April 16, 2014, 04:27:05 PM

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 - nightbreath

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 31
16
Lenses / Re: 14mm mk2 or 16-35 mk2?
« on: October 08, 2013, 04:09:43 PM »
Because of the way our eyes work yours looks way to magenta and mine looks way to yellow in the gif.
My personal feeling is that you can achieve either magenta or yellow result with the left RAW file, but not the orange I have achieved with the right file. Do you want me to send you the RAW files over to play with? :)

17
Lenses / Re: 14mm mk2 or 16-35 mk2?
« on: October 06, 2013, 10:31:23 AM »
P.S. I hope you have a good screen  ;)

18
Lenses / Re: 14mm mk2 or 16-35 mk2?
« on: October 06, 2013, 10:29:25 AM »
The point is when choosing a lens, colour rendering and contrast are so easily adjusted now they shouldn't be an important factor in purchasing decisions.

It seems we're still on different pages. I have mentioned "vision", because I see difference in the original file. I have attached an example. Let me attach a sample photo later  :)

It would be great if you could add sample photos too.


Ok, here is what I am talking about. I just did these images quickly for this thread, I used complete auto settings if I wanted more accuracy I could go into the calibration software and customise it to my hearts content.

I took two pictures of the same colour card in the same place, one with an EOS-M and compact fluorescent light bulb, the second with a 1Ds MkIII, 24-70 and a 600EX-RT. Those are the two left hand images, I then calibrated them and white balanced them and those two pictures are the two on the right. I think you will agree the two on the left are vastly dissimilar with very different colour characteristics, but the two on the right are very similar. This is not just a WB adjustment, the colour swatches change in relation to each other too.

I did not touch exposure, obviously the two images have a slightly different exposure as well.

As I said before, it's not about calibration. It's all about how far you can go from your initial state.

Below is a sample comparison (2 old images taken with 2 different high-end equipment sets):
- left-hand side image is worse for me, because I cannot push the colors further than they are (e.g., I can't make the whites whiter on the dress, because specific areas are burnt out due to initial color corrections);
- right-hand side image looks nicer to me as it gives a feeling of richer tonal gradations; those cyan and orange colors add some kind of luminance to the image, and the whites look whiter without being burnt out.



I understand that in this case the difference is minuscule. But if I don't have the first image limiting me, I would be able to go further with the second one. On the left side the main image lacks additional colors from the right image (cyan and orange). Let me demonstrate how pushing specific colors to a ppleasible end point works on both images:



This difference is not something I've noticed once, equipment is one of three variables in the equation we all having troubles with (IQ = photographer + environment + equipment). In the end I get a cheap-looking left image compared to something I want to get on the right-hand side. Needless to say, the workflow for achieving these looks differs – image on the right is something that is much easier to get than the left-hand image that ends up being worse to my eye (because of the interfering colors).

Color calibration was something I did when I opened photography for myself, a few years after I figured out that it's meaningless for me.

19
Lenses / Re: 14mm mk2 or 16-35 mk2?
« on: October 02, 2013, 03:06:50 AM »
The point is when choosing a lens, colour rendering and contrast are so easily adjusted now they shouldn't be an important factor in purchasing decisions.
It seems we're still on different pages. I have mentioned "vision", because I see difference in the original file. I have attached an example. Let me attach a sample photo later  :)

It would be great if you could add sample photos too.

20
Canon General / Re: Everyone is a photographer
« on: October 02, 2013, 02:44:46 AM »
I've been to more weddings where the photographer or videographer have ruined the wedding than weddings where guests have ruined it by taking pictures. Last week I was attending a wedding where out of the 300 guests only 3 people saw the bride and groom cut the cake.The three people were the videographer and the two photographers. IMO that is ridiculous...
An off-topic question to you and everyone else. In the attached scheme the only place I can see for myself as a photographer is the one I have chosen (sitting on the aisle). What do you think about this location?

21
Lenses / Re: 14mm mk2 or 16-35 mk2?
« on: October 01, 2013, 03:33:23 AM »
You are clearly not familiar with the idea, concept or implementation of camera profiles. A prerequisite, in my opinion, for a competent digital workflow.
We definitely speak different languages. It seems that your vision and my vision are different. And even taking into account all you said, it doesn't work for me. I would pay twice for 10% win in initial IQ.

22
Lenses / Re: 14mm mk2 or 16-35 mk2?
« on: September 30, 2013, 06:11:23 PM »
I should've been more specific when saying "professional"  :)  It seems I still cannot find a proper word to describe that kind of quality. I wanted to define somebody who's at the highest possible rung of every photography aspect.

For example, I have experienced a lot of different shooting environments and conditions. And sometimes a very similar set of equipment (same lens, flash, settings and subject; camera body is the only variable) gives different picture (i.e. lack of color variability).

