Messages

61

Portrait / Re: Need some Photoshop/Editing help

« on: August 07, 2012, 09:11:55 PM »

You've opened up a can of worms here. Some good advice about slowing down your changes with lowering brush opacity and rate here.

But, there are more basic problems to discuss in this picture that occur again and again in portrait retouching. First, the job you did on the "bags" or circles under the eyes is good for a beginner, but, especially when working on a man or a "normal" woman (not a fashion shot with a beautiful model who has had her makeup airbrushed on to an otherwordly smoothness), your cloning here makes what I consider a common error; while you removed the offending eye bags, you also removed all skin texture and slightly changed the color and brightness of the affected areas.  This also is the case when you clone out any other facial "fault." It is very hard and time consuming to add the skin texture back after removal and to keep the skin color, overall brightness and brightness "ramp" looking realistic, but it can be done with practice. Bringing it over, in modfied form, from other areas of the face using a combination of cloning and healing brushes usually works; sometimes more creative measures, like texture mapping, need to be taken.

Regarding the problems encountered with areas of border between hair ends and whatever is behind it, encountered when you try to remove "messy" hair from around the face, this is a tough one to which there is never an easy answer. The best resolution is, as has already been mentioned here, to shoot it better so as to avoid this issue entirely. If that's not possible, cloning and healing other hair areas to re-cover the problem areas that you've purposely partially over-removed, while sometimes difficult, can be done. The same is true of recreating the new and necessary hair end points; although recreating the superfine and random nature of the hair ends in places further inside the rest of the hair or on top of parts of the face or background is hard, it is do-able, but very time consuming. Extremely fine and careful color selection, and PS plug-ins that accomplish the same task with more control, are your best friends here, along with a superfine brush to sometimes create just a few mock hairs at a time. Also, one must keep in mind that the area of sharp focus is all over the place where your subjects hair needs to be moved or removed, and, when recreating it just a little bit more neatly, one must maintain the same look of approximate sharpness or softness of the original.

This is a lot to digest, and it is overkill for most jobs, but it is probably important to gain the skills necessary to be able to do this stuff, when and if called upon to do so. Most likely someone will probably expect this of you sometime, if you are doing this commercially, but whether or not they will be willing to pay for the time necessary to accomplish it is an awful subject best left to discuss at another itme.

62

Lenses / Re: 24mm F/1.4 II vs new 24mm F/2.8 IS

« on: August 05, 2012, 02:55:33 PM »

Aside from the contributions of previous posters, there is one more thing to think about in regards to the 24mm f/1.4 L vs the f/2.8 IS; if you look at the Lensrental.com article on lens focus performance - http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/07/autofocus-reality-part-3a-canon-lenses - you can see that the the new 24 f/2.8 focuses slower, but approximately twice as accurately as the faster lens with Canon's newest full-frame DSLR's, the 1DX and the 5D3. What this probably means is that the firmware algorthyms in the lens and the focusing hardware aboard have more accurate focusing in mind. I'm not sure of Canon's strategy here, because the slower but more accurate performance seems to favor studied still images, while the STM harware on the 24 f/2,8 IS supposedly was thought to have been mostly made for video use, wherein extremely fast and quiet autofocus operation is required; unfortunately, while STM is quieter, it is also much slower than USM, making video use much more problematic. It's really hard to rationalize what all this means. Unless a future Canon video body comes along which will help to greatly speed the autofocus on STM lenses in video mode, then it looks like Canon has made a new lens focus system which is not best suited to any but the most unlikely of all applications - slow, accurate and deliberate autofocus for studied still images, an application often suited to manual focus more than anything else. Go figure!

As to which I would get, I'm planning on a new 24-70 mm f/2.8 v2. It will probably be much better optically than than the f/2.8 IS and a good match for the f/1.4 at f/2.8 and smaller apertures. The zoom function greatly outweighs the IS on the 24 f/2.8 for me, and I'm sure the focusing will be much faster as well. Therefore, since I will rarely need to shoot at apertures faster than f/2.8, and I assume the new zoom will have the more accurate firmware and hardware focusing stuff already baked in, I don't think I'll need either of the new 24's; I'd rather save up for a wide 24mm and/or 17mm TSE lens with much greater functionality instead.
 

63

Lenses / Re: Your 70-200 f/2.8L IS II...

