage years on Dartmoor, I must go bcak and photograph it, I keep meaning too. Thankd for the memories, although I didn't go to Burrator as much.

EOS Bodies / Re: OT - hasselblad masters
« on: January 13, 2012, 06:21:29 PM »
On the other hand, this does remind me how arbitrary contests of this nature are.When you compare this work to the CR Forum contest, I would say the CR Forum stuff shows just how many really talented photographers are out there that get little or no recognition.
I think many high profile competitions are like that. They're often very good at saying how they're looking for something new and innovative in the blurb, but when it comes to the final judging it's often very conservative, choosing stuff that has been seen before.

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon, range finder to medium format.
« on: January 13, 2012, 05:57:09 PM »
By the definition supplied by Wikipedia, medium format is any size larger than 24x36mm, but smaller than 4x5 inches. I remember some time ago, there was a rumour about a 1Ds MkIII replacement with a square sensor and I think a separate rumour about a 50MP range replacement. Of course, there were also various other rumours, including a 32-36MP sensor. A thought to chew on, by my calculation at the time, a 36x36mm sensor, with the same pixel density as a 32-36MP 24x36 sensor would be close to 50MP. Whether that would still fit within the image circle of an EF lens, I have no idea, I suspect it would be tight and would certainly result in some quite impressive vignetting. Something else that may be a possibility, with the 4:3 format of the G1-X, who's to say that Canon won't at some point apply that to a larger sensor DSLR. It might sound a little silly, but by the Wikipedia definition, a 36x27mm sensor would qualify as medium format.

Some quick calculations and you can't really get any bigger than 30.6x30.6 for a square sensor and 34.5x25.9 for a 4:3

You could have a look at the Lowepro Naturetrekker AW II as a starter, that's what I'm currently using, with a 7D (with 300mm f/2.8+1.4x attached), a 5d MkII (no lens attached) and a choice of 2-3 other lens combinations. With your smaller lenses (the 300 takes up a lot of space), you could probably fit your gear in, although you may need to do a few calculations. The Digitial Picture have a review, comparing it sizewise to other bags.

What isn't obvious from the pictures in the review, it comes with a detachable daysack, in which you can fit your lunch a flask, binoculars and a few other things. There are also internal pockets for accessories, such as memory cards, batteries and lens cloths.

Animal Kingdom / Re: Show your Bird Portraits
« on: January 13, 2012, 03:16:54 PM »
A couple more of mine.

Jackdaw in Flight by Kernuak, on Flickr

Great Crested Grebe Morning Light by Kernuak, on Flickr

Landscape / Re: Snowy pictures
« on: January 13, 2012, 02:54:10 PM »
We haven't had any snow yet this winter (lots of wind and rain though), but here's a couple from last winter.

Winter Dawn Light by Kernuak, on Flickr

Wembdon in the Snow by Kernuak, on Flickr

Canon EF Zoom Lenses / Re: Canon EF17-40mm f/4L USM
« on: January 12, 2012, 05:54:23 PM »
Probably the perfect shot for showing all of the 17-40's weakpoints, flare, distortion and CA. Again, I wanted to exaggerate the distortion the lens produces by pointing down at quite a sharp angle and use the polariser to show the contents of the rockpool. The sun wasn't really where I wanted it, but I just had to go with it.

Tarbat Ness Rockpool by Kernuak, on Flickr

EOS Bodies / Re: Max size of print
« on: January 11, 2012, 03:23:46 PM »
I doubt most people would be able to see the difference between a 300 ppi and 200 ppi image if printed on a good printer. Many images will also still look good at 150 ppi, although you do start to get into the realms of how good the image quality is and what the subject/amount of detail is. At 150 ppi on the 5D MkII, you can get over 37 inches or almost one metre on the long side.

Site Information / Re: need image posting help! :(
« on: January 09, 2012, 03:02:33 PM »
That's ok, glad it helped.

Site Information / Re: need image posting help! :(
« on: January 09, 2012, 02:32:35 PM »
From the image, click on the Share link, then on the Grab HTML/BBCode link, make sure the BBCode radio button is selected (not HTML), then copy and paste the code into a new message.

EOS Bodies / Re: 1D X Limitations Fixable?
« on: January 08, 2012, 05:24:03 PM »
I don't know any commercial photographers that want or need to shoot 26000 ISO or above. Yeah, it's nice to see Canon advancing ISO performance, but it's now more of a marketing function that something pro photogs can actually use.

If an ISO setting gives clean enough images, then a commercial wildlife photographer will welcome as much sensitivity they can get. Mostly, they prefer natural light over flash, so it would extend the period into which they can shoot. Imagine being able to photograph crepuscular wildlife after the sun has set or even into almost pitch black and still get detail. It isn't yet possible, but wildlife photographers would welcome the opportunity.
This shot for example was taken well after sunset at ISO 1600. At the moment, only silhouettes are possible (even with a D3 - I've seen similar results from that camera). It shows behaviour that only occurs after sunset and a flash is useless, but imagine a clean image that could capture detail instread of a silhouette.

Roding Woodcock by Kernuak, on Flickr

.. but the best definition for a professional photographer I have heard is one that can consistently take repeatably good quality pictures.

here in australia there are a couple of registerd organisations like AIPP that try to regulate the industry and have certain requirements for membership so you can use their logo to promote yourself as a professional.

The definition of a professional photographer is a whole new ball game and I think that's where a lot of confusion comes in. Many people automatically assume that the discussion is about professional photographers when the word photographer is bandied about, but that isn't the case. There are very few professions with legally restricted use (mine is one of them) and photographer isn't one of them. The linguistic definition is, that anyone who is taking a photograph is a photographer (i.e. one who takes photographs), even if it is only for that instant and even if it is the only photograph they have taken. Of course, that doesn't tell the whole story and common sense suggests that is ludicrous. A better definition would be that anyone who takes an interest in trying to take good photographs (even if they haven't yet succeeded) and improve can call themselves a photographer. That doesn't mean they are good of course, just like there are bad drivers, there are bad photographers (even professionals in some cases). Professional simply means it is your main source of income, which generally means more than 50% (certainly in terms of insurance and some competitions). Membership of a professional organisation (either regulatory or not) offers endorsement, but not necessarily a guarantee of quality.

Landscape / Re: Look up
« on: January 07, 2012, 04:13:31 PM »
And a few more with the 24-105.

Sunlit Caledonian Pine Branches by Kernuak, on Flickr

Looking to the Branches by Kernuak, on Flickr

Landscape Amongst the Branches by Kernuak, on Flickr

Macro / Re: Canon MP-E 65 1x-5x 2.8 Macro Lens example photos
« on: January 07, 2012, 12:39:45 PM »
One trick with insects, to enable a more extensive exploration of shots (either different angles or focus stacking), is to catch them late in the evening or early in the morning. They are much less active then and don't tend to respond, with the added bonus that you aren't causing them any harm. Of course, because they're less active, they're also harder to find.

Pages: 1 ... 66 67 [68] 69 70 ... 74