December 22, 2014, 09:59:48 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 - K-amps

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 103
EOS Bodies / Re: How do reds come out in your 5d3 ?
« on: August 13, 2014, 01:33:10 AM »
Is there an easy way of getting you the RAW (25mb file?)

EOS Bodies / Re: How do reds come out in your 5d3 ?
« on: August 13, 2014, 01:28:11 AM »
Tks guys for the responses.

Jon, I did try the per channel red.... but it did not fix the issue, just washed out the red. In real life the flower has more red chroma, and I can match it on screen, but then all details are washed out.... it's not that easy of a fix... moreover I'd like a perm fix rather than spending hours everytime I shoot red.

EOS Bodies / Re: How do reds come out in your 5d3 ?
« on: August 13, 2014, 12:39:10 AM »
This is the result

EOS Bodies / Re: How do reds come out in your 5d3 ?
« on: August 13, 2014, 12:38:14 AM »
Finally I get it where I have good saturation AND details. but takes me 5 minutes to dial it in LR with these settings:

There has to be  better way than having to work on the reds so much.

These where all shot/ processed in RAW in LR 4.4

EOS Bodies / Re: How do reds come out in your 5d3 ?
« on: August 13, 2014, 12:34:24 AM »
Another shot, all sliders at -0- values in LR (i.e. nothing adjusted)

overall saturation seems ok, but reds are just too overdone...

EOS Bodies / How do reds come out in your 5d3 ?
« on: August 13, 2014, 12:29:07 AM »
I have often struggled with red objects in my 5d3. I wrote last year about it but did not get any replies. Yesterday while trying out my new 85 1.2 ii, I saw the same issue.

Red flowers come out in an over saturated red haze. The other colors seem saturated just fine, but the reds are over powered so much that the flowers lose detail.

I can reduced saturation in LR, but then the whole image looks washed out... the issue is only with reds.

If I reduce just red (Red channel only) , then it lacks punch, although I get back details in the flower...

Has anyone else observed this?

Lenses / Re: 70-200 f2.8ii or i
« on: July 03, 2014, 07:32:50 AM »
It's a no brainer... get the Mk.II.

I am not a pro, I am not rich, and if Canon had priced the Mk.ii at $4000, I'd still get it, its that good.

It's one of those lenses that steps up the quality of your work... no easy way to describe it...

It is just one amazing lens!

Reviews / Re: DxO reviews Sony A7s: king of low light photography?
« on: June 24, 2014, 03:25:04 AM »
Guys, Why is there such emotion, calling names, ad homenim instead of talking objectively....  we are all intelligent adults here. If some people are ok with Canon falling behind one step at a time at things it used to excel at in the past, then congrats to the competitors, my take is, competition is good, some of it will trickle into Canon products, then we are all happy. We just need to be a little Patient, I think the new Canon sensor tech will please "most of" us....

The problem I have with innovators like Sony is they change formats too often and whoever has a collection of lens is left with a less than ideal situation of mount mismatches and workarounds. This is where Sony is failing to convert new users, even if they are speed of innovation is impressive.

I think almost everyone (save very few true trolls) are Canonites, why do we bicker like a dysfunctional family so much.... Chill.... don't hate.... understand the human aspect of why someone is saying something and don't start a war that will consume your day with negativity.

Stay positive and discuss ideas only please, not people,

I come to this forum because I learn from the generous experts here who share their knowledge and ask for nothing in return, I mean, what a bargain....

Lets please be polite and respectful to all fellow Canonites and leave out the sarcasm behind.  We are all skilled at debating ideas without the need to resort to personal attacks.

Canon EF Prime Lenses / Re: Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM
« on: June 15, 2014, 05:09:33 AM »
One taken recently: Handheld. With a slight breeze. Here is where the 100L shines with it's IS even though the 180mm I had might have been a tad sharper.... but it took too much real estate in my Camera bag.

Lenses / Re: Tamron 90 macro or Canon 100 for portraits?
« on: June 09, 2014, 11:03:22 AM »
I liked the 85/1.8 and the sister 100/2.0 both very similar, sold them and got the 100L, I don't miss them. I had similar requirements as you. If you want macro just go with the 100L which is very sharp. If you prefer the look of the F2 over having a dedicated macro, then get the 135 F2 with tubes.... choice is ultimately only yours.

Very Sharp!   :)

I like it.

Macro / Re: The same flower.
« on: June 09, 2014, 02:49:14 AM »

First is sterile, distracting, clinical, the yellow is too bright...

Not my favorite technique as I don't have the tools (proper focus rails), software (I use PS, Helicon and others made me crazy), or patience, but here's one of my more successful attempts that was necessary - it's a Maypop flower - really odd to me, but apparently an extremely common flower/weed 180mm macro @f/8, 1/800s, ISO 800:

Amazing pop!

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 103