September 18, 2014, 01:44:17 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 - thepancakeman

Pages: 1 ... 15 16 [17] 18 19 ... 31
Software & Accessories / Re: Lightroom VS Photoshop
« on: March 16, 2012, 06:01:30 PM »
For me one of the biggest differences is the ability to do things in bulk.  I can have a whole set of photos that need some basic editing such as changing the color balance and bumping up the blacks.  I can do them all at once in LR.  There may be a way to do it in bulk in PS, but not that I've found (granted I'm a PS novice).    I also find the crop functionality of LR to be quicker and easier.  I own them both and do about 95-98% of my work in Lightroom.


Please fight the urge to type in all caps.  :)


EOS Bodies / Re: Megapixel wars: Where do we go from here?
« on: March 15, 2012, 06:05:45 PM »
3D (as in "now showing in 3D", not as in a model number).   :'(

EOS Bodies / Re: 5D Mk III vs D800/E, is the 5D3 better at anything?
« on: March 15, 2012, 06:02:13 PM »
I find it hard to believe that I'm the only one that these apply to
What if the Nikon D800 was only 22 MP...........
I guess all you guys (who really needs 36mp all of a sudden) would have no camera to take pictures with.

Well, I've manage to take AND SELL a fair number of pictures with 10MP, but if you're telling me that I can't do better with 36MP then I guess I'll just have to trust that you know more about my photography than I do.   ;)

EOS Bodies / Re: 5D Mk III vs D800/E, is the 5D3 better at anything?
« on: March 15, 2012, 05:46:16 PM »
Two things that matter to me and how I use the camera the lure me towards the D800:

  • More megapixels means more cropping opportunity.  Honestly I often struggle with framing the shot in camera, but I'm a master cropper.  ::)  Could I just spend hours/months/years learning to frame better in camera?  Yep.  But if I can achieve the same thing just by changing equipment, why wouldn't I?
  • Autofocus in video.  I'm not a videographer, and I don't make movies.  But I'm a dad and I take pictures of my kids' sports.  I don't have the skill or desire to learn to try and manually focus 7 yr olds playing soccer.  Sure, I can buy a video camera, but then I have to lug extra equipment around, and still have inferior glass to what I already have for my DSLR

I find it hard to believe that I'm the only one that these apply to, and if I weren't already heavily invested in Canon glass, I doubt I would even think twice about it.

Lenses / Re: Still need a fast lens?
« on: March 12, 2012, 07:12:21 PM »
Even with the great ISO performance of the 5D III, you can't get decent bokeh out of somthing like a 24-105 f4.

I agree--my wife loves her 24-105 f/4, but I almost never use it because I'm addicted to that dreamy background blur that comes from faster lenses.

Sports / Re: Wrestling Shots
« on: March 12, 2012, 05:41:45 PM »
Although I've never shot wrestling, I do a fair amount of sports and I'm guessing the issues you are facing are poor light in the gym along with the need for a high shutter speed to stop quick moving athletes.

The "grainy" is likely the result of a high ISO setting which is needed to get the shutter speed down to where it needs to be, and "blurry" is either out of focus or motion blur.  If it's motion blur, then it will be the wrestlers that are blurry whereas the mat and background will not.  The biggest trick to getting these shots is you have to have a fast (i.e. low "f" setting.)  Although these can be quite expensive, the 50mm f/1.8 is just over $100 and will let in way more light than most kit lenses and enable him to get the shutter speed to where he needs it to be.

In practicle terms, you want the shutter speed to be fast: probably 1/200 or faster.  Once he knows how fast of a shutter speed he needs to freeze the motion, then he can play with ISO vs. aperature.  Raising the ISO makes it grainier but allows for a smaller aperature (say f/4.0-5.6) which will have a greater depth of field (more is in focus).  Opening the aperature will allow for lower ISO setting and reduce grain, but focus is more critical because the depth of field (how much is in focus) can get very thin.

Let me know if you need more/different info.  Best of luck!

Lenses / Re: Canon 16-35L II vs Tokina 16-35 vs Sigma 17-50 2.8 lenses
« on: March 12, 2012, 01:00:51 PM »
Hey all,

    Thanks for the replies! I really am leaning away from the 17-55 because it is an EF-S lens. I don't care for/like the prospect of getting a lens I would not be able to use on a ff camera when I get one, be it later this year, or 4 or 5 years from now. A good lens now will still be a good lens in the future if it is taken care of.

Gary W.

I am of exactly the same mindset--I'm on a 7D now, but don't want to put money into glass that won't work when I move to a 5D III (or IV as slow as I move.   :-\ )  Just yesterday I was playing with the Tokina 16-28 f/2.8 and was reasonably impressed.  There's not a lot of reviews on it, but the ones that are there are pretty favorable.  Unfortunately I only got to get a feel for it and did not get any photos, but from a feel standpoint it was good--built like a tank, seem to focus quickly and reasonably quietly. 

