October 30, 2014, 01:38:06 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 - RAKAMRAK

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 21
61
Landscape / Re: Sunset landscape
« on: October 14, 2013, 10:35:49 PM »
Well it is actually a sunset lit cityscape.....

62
Software & Accessories / Re: What would you do without Photoshop?
« on: October 06, 2013, 11:42:16 PM »
Just because people use electronic post processing rather than mechanical post processing really makes no difference to me.
 
Film images were doctored just as electronic images are, objects and people were inserted or removed from images, areas of the image lightened or darkened, exposures changed, colors changed, contrast changed, its just that some people do not know how it used to be done and think that post processing is something new.

My understanding exactly.

On second thought, my answer to OP's question (topic heading) is "I would take lot less photos, my photos would be qualitatively much worse than they are today, and I would not be so immersed in photography as I am now, something else would be my first preference hobby. Photoshop makes my photographs better, and me a better photographer."

63
Software & Accessories / Re: What would you do without Photoshop?
« on: October 06, 2013, 05:46:05 PM »
"Let's do the best we can now"

That is the best possible mindset that we could have...

64
Software & Accessories / Re: What would you do without Photoshop?
« on: October 06, 2013, 05:44:33 PM »
It is sure good to learn to do "good" technique and everything using just the camera. But Photoshop is nothing but a glorified darkroom. So what the photographers of yesteryear's were doing (including the likes of Ansel Adams) in Dark Room, we are just doing that in Photoshop. Photography is a form of art, and that means the artist's imagination plays a major role here. And darkroom from the days bygone and today's Photoshop just helps us in doing that - for some a bit more and for some a bit less. It is just about the degree. With the advancement in technology we can now do a lot more that we could in analogue days - that is the natural way of progress of technology. Photographers today quibbling about what would we do without photoshop is like doctors talking about how lazy they have become with the use of xray/MRI/anaesthesia in surgery/bloodtests/painkiller (take your pick).

When you are photographing the shot of the day with two energetic kids in the lucky composition that you could ever imagine and there is a tree trunk portruding from the back of the head of one of the kids then you neither have the luxury walking back and forth, change lens or anything - you just have to take the shot and thank the developers of photoshop in your mind.

65
I have not been chiming in after my first post, but I have been following your replies. Thank you all for your helps. So, now my understanding is low ISO (and the different techniques mentioned by Neuro and Pi) is the better choice.

66
Are "High ISO" noise and "long exposure" (at low ISO) noise the same qualitatively? Or is one slightly more managegable than the other? (Practical Reference: When photographing a night scene of a city is it preferable to choose high ISO and faster shutter speed, or is it preferable to choose low ISO slower shutter speed, assuming I do not want to consider the motion blur of moving subjects resulting from slower shutter speed as a factor)

67
Canon EF Prime Lenses / Re: Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II
« on: October 01, 2013, 02:39:40 AM »
Keep the nifty-fifty alive.  :)  However, if they update this to 50mm F1.8 IS, I'll be thoroughly thrilled.  We need IS!!!  Sometimes it's the difference between getting ambient lights without getting your picture too noisy and not.



Very true..... unfortunately some would not agree, but IS is very important.....

68
Lenses / Re: Tanzania with minimal gear
« on: September 29, 2013, 11:15:58 AM »
Ok, given the fact that you have a real constraint here (one duffel bag) I think long telephoto is out of question. But still some times you may want to shoot the thing at a distance. So it would be better to know what would be your photography objects. Without knowing all these my general suggestion would be

If you are shooting with crop then get
Canon EF-S 15-85mm
On top of that if you have space get the 70-300mm L.

And a super zoom p&S.

For a full frame get
Canon EF-S 24-105
On top of that if you have space get the 70-300mm L

and a super zoom p&S

(All these suggestions are based on the real constraint you have, if there is no constraint we could probably bring the entire EF lens line up with us)

69
Lenses / Re: Lens suggestions for T3i please!
« on: September 28, 2013, 10:51:40 PM »
@OP, get the 17-55 mm f/2.8. I read your first post and given your requirements this is the best lens that you can get. If you wanted the best walkaround lens for your current camera I would suggest the 15-85. Get the lens that best suits the camera that you have right now, not for the camera that you may or may not have in 3 years from now. I have tried to use lenses longer than 50 mm - outside they are fantastic, but inside the house/room they are useless - just too long.