« on: July 31, 2012, 04:57:04 PM »

Paid about $2,350.00 for mine just a little while after it came out. It's not cheap, and it could be more than you have to spend. But, at least, you get what you pay for. Only needed one copy; it worked perfectly well and was as sharp as I expected (very!) at all focal lengths. Like everyone else, the one thing that could be better is the weight/size, but that is probably asking the impossible; that's like wanting a roomy 6 passenger car that handled like a Ferarri, weighed 1200 pounds, went 200mph, got 50mpg and cost $2,350.00 - it's not going to happen because of the realities of physics and economics.

If you get this lens, you will use it a lot, unless you want to hike 40 miles or climb mountains with it. It is the single best zoom lens I've ever owned, period. And, it's probably better than all but the very highest end primes in the focal lengths it offers.

As an aside, the 70-200's  "L" cousin, the current 24-70 f/2.8, is the lens that has had some documented QC issues with some lenses being markedly different than others (my "keeper" is the third one I tried out), but even the best samples pale by comparison to the optical quality of the 70-200 f/2.8 IS v2. Thank goodness there's a new v2 of the 24-70 coming soon to better match its stellar cousin, because so many of us have both these lenses in our basic camera kits.

As to the 70-200 f/2.8 IS v2, if you're looking for an excuse not to buy it, you won't find it from me.

Regards,
David

64

Lenses / Re: 70-200 2.8 II vs. 85mm 1.2 II - general opinion

« on: July 30, 2012, 12:24:59 PM »

Your question is really hard to answer. I own the 85mm f/1.2 Version II and the 70-200 f/2.8 IS Version II as well. I use them for a variety of purposes, none of which might coincide with your uses. Things are comnplicated by you owning a 7D as your camera of choice. I, and probably the majority of those using the 85 and 70-200 have a full frame camera on which to use them. It is not necessary to have full frame to love using either lens; it's just that the difference in angle of view between the two formats makes my uses potentially different from yours.

One use I make of the 85 is the obvious - for very narrow depth of field portraits. I shoot mostly at f/1.6 to f/2.8 because shooting at f/1.2 and getting all the parts of my subjects' faces in focus is usually too hard to do quickly and consistantly, and viewing wide open at f/1.2 gives me a better chance for an f/1.6 exposure to be spot-on focused. Occasionally I'll get the odd shot to look great wide open, but I can't count on it. This is not a "fault" of the lens, but a result of my shooting style and the laws of optical physics. Usually, careful manual focus is more reliable than autofocus for this purpose. I also use this lens very successfully for - amazingly enough - very narrow depth of field product shots. The focusing routine here is about the same, but I am more likely to shoot at f/1.2 or 1.4 because it's easier to use the narrow focus on products and small objects (i.e., easier than people's faces - which have a certain fixed distance between eyes, nose tips, and ears). This lens is amazing for both purposes, and its bokeh is deservedly famous for its great dreamy and smooth character.

The 70-200 f/2.8 ver. It is another animal entirely. I use this lens much more. Hey, it's a zoom, for goodness sake, meaning that it can replace many fixed focal length lenses - and it does. This lens is so sharp, that, aside from the 85 with its amazing maximum aperture performance and sharpness, I need no other lenses in its focal length range, with the exception of special purpose TSE and macro lenses. This makes the zoom much more versatile - what it's meant to be. And, you can confidantly shoot this lens wide open if you wish; it's that sharp and good, and only gets a little better by f/5.6 at any focal length. When I have a large or medium size product, groups of people to be shot quickly, people shots that work best at focal lengths different from 85mm, environments that need a longer lens, any situations where fast changes from one focal length to another are helpful, action (sports), or just anything that I'm trying to capture that moves or has the potential to move, this lens is the one to go to. The biggest negative is that this lens is heavy and somehwhat large, so that if that is a controlling factor, beware; of course, the 85 is quite heavy itself, but is still quite a bit lighter and smaller than the zoom. The bokeh is a little more "nervous" than that of the 85, but it's excellent for a complex zoom wide open or one stop down. In any case, the bokeh of all other lenses in its focal length range is nervous compared to that of the 85.

There you have it - my use of the two lenses in question laid out for you. What you do, especially as your camera would render the two lenses' "effective" focal lengths to become equal to 135mm for the 85mm, and 112-320 for the 70-200, on a full frame camera, makes my uses not as indicative of what you might best use them for. You really need to think this one through for yourself. 

