February 27, 2015, 02:49:45 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 - Kernuak

Pages: 1 ... 62 63 [64] 65 66 ... 74
Many B&W digital specialists will actually increase saturation to the point of oversaturation before the conversion, to deepen the tones.
I do this too.  I don't have B&W specialty programs (e.g., Nik SilverEfx).  I tried doing this in both Photoshop and Adobe RAW and found Adobe RAW to be much easier to use.  For some reason, Photoshop is extraordinarily laggy.
I always use Lightroom rather than Photoshop for RAW conversion, I find it's also more flexible. I only really dabble in B&W. I know people who actually "see" in B&W when they're shooting, so they're always on the lookout for suitable scenes, with texture and shapes or moods, while I shoot for colour, then think about B&W as an afterthought.

If that is supposed to be a future official Nikon sample image, why would they use lighting conditions that would require such a low shutterspeed, to the point that there is motion blur evident? This has resulted in a soft double image, that does little for showing the capabilities of the camera, beyond low noise levels.

A good B&W relies on a lot of colour information. Many B&W digital specialists will actually increase saturation to the point of oversaturation before the conversion, to deepen the tones.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 7D ISO 80, 160, 3200... vs 100, 200, 400...
« on: February 02, 2012, 09:21:51 AM »
Not too much of a tangent...

But, what about the 80, 160, 320 and so forth ISO settings that are supposed to be better than shooting 100, 200, 400 etc with the 7D? Is there any truth to this?
It isn't something I've noticed, but I also haven't done any tests, I just use what I need to use to get the shot. Really that is what matters, rather than any technical testing that has been done in artificial conditions. The similar comments for other cameras at the full stop ISO setting don't seem to match what I've seen on other cameras either. One thing I do find with the 7D, it tends to underexpose by about 2/3rds stop compared to the 5D MkII, so ISO 1600 on the 7D matches ISO 1000 on the 5D MkII.

EOS Bodies / Re: *UPDATE* 5D Mark III - February 7, 2012 [CR2]
« on: February 01, 2012, 06:36:11 PM »
As some one who happily pushed film to ASA 12800, i've often wondered just what people expect from a shot at 12800? Or maybe they're just people who have never seen how grainy a picture is taken at ASA 12800? On a par, i would say the 5D2 would have to have an H3 setting to 51k to get the equivelant noise/ grain, maybe even an H4 to 102k. The 1Dx at 204k seems to give noise/ grain at no more than i got from 3200ASA pushed 1 stop...

Or even how grainy a 400 ASA negative film is (albeit a run of the mill Kodak film) without pushing. That's probably why there is such as range in tolerance of noise.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: S and X
« on: February 01, 2012, 06:30:39 PM »
I've always assumed that s on th 1Ds line stood for studion, but that's all it is, an assumption. The 1D X supposedly got its designation because it was the tenth professional EOS camera, although I've only been able to count nine, so I've lost one somewhere. Maybe someone wants to visit and lose their 1D MkVI/X in my house :P.

EOS Bodies / Re: *UPDATE* 5D Mark III - February 7, 2012 [CR2]
« on: February 01, 2012, 05:15:24 PM »
Just some advice to anyone seriously considering switching to Nikon.
Nikon are not without their faults, before switching make sure you are happy with the controls and button layout. Once I got used to the canon system I found the Nikon system more clunky and hate some of the button placements. also that dpad on the back they have is really crap, The canon wheel and joystick blows Nikon out of the water here. Also have had the controller wheels become intermittently faulty in the past and hence making it really hard to change things like shutter speed and aperture.
As others have mentioned lenses tend to be a little more pricey however they do have a few stunning lenses
14-24, 50mm f1.4, 105 f2.8 Micro, 70-200 f2.8VR and the 200-400 to name a few
The 200-400 was the one that made me drool and look into the options, perhaps not a complete switch, but seeing what I could do for low light (but the only option on that score would have been a D3s).

I'm not so sure V1 and V2 would be a popular naming convention in certain parts of Europe :P.

The guy that designed the V2 also did the rocket that put the US astronauts on the Moon - might be appropriate for something that ends up on the dark side  ;D ;D ;D ;D
I hadn't realised that, but I'm not surprised.

I'm not so sure V1 and V2 would be a popular naming convention in certain parts of Europe :P.

