April 21, 2014, 02:27:39 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 - Meh

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 46
1
Photography Technique / Re: Am I the only one this has happened to?
« on: April 20, 2014, 10:25:45 PM »
Funny story! 

I was in Colorado last winter skiing with my wife and another couple.  We are completely normal looking young adults from the midwest.  We were at Copper Mountain Resort after a full day of skiing having a nice dinner at a slope side restaurant (still in our ski gear).  I had my 5d2 and 50 1.4 (hardly a obtrusive setup) and i was taking a few pics of our friends and the ambiance (typical vacation stuff).  It was busy and I was not doing anything to attract attention other than taking a few harmless photos in a busy public place. 

Then, some guy comes up to me and asks to see my camera (he didn't say it in a nice way).  I asked why, and he said he wanted to see if I had taken pictures of his kids.  He then accused me of taking photos of children in the restaurant and called me a sicko (and something else worse but I don't remember).  My wife and friends were as shocked as me and I basically told him to go f**k himself.  Plus me and my friend are big guys and this guy was maybe 5'5" so there wasn't much he could do.  However, it ruined my night as it left me pissed off the whole time. 

Because I drove 800 miles and spent thousand of dollars so I could take pictures of random kids in a restaurant in Colorado?  What am I going to do with these pictures?  Some people are just paranoid...  Fun world we live in, huh???

In this case, the guy was completely out of line.  He was accusing you of something and demanding to see your pictures.  People have the right to take pictures in any public place and, technically, that includes taking pictures of kids, dogs, etc.  There's just so little social tolerance these days.... everyone feels their rights trump everyone else's rights and half the time they don't even have the rights they are claiming such as "you can't photograph me without my permission".  Such a self-centred society we live in and it's getting worse.

Regardless though, getting angry or telling someone off just makes it worse.  In such situations I try to see it from their perspective and respond politely.  If they push it though, then I might respond more firmly.   There's a fine there I suppose.

2
Photography Technique / Re: Am I the only one this has happened to?
« on: April 20, 2014, 09:47:10 PM »
Here's the thing... as much as you have the right to take photographs, people have the right to speak to you.  How you react is your own responsibility.  Getting furious, having your day spoiled, feeling like smashing him with you monopod, provoking him by taking his photo, etc. are all overreactions to someone who decided to speak to you. 

From what you describe, he wasn't rude about it.  So... instead of feeling angry the above advice about telling anyone who asks that you're taking pictures of the dogs and showing them the pictures is the probably the best choice.

The fact is there are plenty of people out there who are trolling around taking pictures of people's kids and maybe it's not so bad that people in the community are watching out for it.

More and more, we seem to be living in a society where everyone is taking the attitude that they should be able to do what they want, when they want, and how they want without question or concern.  But as I said above, if that's what you believe then you also have to accept that others have the same right and that includes speaking their mind.  So instead of having "how dare you question me or speak to me" mentality why not just say "thanks for the advice" and not let your own angry response ruin your day.

If you would always ask permission to photograph a person in shooting street photography then perhaps shooting at the dog park could be the same... introduce yourself to the folks and let them know you'd like to take pictures of the dogs.  Maybe even give them a card with your website if you have one and tell them you'll post a few photos if you get any good shots.

Just my two cents.

3
Yes they do. Once you come up with some ideas for its use it really does work well. I have had other remotes inside buildings and fired them from outside with a hand aimed 600 and the tripod mounted camera in the street. The RT system really is a great system.

P.S. There is a caveat, if you have AF on and the camera can't aquire focus it won't take an image, but that is consistent with other remotes too.

Cool :)

4
Speedlites, Printers, Accessories / Re: PocketWizard, Yongnuo, or Phottix?
« on: November 03, 2013, 10:14:26 PM »
I know i'm right on this

And yet so wrong...  ;)

5
EOS Bodies / Re: Wait for the Canon 5D Mark IV or get the Mark III?
« on: October 11, 2013, 11:13:51 PM »
It's the 5D Mark 7 you really want to wait for... I wouldn't shoot anything until you can get a hold of that one.

Ha!

6
I agree with Mt. Spokane... get a color calibration tool and any decent monitor will do fine.  However, that doesn't answer your question, does it.

What makes one monitor better than another is the usual set of features... resolution, contrast, color accuracy, color gamut, etc.  Plus one more... consistency at varied viewing angles.  Almost all monitors boast something like 170+ degree viewing angle BUT at angles off the center viewing axis the color and contrast is poor.   So... you want an IPS panel that does not suffer so much at off angles.  And most IPS panels, given they are the higher end models, have good feature sets and wide color gamuts.