Regards,
David

65

Lenses / Re: New Tilt-Shifts in 2013? [CR1]

« on: July 29, 2012, 03:13:16 PM »

CD Embry: +1. I agree about the sharpness of the 90 TS-E, one of my favorite Canon lenses. While the sharpness would be very hard to improve, they might make it focus closer, apply their more recent and better lens coatings plus the independent movements of both axes, as in the recent 24 and 17mm lenses.

The 90 TSE is almost perfect as it is, with the possible exceptions of the suggestions as listed above. But, they could really hit the mark by adding to the TSE line for product shooters, by making either a 135mm, 150mm, or 180mm TSE as well. This could be the other "specialist lens" mentioned. It would be perfect, especially the 135 or 150, for products that required some distance from the camera to make perspective look more normal, which the 90 barely does in some cases, not in others. To shoot a low front 7/8 view of a car, for instance, looks a heck of a lot more natural (i.e., the front end doesn't look quite as exaggerated in size compared to the rear) and just plain better, with a lens longer than 90mm. A longer TSE would complete the set for product and other types of photographers who would then have almost all the lenses with almost all the tilt and shift functions they needed to function as did their old 4x5" and 8x10" view camera set-ups in the film era - a great advantage for Canon over even medium format competition. Finally, if the much rumored studio-centered cam with very high megapixel capacity came out about the same time, that would further seal the deal for many commercial professionals who now are still somewhat married to the necessity to maintain various systems, jury-rigged together, to satisfy different types of shooting requirements.

Regards,
David

66

Canon General / Re: "Time for a Change at Canon?" -Barons

« on: July 25, 2012, 10:41:10 PM »

I'm not a chairman of the board of a major Japanese corporation, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last  night. That qualifies me as much as anyone else here to comment on this stuff.

There's probably a little "ageism" going on here in some quarters. The Japanese wisely respect the wisdom that only comes with age to those who are open to learning from their experience. This gentleman certainly is not a fool, judging from his past performance. I see nothing wrong with him taking control right now. Perhaps if he were 86, not 76, there would be a real question of his physical capabilities; if he is healthy, he will most likely do very well for Canon for some years to come. The clues to what must be done are not just available to those whose credentials are mainly that they have less experience. Sometimes, younger people have new and valuable insights based on not being wed to today's orthodoxy, sometimes not, and those younger people who do have valuable ideas can submit their insights to older peers who can most likely best evaluate their efficacy. I doubt that Steve Jobs came up with the idea for the iPad, but he probably grasped that it would be a great product when it was presented to him.

As to specifically what Canon does need to do, there have been some good suggestions in this thread already. Furthermore, I would offer that, generally, they should avoid trying to match Nikon, Sony, et al, but try to come up with truly new ideas, totally new technology that either leapfrogs their competition or entirely changes the paradigm. Examples would be something like an effective true color sensor that avoids the pitfalls of Sigma's Foveon design (low overall sensitiviity and poor SNR at higher ISO's, complex manufacturing and less than great color response because of uneven absorbtion rates of the medium in which the sensors are embedded ), new original technology to increase DR and resolution per sensor area without the usual negatives, new marketing areas for the application of their technologies to increase business opportunities, and, finally, a rationalization of their manufacturing to include the outsourcing of the best and cheapest comnponents from other manufacturers.

That's enough babbling from me, folks.

Regards,
David

67

Portrait / Re: Meet Damaris (PNSFW)

« on: July 24, 2012, 02:41:24 PM »

Trentchau,

Beautiful images of an obviously stunning young woman. I would only be quibbling over very small details if I offered any criticism at all, so I'll save both of us the effort by not doing it. She is a rare beauty, and you are doing her justice. Keep up the good work.

Regards,
David

68

Site Information / Re: In Sympathy for CR Guy

« on: July 17, 2012, 10:26:03 AM »

My sincerest sympathies are with you and your whole famlily. Times like these will test the strength of your love and devotion to one another. As someone who has felt similar tragedy in his own life, I can only hope that your own particular faith and some optimism for a better future will sustain you through this terrible and soul wrenching time.

Kindest regards,
David

69

EOS Bodies / Re: Any actual photographers out there?