If I was confident about the quality then I would suggest you to get the new Sigma 17-70mm (to get the relative best of both worlds). But have not used this lens myself, and do not know what its optical quality is.

70
Canon General / Re: good idea
« on: September 28, 2013, 01:24:20 AM »
There are a number of patents from many camera companies for interchangeable sensors, but so far, the idea has been impractical simply because new technology requires additional connections and electronic speeds that were not foreseen two or three years earlier, and getting tied to out of date technology isn't something engineers want to do.
 
Right now, many sensors are switching to 8 channel readouts, what will be have in 3 years?  12, 14, or 16 channel, and what speeds?  The motherboard and processor tie you down to todays technology pretty well.  It also ties down any improvements in autofocus, video, or nr among other things.
 
Its not really such a good idea when you think about how much it shackles you to obsolete technology..
 
Its hard to believe that we will see practical interchangeable sensors unless its just for easy replacement of a damaged part.

That is true with the presumption that the user is going to put a "newer" sensor in a "older" body. But no one tries to use a quad core processor with a motherboard that is for Pentium 4. When quad (or hexa) cores came we had to change our mother boards. But there are different versions of the quad cores that can be fitted on the same mother board that can fit all of them. Computer technology did not get stalled for that. Like that we shall be having multiple sensors for the same body. When the next body comes if that does not fit the sensor I have I will have to upgrade (as I do with computers) - sell this body and sensors as instead of just selling the body and buy the new sets.

That is I am thinking of a situation where there are several concurrent sensors for the same body? Like say interchanging an "without AA filter" sensor with an "with AA filter" sensor (something like D800 and D800E in the same body). Like the different digital backs for the same camera - I think some medium format cameras do that, do not they?

Of course my opinion is based on my very rudimentary understanding of electronics.

71
Landscape / Re: North Carolina, USA, Rural Area
« on: September 27, 2013, 07:07:23 PM »
I like the composition of the first photo.... but there is something going on there in this photo. The sky looks kind of abnormally blue, that is still alright. However, the threes have highly different exposures. The tree on the right is dark, while the one in the middle behind the barn is lighter, then the parts of the trees above the barn is dark again. Did you use a hard edge graduated ND filter or the ND feature of LR?

72
Canon EF Prime Lenses / Re: Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II
« on: September 24, 2013, 02:53:15 PM »
One from me.....

73
Do the opposite...... the standard zoom on the full frame and the tele zoom on the crop. You will miss the FOV between 70mm to 110mm (approx), but do you think you absolutely need that? Now you have pretty wide wide angle for groupshots, and pretty long range tele for all the distance shots (the actual ceremony etc). Of course what you will miss is some quality bokeh on the tele shots. But with all the fine lenses that you have you will be changing lenses quite a few times, so that is a given.

The other suggestion that you will probably get  pretty soon is get another full frame body - use two full frames for the weddings because that is the way to go.

74
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: aperture!
« on: September 21, 2013, 04:14:14 AM »
ok now im really confused!



Do not be, set your lens to f/8 - f/11 (whatever your heat desire), focus on whatever you want, and set the camera on tripod. With f/8-f/11 you will need tripod. and fire away.

75
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: aperture!
« on: September 21, 2013, 04:09:05 AM »
Experimentation is great.  ...  My solution was to develop a set of DOF equations and use them to program a programmable calculator which lives in my camera bag.  So when I encounter a situation that requires special attention to achieving sharp focus on critical elements in the scene I can enter the data into the calculator and get an answer in the blink of an eye.  It works great!  ....Or you can just set your lens to f/8 and have fun shooting.  Most of your landscape pictures will probably turn out just fine.

It might be daunting to some to program their own equations (at least it seems that way to me). But it is definitely a fine way to go if you can do that, otherwise, if you have a smart phone (whether android based or apple's) there are lots of free DOF calculator programs/apps available out there to do the same thing.

f/8 and be there is also a wonderful time tested method.

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 21