Messages

751

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: D800 is finally here

« on: February 07, 2012, 05:04:32 PM »

Am I the only person that wasn't very impressed by the D800 sample images?

I'm impressed by the portrait images, but not the landscapes, although some of that is down to choices made by the photographers.

752

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Canon EOS-1D X High Resolution Samples

« on: February 07, 2012, 05:02:15 PM »

There is obviously insufficient DoF in the D800 Landscape images, but it also appears that diffraction is playing a big part, judging by the corners, although I'm not sure what the 14-24 is like in the corners, so it could be that the increased resolution is showing up deficiencies in the lens. The corners look soft at 50%, which is what I usually use to judge if it's good enough to print.

753

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Canon EOS-1D X High Resolution Samples

« on: February 07, 2012, 04:36:43 PM »

Well, comparing the ISO640 shot from the D800 to the ISO1600 shot from the 1D X, I'm pretty impressed with the noise on the 1D X...its damn good at that ISO! I think the photo is a little soft though....not sure what that is...over-aggressive AA filter/slightly out of focus/camera shake....either way, the ISO640 shot from the D800 is definitely sharper. I hope the 1D X doesn't suffer from the same softness problem as the 7D (which, while certainly manageable, is probably one of the few annoyances I have with that body.)

The slight softness on the skin could be due to processing, as her eyes look sharp to me. The ISO400 shot probably shows too much skin detail for a portrait.

754

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Canon EOS-1D X High Resolution Samples

« on: February 07, 2012, 02:18:02 PM »

It would be better if the lighting was marginal to give a better indication, but looking at the deep shadow behind the model, it looks pretty impressive to me, certainly much cleaner than my 5D MkII. Even at ISO 800 I can find noise at ISO 800 if I look hard enough, although it isn't a problem of course. It's cleaner than a couple of ISO 800 shots with my 5D MkII (just), but it's difficult to judge comparative noise reduction levels (zero in mine to whatever is used in the samples). It's impossible to compare dynamic range to any of mine though. It's definitely at least one stop better in terms of noise and possibly two, so it probably falls somewhere in between if you have the RAW files for comparison.

755

EOS Bodies / Re: 5D X or Mark III Specs & Release Date? [CR1]

« on: February 06, 2012, 06:19:27 PM »

Aren't some of the Sony lenses white too? They aren't exactly low profile when stalking wildlife though .

756

Lenses / Re: What UWA options do I have with 77mm Filter size?

« on: February 06, 2012, 05:50:36 PM »

I have the 17-40, but I've never used the 16-35 (either version) for comparison. At f/16, it is pretty soft in the corners at 17mm on full frame, but it is handy for specific effects, particularly where you can use the distortion creatively. Once you get to 24mm though, I find it is sharper than my 24-105 and there is certainly less barrel distortion. As with any UWA, use of polarisers is problematic, if you point it towards the sky and you can't really use it fully zoomed out with a second section of a Lee filter set, as the adaptor is in frame in the corners.

to solve this issue buy a cheap ebay cokin filter holder (the plastic one) only a couple of bucks
and get a hack saw then saw off the extended holder section so you only have 1 filter slot. I find doing this stops the corner interference on full frame at 16mm. it introduces another problem in that light gets in between the filter and the lens so you need to make a little shroud that goes around the edge of the square filter and over the lens barrel. hope this helps

Thanks for the tip, but i already have a cheap Cokin P mount holder, but I'd rather not use the cheaper filters. Besides, if I only use the base Lee holder I don't have a problem, it's only when/if I need to position the polariser in a different plane to the grad, but as a polariser often causes problem with landscapes at 17mm, due to the uneven polarisation, I'm limited to when I can use it anyway. To be honest, the sort of shooting that I usually do, I use the 17-40 much less than I used to since getting the 5D MkII and probably even less now that I have the 24 MkII with its much better image quality.

757

Lens Gallery / Re: Canon EF135mm f/2L USM

« on: February 06, 2012, 04:48:56 PM »

The Look!  When your women look at you like that, you know you are in trouble!  hihihi   

Especially when you have a second one in training .

758

Lenses / Re: What UWA options do I have with 77mm Filter size?

« on: February 06, 2012, 03:07:21 PM »

I have the 17-40, but I've never used the 16-35 (either version) for comparison. At f/16, it is pretty soft in the corners at 17mm on full frame, but it is handy for specific effects, particularly where you can use the distortion creatively. Once you get to 24mm though, I find it is sharper than my 24-105 and there is certainly less barrel distortion. As with any UWA, use of polarisers is problematic, if you point it towards the sky and you can't really use it fully zoomed out with a second section of a Lee filter set, as the adaptor is in frame in the corners.

759

Landscape / Re: Post your best HDR Photographs

« on: February 05, 2012, 03:53:12 PM »

I'm not really a fan of HDR, mainly because there are so many poor examples and because I think it is used too much and has almost become cliched. There are some nice ones here though, that don't look too unnatural. This was the last shot I did with HDR, which was actually a combination of grads and HDR.