« on: July 08, 2012, 11:40:07 AM »

Well, as far as the OP's opinon is concerned, I can't say that I have read or viewed images on this forum enough to offer a very informed opinion, but I am a litle skeptical, at least, about his expectations. This is a gear forum, and pictures here usually meant to illustrate some point about gear, not to display some persoal masterpiece. As to the advice, I would expect a wide range of expertise and knowlege here as there is no bar to people of all experience levels to particpate. When sometimes absolutely silly advice comes through, it usually can be attributed to the well known concept of not knowing enough to know that you really don't know anything, typical of not just internet forums, but just about all discussions about anything.

Personally, I doubt that I would or will post anything of great quality on his site. That effort, I reserve for my cients' jobs or for display on my website. I do hope that any advice I might give would be sound and based on a lot of real experience. I can't speak for anyone else, however, and must leave to others' judgment the value of whatever I do contribute. Finally, if, I, myself, find other people' advice unhelpful, I usually just ignore it; no harm done.

On another matter, as to the "commercialization" of this website for profit, I say: wake up; without the profit motive, very little of either good or bad consequence would ever take place. Take from others efforts what you will, but do not begrudge them the opporunity to earn a reward for poviding a service to people who want it. That's just how the real world works.

70

Lighting / Re: Fauxtographer Ruins Olympic photos.

« on: July 03, 2012, 12:04:33 AM »

After looking at the link to his work, it appears that the photographer was merely out of his element, or even out of his depth, and should not have been given this assignment. Granted, I don't know the precise circumstances behind the shoot, but the best of these images just seem to be "undeveloped" and the rest just plain not good enough in general. I really, really hate to be so critical, especially if the shooter is suffering from inexperience and its attendand lack of knowledge of how to pull off such material, but the results do speak for themselves - mediocre to poor.

I just feel plain sorry for the photographer and embarassed for the person from the Olympic organization who misappropriated this opportunity to create some competent material. My guess is that should he eventually learn how to shoot in a style consistant with this assignment, the photographer will be forever haunted by this highly public failure; this is a personal tragedy for him, and a not very good representation of our best athletes for the world to see. Pity, pity, pity.

Regards,
David

71

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon APS-H mirrorless rumor from the past...

« on: June 17, 2012, 03:57:14 PM »

I am not a technical sensor expert, but common sense tells me that Canon, or any other sensor maker, usually does not develop a new sensor design to result in only one size; rather, they make a new design, then go about figuring out how to best divide the resulting much bigger silicon wafers into individually sized sensors. The largest portion of development goes into the main design in the big wafer and common on-board electronics, its only any additional electronics and division size which define the finished camera-ready sensor. Therefore, if Canon designs a new sensor type, the costs to develop an "H" over a "C" size is rather trivial - really only the lesser count they are restricted to when they divide the large wafres themselves. Traditionally, the "full-frames" have been expensive because a single wafer can't yield that many acceptable 24x36mm "cuts" (not just by the factor of size alone, but also because the average flawed-to-non-flawed costs rise with fewer resulting cuts per wafer), and the "H"s were a little bit more economic, the "C"s even more so. Barring some new technology, this remains the same. Therefore, the cost of developing a "new" "H" sensor over a "C" remains very low overall, defined more by wafer yield than R&D, just as in the past.

Given the above, I don't see why an "H" sized mirrorless would be somehow disadventageous, unless it would be in the small cost difference per sensor, something which can marketed as an advantage (bigger sensor) as opposed to just a cost liability. I am not saying that this /will/ happen, only that I don't see any particular bar in Canon's way to actually doing it.

72

Third Party Manufacturers / My thinking about film vs. digital

« on: June 11, 2012, 03:26:40 PM »

As I see this thread has gone on for a long time, I am re-posting my contribution from early-on, because I imagine not many at this point have reads it, and I thin that it makes some cogent points about a subject which has failed to die a much deserved death; film and digital are quite different paths to image making and always will be, and, therefore, their uses and aesthetics will continue to diverge more and more.

Here's my previous post, keeping in mind that a previous poster brought up his film camera - a Fuji GX 680:

"My most used camera before I totally switched over to an all digital capture workflow was the Fuji GX680. Wonderful cam and lenses. It was a big tripod-bound brute though, but, run some Velvia, or even Provia, throught it and...shaazzam. Do a good 16-bit 4K scan and you've got an amazing image to work with.

