Messages

331

Lenses / Re: upgrading to full frame + seeking suggestions on what to replace 60mm macro with

« on: August 11, 2012, 11:14:30 AM »

I had a 14 to 40L and was not happy with iq.  IMHO, get a better quality lens.

Assume you mean 17-40.

Needs stopping down to f/8 where it dies give a good IQ

Except in the corners if you're shooting landscapes, where it can get pretty soft. I would also suggest the 100mm macro as a replacement for the 60mm macro, but also consider the Sigma 105mm macro and Tamron 90mm macro. However, neither of those lenses have full time manual focusing and use a clutch mechanism to switch between manual and AF. I think the front element also extands, unlike the Canon 100mm.

332

Lenses / Re: Lens Filters etc.

« on: August 11, 2012, 11:12:00 AM »

You cannot replicate a polarizer in Photoshop. GND yes, CPL, no.

Ok? Why? Is it because the informaton on the RAW file is insuffisient, thus not giving you the range to tweak in pp? I thought that you could alter the type of saturation through masking afterwards. If this is right, and I am not suggesting that you and Neuro are wrong, means that I will have to get a CPL for all my lenses, before I take a plunge into Lee.

When you boost saturation in Photoshop, you can introduce noise, artifacts, and other funky undesired effects. If you do it via physical filter, the saturation is real and looks better.I guess its kinda like digital zoom vs optical zoom. If you "zoom" digitally your really just making things worse. The only way to get a good result is to make the modification before the capture.

Also, reducing unwanted reflections increases detail in certain subjects (such as rocks and leaves), that can't be recovered in PP. More than amy other filter, a CPL is the one that can't be replicated in PP. Bear in mind though, that they work best when the light source is at 90 degrees, so if the sun is directly in front or behind, then they will have little or no effect, unless you also have water or other shiny surfaces coming into play. While to some degree, the effects of ND grads can be replicated in PP, that only goes so far, if part of the image is too blown, then no amount of recovery will recover it, so then ND grads also become vital and can't be reporduced. While HDR will recover detail, they often don't look natural, without a lot of care and some scenes (such as those containing high contrast transitions and snow) really don't work with HDR.

333

Lenses / Re: How do you update Canon lens firmware?

« on: August 11, 2012, 10:58:51 AM »

Correct me if i am wrong, but canon lenses do not have microprocessors, therefore they don't have firmware, only the camera itself does. Ergo, there is no updating the lens firmware.

The shorty forty update will also just be an update for the camera firmware, and how to update that has already been described on this thread.

Recent notices were issued for some of the big whites, to send them to a Canon service centre for the announced firmware updates.

334

Landscape / Re: Post Your Best Landscapes

« on: August 10, 2012, 05:28:11 PM »

Weston Rocks by Kernuak, on Flickr

Disappearing Sun at Watchet by Kernuak, on Flickr

Watchet Houses in the Evening Light by Kernuak, on Flickr

335

Landscape / Re: Beautiful sunsets

« on: August 10, 2012, 05:26:05 PM »

Watchet Summer Sunset by Kernuak, on Flickr

Orange Dusk at Watchet by Kernuak, on Flickr

336

Animal Kingdom / Re: Show your Bird Portraits

« on: August 08, 2012, 05:21:33 PM »

We have blue ones .

337

5D MK III Sample Images / Re: Can you identify this insect? I think it is a spider - but then I am an engineer

« on: August 06, 2012, 05:02:12 PM »

I could only see six legs, so that would make it an insect, but just to complicate things, some spiders/mites have modified front legs, which are used for other purposes (such as touch, like the antennae of insects), so appear to only have six.

338

Canon General / Re: Taking DSLRs into olympic venues

« on: August 06, 2012, 04:52:33 PM »

Many thanks, Roman! It's a shame there doesn't seem to be an (easy to find) official site that lays it out clearly, but your experiences are a great guideline. I'm four rows back from the track so the 135mm should be a useful lens. I won't bother with the 70-200 as it's heavy to lug around and sounds like it won't make it through the gate. Will take the 40mm pancake and the 135mm in as small a bag as possible for an innocuous looking combination.