Fire and Water by Kernuak, on Flickr

And an earlier one that immediately made me imagine pteradactyls flying about. It was a sort of landmark image for me too, as it was one of the first images where I felt I'd mastered the lighting and used it for effect on the rocks and water.


Jurassic Evening by Kernuak, on Flickr

760

Lenses / Re: Canon 100-400 L

« on: February 04, 2012, 06:59:02 PM »

You can normally also see a slight jerk when the IS first activates. However, I have never found the IS on the 100-400 to be overly useful, but then it is the first generation, with only two stops and it needs to be switched off when on a tripod, as it isn't able to detect tripod use, leading to the opposite effect to what you want.

761

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Do FF cameras perform better in low light conditions?

« on: February 04, 2012, 03:56:27 PM »

briansquibb, one of the concerns I have with a 5D Mark II is that I would be giving up FPS. My 40D has 6.5 and the 5D has 3.9. I also prefer a cropped frame since I like to shoot zoomed in sports shots. Finally, I was worried that the ISO on the 5D would not live up to my expectations. My 40D ISO is awful at 1600. But as Mt Spokane Photography pointed out, I should keep my ISO below 800 on my 40D. This means I cannot get decent shots shooting outdoor soccer after 5:30 pm, this time of year  .

However, I think I can compromise and keep my 40D as a backup for outdoor sports when shooting in bright sunlight and the 5D for sports shots where there is poor lighting conditions and where I don't need as much reach (i.e. inside a gym). I'm just waiting for this month's announcements before I make a final decision .

BTW, Mt Spokane Photography nice shot! I am glad to see that the 5D has good ISO performance.

With my 40D, I wouldn't go above ISO 800 either, whereas with my 7D, I won't go above ISO 1600. For critical shots, I wouldn't normally go beyond that with my 5D MkII either, but I know that I have the option if I need it. I tend to use my 7D for situations where I need the faster focusing and might need the frame rate (although it's actually quite rare I use the motor drive, I prefer to time it instead if possible), but switch to the 5D MkII for higher image quality, where detail is important, such as for macro and landscape or in low light.

762

Portrait / Re: Sensual photo shoot

« on: February 04, 2012, 03:47:57 PM »

I dont really shoot portraiture, so I'm coming almost from the point of view of a viewer. I like the lighting and processing, but I think that the framing could be improved. As a general overview, I feel that the images are cropped too tight...or not enough. To emphasise what I mean, I'll go into detail for each image.

1. While the model's eye's fall on a natural thirds intersection, I'm not sure that is the best option for this image. Showing part of the mirror and part of the seats gives me the feeling that something is missing. I think by framing lower (perhaps just below the glass), it would lessen that feeling. More importantly though, although it is a minor part of the image, I'm drawn towards her left hand that has been chopped off. By moving back a pace or two, this could be rectified and also give her foot a but more room.

2. A bit more difficult this one, overall, I like the treatment you've given it, but I wonder how it would look in landscape format, showing the whole of her legs and feet. This would remove the negative space above her head and the corner of the mirror.

3. The slight angle doesn't work for me, but similar to the others, I think slightly different framing would help, going slightly lower and to the (photographer's) right.

4. This is probably my favourite of the sequence and the B&W choice helps. However, framing a little lower would have included the whole of her hand.

5. Again, I think it would benefit from taking a step back to give more room at the sides, particularly her blouse on the left of her shoulder. The downside would be that more of the distracting pictures would be in frame, so maybe some processing to make them less prominent would help.

Having said all that, I couldn't have done any better and you've got the lighting pretty much spot on for me. I would advise thinking about what is in frame (and isn't) and whether it helps add to the image.

763

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Do FF cameras perform better in low light conditions?

« on: February 04, 2012, 12:58:17 PM »

My 7D gives me around an extra stop in comparison to the 40D in terms of noise, but it obviously isn't as clean as the 5D MkII. In fact, I find it superior in every way ot the 40D, but it is less forgiving. The higher resolution magnifies all the imperfections of lenses and slight motion blur or focus problems, each of which will soften the image, but reduce the image to that of the 40D and it will be just as sharp, plus you have more latitude in ability to sharpen images in post. While the 5D MkII does produce higher image quality, with fast moving action, it will start to show its inadequacies, particularly with tracking focus, although for static scenes, in low light, it will have better focusing than the 7D if the centre point is used. Also, you will have to be much more careful about timing the instant, to get the shot you want, due to the slower frame rate.

764

EOS Bodies / Re: Patent: 400 f/4, 300 f/4, 200 f/5.6

« on: February 04, 2012, 05:09:29 AM »

The other two lenses make perfect sense, but I think that people expecting the 400mm f/4 lens to be cheap are going to be in for a shock.  Whilst I've no doubt that it would be cheaper than the 500mm f/4L IS II, I don't think it would be much cheaper than the 300mm f/2.8 IS II.  I think that you'd be looking at a lens filling the US$3500 to US$4500 range that is at present dominated by Sigma, not in the price bracket of lenses like the current 300mm F/4L IS, 4oomm f/5.6L, 100-400mm F/4.5-5.6L IS.