One big drawback for some people is that you can't use filters.  The other gripe I've seen about it is the lens cap.  The one I looked at yesterday was quite different from any of the photos I've seen and seems like they've heard the complaints and upgraded it.

EOS Bodies / Re: 5dmkIII- No video autofocus?
« on: March 02, 2012, 03:32:51 PM »
Professional video cameras do not have AF. It's childs play. The person running the camera not only should know exactly what they want in focus, but they better have the skills to manually hit their mark.

Exactly--that's why they have focus pullers is because the cameramen don't actually know how to "hit their mark."  And everyone else in every video always hits their mark as indicated by the out-of-frame "X" on the floor indicating exactly where to stand.  /sarcasm

Software & Accessories / Re: post processing for screen.
« on: February 21, 2012, 03:53:25 PM »
Yup, I get the whole calibrated monitor, etc.   ;)

Maybe let me ask this a different way:  you have 100 photos that are both going to print and publish to web.  Do you just calibrate the image for printing and ignore the web side of things, or do you handle each destination separately, and if so, how?

I realize that everyone's monitors are different, however that doesn't mean you should just ignore that part of the equation.  Just like making a decent audio recording, mixing it to simply sound good "on my speakers" isn't very professional.  You have to mix it so that it will sound the best it can on a wide variety of playback systems and environments.

Software & Accessories / post processing for screen.
« on: February 21, 2012, 12:28:41 PM »
Now that I'm working on getting a color managed workflow, I'm realizing that there are completely different needs between print and screen.

So how do you manage output between the two?  People's screens differ so much, how do you pick an "average" to get it looking good on the most number of screens?  The two biggies that come to mind are brightness and sharpening.  I use Lightroom, and on the export there is a "sharpen for screen" option--do people use that or figure that they have the appropriate sharpness before the export?  Is there any kind of "brighten for screen" (or would it be darken for screen??) on output, or how do you put that in the workflow?


Site Information / Re: Should karma remain on the forum?
« on: February 21, 2012, 11:52:24 AM »
It pretty much comes down to this: karma is a tool.  If it sucks or is worthless, it very likely could be a Nikon the problem is the users, not the tool.  Without a post indicating why a smite or applaud is applied, it doesn't provide a lot of usefulness.  But I think it COULD be a good tool to find out as a community what people find useful and contributory, and what is uncalled for and unappreciated.

Now see I'll probably get negative karma for this post because all the sudden I'm a fanboy because I tried to employ some humor on a CANON website at the expense of Nikon (who does make perfectly good cameras.)

PowerShot / Re: Can't wait for D20
« on: February 14, 2012, 03:54:32 PM »
Bump.  Seriously, no one has thoughts on a camera for more "abusive" situations?

Sports / Re: Indoor cycling
« on: February 14, 2012, 03:20:23 PM »
What kind of cycling event is that? It looks like indoor cyclocross do to the tires looking quite big... But to me, that would defeat the purpose of cyclocross itself...

Enlighten me please  :)

It's a laidback race on indoor soccerfields.  The field surface is artificial turf on top of shredded rubber.  Most of the riders find they get the best grip on this surface with their CX bikes/tires, but there are a few road bikes that show up as well as some mountain bikes.  The surface is squishy enough that speeds really don't get much over 20mph even for a 10 minute race (and it's not due to slow riders--one of the guys is a world champion track racer).

Sports / Re: Indoor cycling
« on: February 14, 2012, 03:15:24 PM »
The 'context' meaning that the picture must be able to tell a story ... like what aspect of the race are you depicting here ? Someone trying to breakaway, someone struggling ? Someone having a strong race ? Or just the pure pace of the event ?

So how do I make "guy in orange off the front" or "two teammates working together against a third guy" into a better story?  I think I've been looking at it from the cyclists perspective (capture the moment that they already have a context for) than from a spectators standpoint.

Panning in sports is more often than not under-estimated by most people. It takes a pretty fair level of skill to snap good panning shots. In my example "_MG_0570.jpg" was shot at 1/160, on a slow lens. Would suggest using what's available for lighting and tweak your shooting to it. I've shot as low as 1/50 but only if I have the space to move freely.

Actually I think shot #2 was at 1/30, but I don't have the exif in front of me.  The problem was there wasn't enough environment to give any motion blur at high shutter speeds.  A solid blue wall just doesn't really blur much.   ;)

Here's 'Tinker' Juarez with the setting sun in the background and dim, dim evening light. Flash was used for fill and this was shot using an ultrawide 12-24mm on the 5DII. ISO was 1600, at 1/125 shutter. Just to illustrate the 'slight flash fill' ...


Pages: 1 ... 15 16 [17] 18 19 ... 31