IMHO, the Dell Ultransharp series are the best value here and the U2412 (which is still being sold has been succeeded by the U2413) is really good and only $289 at the moment.  They increased the color gamut on the U2413 but, and this is where Mt Spokane hits the nail on the head, you don't need that for anything but high end publishing.  Short of that, your images are being viewed on screen or regular prints and those can't reproduce that wide of a color gamut anyway.

These Dell 24" displays are not ultra high resolution... they are only 1920 x 1200... an iPad has more pixels... but can the human eye see the difference at the typical viewing distance of a desktop monitor... probably not.


7
I doubt Canon's leading edge video sensor will be restricted to 1080p.

You doubt it?  Even in the face of the clear fact that this particular sensor is in fact a "Full HD" (1920x1080) video sensor?

This sensor, as they state, is being developed to optimize low light video... as stated Canon "is looking to such future applications for the new sensor as astronomical and natural observation, support for medical research, and use in surveillance and security equipment."

Whatever new technologies they develop for reduced noise readout electronics could potentially be used in future higher resolution video and still sensors, but that's not what this sensor is about.

8
Noooooooooooooooooo, don't ask such questions 'round these parts... the APS-H boys will pounce!!!

9
Lenses / Re: AF questions
« on: August 23, 2013, 10:37:21 PM »
Well, there is either 1) something wrong with the lens, 2) something wrong with the body, or 3) something wrong with the particular combination of body + lens.  Or you are just being punished by camera fairies for some offense you have caused them.

10
Lenses / Re: AF questions
« on: August 23, 2013, 06:14:19 PM »
The camera very likely attempts to confirm focus once the lens' focusing element is moved to the predicted focus position.  If, when it attempts to confirm focus, the image is not in focus it will try again.  You can imagine that if the lens was damaged or otherwise not working properly such that it simply can not focus within the acceptable tolerance of the PDAF system, it will hunt.  This is not the iterative process of contrast detect, it is a failure of the lens to achieve focus.

11
and fails to provide any explanation that is meaningful as to why they refuse to perform their obligation.

Except that they did provide an explanation, they inspected and determined that the camera had been damaged by the user.   I'm not saying that they are right or wrong in their assessment, but they did tell you why they are denying the warranty claim.

If they took anyone at their word that a product wasn't dropped or otherwise damaged by the owner, it wouldn't be just $100 as you stated, it would be millions because everyone who dropped their camera would send it back and claim "it just suddenly stopped working".

12
Got news for Canon, they can forget ever getting another dime out of me. As for mom in law, she already switched to Nikon. As for me, I'll switch too when it's time to move the 5D3 body. Already moving out non essential lenses in the collection. I simply will not do business with Canon USA or any other company that pulls this sort of BS.

Hmmmmm, seems like quite a rash response.  You must somehow think that Nikon or any other consumer product company would never deny a warranty claim.  Any company will deny a warranty claim on the slightest evidence of operator error... if not, they constantly be replacing cameras/phones/etc. because ppl drop them all the time even on to carpeted floors where there would be no visible damage.

13
Software & Accessories / Re: What size RAW should I shoot at?
« on: August 02, 2013, 10:49:16 PM »
Bigger is better

14
Andrew Scrivani is on Creative Live right now if that's of any interest to anyone.

15
This is only an illusion of sharpness. The truth is what really matters (the information). Looking at the print from far away only proves that human vision is very limited. At close-up you can see all the information captured by your camera, both sharp and blurry parts. So, sharpness = information. Then from the distance you see much much less information despite that it looks sharper. This kind of sharpness ≠ information. This trick is about the CoC of your eyes, DoF has nothing to do with it.

As I pointed out previously, you appear to be confused about what DoF is.  As neuro just pointed out... DoF is not an objective paramater.  It is entirely subjective by definition.  It is the distance in front of and behind the plane of focus that appears sharp to a human observer.  There are implicit assumptions in the DoF derivation about viewing size, viewing distance, and visual acuity of the observer.

The only truth is that only the plane of focus is sharp.  And it's only maximally sharp not perfectly sharp.  Every plane in front of and behind is less sharp.  How much less sharp depends on a few things.  Whether you can see that it's less sharp depends on how big the print is, how far you are from it, and how good your eye sight is.

For you to say at this point in the thread "that only proves that human vision is very limited" suggests you are still fundamentally missing the point that DoF is in fact a function of the limitations in human vision.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 46