Animal Kingdom / Re: Show your Bird Portraits
« on: February 01, 2012, 04:15:50 PM »
With the 7D, 300 f/2.8 L IS + 1.4x extender

Adolescent Mute Swan Preening by Kernuak, on Flickr

Lenses / Re: What about DxO Mark?
« on: February 01, 2012, 04:07:01 PM »
When I first got back into photography and first dragged myself into the digital age, I bought a Tamron 55-200 as a second lens. It cost me £99 as part of a package, although the real price at the time was £199. It was very sharo and punched well above it's weight on that aspect. However, that didn't tell the whole story, granted it wasn't part of Tamron's pro range, but the contrast and colour rendition didn't match any of my L lenses now. Beyond actual image quality though, the build quality was pretty poor, it was put together well enough, but felt cheap and flimsy, worse though, was the manual focus ring, which was about 1mm thick, a bit like the Canon 18-55 kit lens. While the manual focus ring is probably better on Tamron's pro range lenses, that is an area where L lenses excell and really only Zeiss can match or exceed them in that area.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Canon 7D for studio work
« on: February 01, 2012, 03:47:17 PM »
One thing that is often forgotten about higher resolution sensors, they are less forgiving. Not only do they magnify the detail, but they also magnify any imperfections, be it slight motion blur or lens quality. There are a number of higher grade lenses which outresolve the 40D sensor, but the 7D is able to outresolve those same lenses. I owned the 40D before the 7D, and there isn't really any comparison. Yes, the images appear softer in 7D RAW images, because as Neuro said, you're looking at a magnified view. 7D RAW images can accept high levels of sharpening in Adobe Camere RAW, often up to to 75 or more (I've even pushed it to 90 just to see what it looks like), if you shapren that much with the 40D, you are likely to hit problems. As a standard, I set the sharpening on the 7D at 40, instead of the default ACR of 25 and most files then look fine, although, even the slightest motion blur is visible. With a static subject on a tripod, the 7D is far superior to the 40D in my experience. Granted it doesn't match the 5D MkII in the same circumstances though. the other failing with the 7D is the increased diffraction limited aperture problem. You start to see softening from the effects of diffraction quite a bit earlier than you would with the 40D and it is easily visible to me by f/11 and by f/16 it is irritating (a bit like f/22 was on the 40D). This was my main reason for getting the 5D MkII, saving the 7D for fast moving wildlife or when I needed the reach. I tend to use the 5D MkII for macro too, both for use of narrow apertures and because of the better IQ. For studio work though, from my limited experience, you're often around f/8 anyway, which shouldn't be a problem.
I have only done one studio shoot, but unfortunately, I just double-checked and I used the 5D MkII, so I can't help with links. You're welcome to look on my website or Flickr account at any wildlife shots for examples of what the 7D can do in that setting. They're relatively low resolution on Flickr and you can't see the full size on my website, but I should be able to set something up if you really want to look. I send most of the images I feel are good enough for my website to stock sites and they've never had a problem with image quality (well, except for one 40D image that was described as soft or lacking definition, but it was a mist shot, so it was supposed to be :P).


EOS Bodies / Re: *UPDATE* New High-End DSLR Later in February [CR3]
« on: January 30, 2012, 06:32:53 PM »
Is it wrong to guess that some of the UK member's might have had a decent chance of an invitation, due to the Olympics?
It's probably a pretty good guess, as there will probably be more UK-based photographers there and Canon will want as many of their new flagship cameras as possible on show I would think. A similar guess could apply for Euro 2012, where Canon are the official imaging sponsor.

Just about the only shot of an underwater creature I have (also in an aquarium).

Great Diving Beetle by Kernuak, on Flickr

EOS Bodies / Re: Can someone debunk this Peter Lik picture... PLEASE!!!
« on: January 30, 2012, 06:17:58 PM »
In his write up he talked about a long night waiting for the shot.  However during a full moon (or almost full moon) the moon rises at about the same time as the sun sets.  For the moon to appear full it must be on the opposite side of the earth from the sun.   Since he stated that this was a moon rise, this event should have happened very close to sunset.  Therefore his comment about a long night is total BS unless he goes to bed very very early.
The colours would also suggest that it was around either sunset or sunrise.

Pages: 1 ... 62 63 [64] 65 66 ... 74