Do know that each color `lives` in a specific to that color lightness levels? Sample showing yellow color specificity is attached, variability and saturation are the most interesting characteristics. So when it comes to post-processing and there's something you don't have in your original file, it won't magically appear there.

A theoretic example (straight out of my head): due to cheap electronics used in a camera it adds green tint to light green colors (by making them greener) and purple tint to dark green colors (by making them opposite to green). So the question is: would you even try making your colors look different from what your camera could achieve? What if we compare different camera manufacturers? Different sensor formats? Different lenses?..

23
Lenses / Re: 14mm mk2 or 16-35 mk2?
« on: September 30, 2013, 03:32:10 PM »
Brooke Shaden's images look exactly how she wants them to look. Lou's work has been competent enough for Playboy...

I understand this. But I don't feel that recognition and artwork are tightly connected. And again — this is how I feel, not what people would say.

It seems there's a gap between two of us that makes understanding more complex. Let me exaggerate what I feel to make things clear:

I don't like this photo...

... because of:
- flat light;
- boring color harmony;
- lack of expression/emphasis;
- lack of veracity (I don't believe these people really do whatever they do, i.e. I see that they pose).

And the opposite to what we've just looked at is:

Why?
- good light;
- colors touch my feelings;
- readable emphasis;
- I 100% believe that girl; I don't even need to see her face, my imagination tells the story eyes can't see.

Another example. I don't like this photo...

... because of artificiality (lack of uniformity in lighting, shades, colors... you can even find duplicated sticks and see clouds from a sunny day) - my perception detects these things automatically without even noticing what exactly is wrong.

And the opposite is...

... because of consistency in what my eyes see.

My confidence is supported by my experience. The photos you have referenced to are similar to what I did one-two-three years before. And they suffered from the same issues mentioned above (and many-many others, by the way).

So the point is... photography (for me) is a mix of who you are and what you have (equipment, skills, story, etc.), so every small thing counts. It's all about content and the way you reproduce it. That's why, with all the small things floating in my mind, I have asked about color and contrast, because it works in conjunction with my current "equipment, skills, story..." mix  :)

24
Lenses / Re: 14mm mk2 or 16-35 mk2?
« on: September 30, 2013, 11:10:11 AM »
As for pro looking output, look up Brooke Shaden who uses a 50 f1.8 almost exclusively, or Lou Freeman who uses a 70-300 for much of her work. There are countless people putting out superlative work with comparatively modest gear.
I'm a seasoned photographer. From my point of view images that don't have middle shadows (I have looked through their portfolio) do not conform the "semi-competent" workflow expected results  ;)

25
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: RAW or JPEG
« on: September 24, 2013, 03:35:52 PM »
If you want your images to resemble art, shoot RAW. Camera cannot capture what our eyes see.
From the other hand, if your aim is to keep your workflow straightforward, keep everything simple  :)








26
Lenses / Re: 14mm mk2 or 16-35 mk2?
« on: September 24, 2013, 02:45:10 PM »
Do anyone has observations on such characteristics as: color, contrast, etc?..
Colour and contrast are non issues, they just don't factor into even a semi competent digital workflow.
Really?  ???  Than why we almost always see high-end equipment behind professional-looking imagery?
I feel that what you say doesn't work for me. 17-40 and its "semi-competent" colors is an example ;)

27
1D X Sample Images / Re: Weddings
« on: September 24, 2013, 02:09:00 PM »
Awesome pix Night. What lens did u use on these latest ones?
35L, 50L, 85L :)

28
1D X Sample Images / Re: Weddings
« on: September 23, 2013, 03:02:06 PM »

29
Lenses / Re: 14mm mk2 or 16-35 mk2?
« on: September 23, 2013, 02:56:46 PM »
Great to see feedback on both lenses! Though could you please expand your thoughts on the wedding reportage field? What do you think is better from a wedding photographer perspective (sharpness is less important than colors for me)?
For wedding reportage work I wouldn't be without the flexibility that a zoom offers.
So vs the 14mm f/2.8II and the 17 TS-E being discussed on this thread, it's got to be the 16-35 f/2.8II all the way.

-pw
Thank you for your input  :)

I primarily use the widest available setting on my current 17-40, so it's 14mm vs. 16mm on the corresponding lenses  :)

Do anyone has observations on such characteristics as: color, contrast, etc?..

30
Lenses / Re: 14mm mk2 or 16-35 mk2?
« on: September 23, 2013, 02:51:05 AM »
Great to see feedback on both lenses! Though could you please expand your thoughts on the wedding reportage field? What do you think is better from a wedding photographer perspective (sharpness is less important than colors for me)?

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 31