I've shot with, and unfortunately owned (too much money!), just about every type of digital capture cam, from big Phase One backs, to full frame, to APS-C, to snapshot cams. No digital capture quite looks, or reacts to PP, quite like film. This doesn't mean it's better or worse, just different. Those who dismiss film images out of hand as inferior to digital probably haven't worked with really good film images very much. Autofocus 35mm derived color negatives are OK for making good 11 x14 chemical prints, or even larger, but terrible for scanning, and if that is your comparison to digital, then most every digital capture is better.

But, now look at some Fuji 6x8 transparencies, or certainly 4x5's, or 8x10's (yes, I used to shoot this stuff all the time), and your 'full frame" digital camera, even a Nikon D800, is left far behind. There is a combination of real physical and observable differences that, when combined, give film derived images something quite different from digital captures, and sometimes it comes down to just a superior looking image. Then again, sometimes not. But, different just the same.

While there is no question about the great cost benefits, efficiency, speed and startlingly quicker learning curve for beginners associated with digital capture, all the characteristics which make it now almost impossible for film to compete as either a commercial tool for competitive professionals or a medium fit for those with minimal skill sets, there is still a place for film in the hands of those already schooled in its proper use and for those who just love the "look" it can give. This smaller market will continue to slowly wither, but probably not die in the next 30 years or so. There will always be those, like analog sound enthusiast who brought back vinyl LP's and belt-drive turntables, who can hear the difference.

This is no contest of "film vs. digital" techno nerds; that pissing contest was always a foolish pursuit of a chimera at its most hotly debated. This is about the fact that excellent film shots will always look better than just average digital ones, and vice versa, no matter how good digital capture or future films ever become, and that film and digital will probably always look just a little different. Furthermore, if digital ever comes so close to being able to mimic the film look perfectly, who will care? Digital enthusiasts aren't really looking for it, and film lovers already have it. Go figure."

73

United Kingdom & Ireland / High street

« on: June 01, 2012, 10:16:32 PM »

As I understand it, although I am not from England or anywhere else in the UK, "High Street" generally refers to the equivalent of what we in the US call Main Street, the street on which you find the biggest concentration of businesses, usually in the middle of a town or small city. Here I think it may refer to big chain businesses like Best Buy in the US, the kind of electronic and general goods stores that, since digital cameras became somewhat of a commodity, compete with traditional camera stores in the sale of digital cameras.
 

74

Lenses / Re: Bokeh...is the look getting dated?

« on: May 31, 2012, 12:48:05 PM »

You are correct about the actual meaning of the word, from its Japanese origins, and what affects it. But, as I have indicated in my previous post, the word has come to represent the very narrow depth-of-field, large aperture shooting technique which is very popular these days. Unfortunately, you cannot stop the changing nature of word meaning in the English language, in which definition is eventually based on common usage.

75

Lenses / Re: Bokeh...is the look getting dated?

« on: May 31, 2012, 11:37:13 AM »

Yes, everything old does become new again, if you hang out long enough. I have already. For instance, I was around at the end of the older era when cars were being shot with tungsten bounce light off giant studio canvas "tabs" or "bounce flats" and coved stage walls. Then, briefly, the in thing for a few years was to replace the tungsten light with that of multiple very powerful studio strobe power supplies, employing many flash heads. Then, the next trend was to shoot them with giant soft boxes in which were placed those same multiple flash heads. Then, the next one was to replace the flash heads inside the boxes with tungsten light fixtures. And finally, the best solution was thought to be to once again to shoot them with tungsten bounce light off giant studio canvas "tabs" or "bounce flats" and coved stage walls. There always have been alternate techniques (as are being employed right now) used at any given time which are different from the general trends described above, but that is a pretty good summary outline of studio car lighting technique, circa 1962 to 2012.

One contrary fact, as for bokeh, taken here as to be shorthand for actually the very narrow depth-of-field look afforded by lenses which are sharp at very large aperture settings (given the focal length and format size), shot at or near the maximum aperture, its use is far from universal; it's mostly employed for things like portraits, weddings, lifestyle, some food shooting and moody environmental images. Even conceding the "bokeh" trend, you might want to keep in mind that in 90% of all hardcore photography of manufactured products, maximum depth of field never went away and is still the presumed method of operation. Again, exceptions abound, but I'm referring to the rule, not the exception. I, myself love to introduce the narrow DOF look in some feature shots, and they're usually well received in those instances, but, as for the "hero" shots of these products, clients don't want to leave very much to the imagination of potential customers as to what their industrial designers have labored over for so long.

So to summarize about the narrow DOF look, yes, this too will come to pass. It's just a matter of time.