I would have no problem dropping $3500 to $3800 for a high-quality 400mm f/4 L IS lens.  that's still a huge step away from even the 300mm f/2.8 L IS II at 7K.

I would assume that, given the Canon EF 400mm f/4 DO L IS lens runs for about $6000 (and I think lists for $6999), a non-DO EF 400mm f/4 L IS lens, especially if its got top-notch near-perfect optics like the new 500mm L II and 600mm L II lenses, it would list for a fair bit more than the DO (DO may be smaller, but it does have a definite limit on resolution...*diffractive* optics). Probably looking at $7999 - $9999. I think everyone would like to have a $3800 400/4, but once you get into high resolution, high quality, image-stabilized telephoto optics (which is what Canon excels at)...the differences in price tend to be minor. I'd be surprised to see such a lens for less than about ten grand....

I've always been under the impression that the price of the 400 f/4 DO was pushed up because of the diffractive optics, as it is in the same price range as the original 500. Had the new supertelephotos not been significantly more expensive compared to the original versions, I would have expected it to be cheaper than the DO, now it will probably be as much or more though, probably in the same range as the 300 f/2.8 MkII.

765

Canon General / Re: Truth in photography

« on: February 02, 2012, 05:58:41 PM »

Do you feel genuinely upset and angry when a photographer portrays a photo as something it’s not?  If so, why does this get you so worked up?

The short answer is yes, but it isn't really that simple. Manipulation is fine, even though much of it isn't to my personal taste. However, whether or not I think it is right to misrepresent it, really depends on the intended use to some degree. A couple of years ago the UK magazine Outdoor Photography wrote an article on this subject, with letters for months, following the debacle with the disqualified winner of the Wildlife Photographer of the Year competition. Following that, I wrote a blog article with my thoughts, which I will extract.
You often hear the uninitiated say that with digital you can do anything and even work miracles on severely sub-standard images, which to an experienced photographer is just plain wrong. This following comment I received on a critique in a stock site and forum was basically what prompted me to write the blog article in the first place and outlines the problems associated with misrepresentation:

Recently, I received a comment on one of my photographs that had been uploaded to a stock photography site, stating that it was nicely taken, but didn't look real due to the "Photoshopping". To say I was confused and irritated was putting it mildly, as I aim for reality in most of my photos and don't have the patience for lengthy processing. Also, the photo in question had, had a simple curves adjustment to increase the contrast and nothing else.

After contacting the photographer who made the comment, I was able to ascertain, that he had looked at the EXIF data and assumed that it had been "Photoshopped", simply because I had edited it in Photoshop, so basically, even if I hadn't done any editing and had simply converted to a JPEG, he would have accused me of "Photoshopping". I think this is a sad reflection on how photography is now viewed and how people believe that anything is possible (including getting a good photo from a bad one) and that it doesn't portray what was seen. The reality is, that with few exceptions, you can't rescue a bad photo and probably most photographs are still a reflection of reality or at least the photographer's reflection of reality.

We all know of course that there are various manipulations that can be done, but the original images all have to be of a relatively good standard for that manipulation to work. Now the problem is, when photographers portray something that it isn't, people then believe the misinformation and believe that all photographers do that and that any mediocre photographer can create mind-blowing images, just by working Photoshop. Equally though, we all know that photographs lie or don't tell the full story. In many cases, it doesn't matter, but if for example photojournalists are trying to get across an important message, what happens if the public believes all photographers manipulate the truth? I wrote this in a follow up to the first blog entry.

If we as photographers portray a false impression, then it is harder for the public to trust what we tell them. It is already difficult, with people having the assumption that anything can be done (or rescued) with Photoshop and other editing software. But again, why is it so important? Does it really matter what people think? It depends on the purpose, for an artistic creation, it doesn't matter at all, but if we want to inform the public of a particular problem, then they need to trust and believe in what we are saying.

And just to emphasise the reality of photography, how it can lie and why the truth may be more important in different circumstances.

Sometimes manipulating the viewer is wrong, but sometimes it is needed to put a message across, it's no different than a newspaper article putting a slant on a story. Photography is also telling a story, if you are making a documentary point, then it requires different ethics to an image that is simply an artistic creation. For example, near where I live, I could photograph an idyllic rural scene, with a country pub next to the canal. This would paint a picture of a quiet drink next to the canal, but in reality, right above my head would be the M5. If I was simply making an artistic photograph, there would be nothing wrong in this, but if I was photographing the pub for an estate agent and then sold that quiet scene, it would be unethical. The same would be true if I was trying to portray an animal in a similar manner. The key is to declare any concepts and manipulation.