It's not easy to find, but there is a restricted items list.

http://www.london2012.com/mm/Document/Documents/General/01/25/44/06/Prohibitedandrestricteditemslists_Neutral.pdf

It states on there that there is a limit of 30cm, but for some venues (especially football grounds), there may be more stringent restrictions. Also, any photos or videos cannot be used commercially, without media accreditation.

339

EOS Bodies / Re: No DXO results on 1DX until at least September...?

« on: August 03, 2012, 03:53:31 PM »

Lend me your new 1DX, I'll take some shots with the lens cap on for you and tell you what it can't do.

I heard that if you keep the lens cap on the 1D X, it's incapable of taking a decent landscape shot.

340

Portrait / Re: Portrait Feedback Please!

« on: August 01, 2012, 03:52:57 PM »

I think the white balance might be a little off on the third one too, so it's worth checking that.

341

Portrait / Re: Portrait Feedback Please!

« on: August 01, 2012, 03:51:34 PM »

I like the framing of the building, but for me, the model is too centered on all of the images. For the first one, the tallest part of the building is on the right, so I think having the model more to the left would help to balance it better. I think having her in front of the the middle window of the three would work best, as it would set her against a plainer background and the dark space would accentuate her blond hair. That said, it is the one that works best for me too and the last one definitely gives the appearance of being a snapshot (even if it was intentional), due to looking down on her, instead of being at her level. That isn't to say that it can't work, I remember seeing an image recently where pretty much all the rules were broken. The model was photographed with a wideangle lens, which is usually not recommended and the camera was a long way above her. Despite that, it worked, even if it wasn't to everyone's taste. The key to breaking rules is making it look like it was deliberate, if you don't achieve that, then everyone will assume it is a mistake. Even when you do successfully break the rules though, it will polarise opinions, some will like it, others will hate it. It is important to learn compositional (and other) rules, but also don't be afraid to break them to give your images a sense of individuality.

342

Animal Kingdom / Re: Show your Bird Portraits

« on: August 01, 2012, 03:39:11 PM »

Great Blue Heron at dusk using 5D Mark III and 300mm f/4L IS w/1.4x TC.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/43086792@N03/7688401924/#

very nice djl...great shot

Thanks.  Just got the Mark III yesterday and took it out for the first time this evening.    Odd, though, that I could never get that close to a heron or egret with the Mark II -- must be the camera!   

Must be the silent mode .

343

Portrait / Re: Reverse Engineer this please

« on: July 31, 2012, 03:02:48 PM »

I'm not a portrait expert, but it looks like there has been some modification of light, either flash or a reflector. It also looks like he has overdone it a little on the last one, as part of her face looks blown. The first two could be lit by the sun, but, I would expect the background to also be lit by the sun too if that was the case, which is why I think it has to be flash or a reflector. While there could be some dodging and burning, there are always limits, not that any imperfections would be seen at the Redbubble display resolution and possibly would be hidden in most prints. I would still expect some shadows though. Knowing alot of the styles on RB, there is likely to be use of flash and probably quite a bit of PP/manipulation.

344

Animal Kingdom / Re: Birds with attitude

« on: July 31, 2012, 02:53:14 PM »

Took my 7D with me to my regular watering hole at Skelwith Bridge

This young Robin seems to be looking for some snacks and poised to swoop

It's actually a male chaffinch and they often display that sort of behaviour in public areas, they can be quite bold, sitting on chair backs and chirping to be fed. Nicely captured.

345

Lenses / Re: Canon at the London Summer Olympics

« on: July 31, 2012, 02:42:04 PM »

The 200-400 is not as massive as I thought it would be, looks pretty hand holdable to me.

It's definitely handholdable. I had a go with one at Focus on Imaging in March (the only one in Europe at the time) and it felt to be a similar weight to my 300mm f/2.8 IS, even with a 1D MkIV attached to it. It was difficult to judge the exact weight for sure, as I think the balance was better on a 1 series camera, which always helps and I didn't have the 300 with me for a direct comparison. I probably held it to my eye for a couple of minutes without any problems at all.