Messages

31

Street & City / Re: Tuscany and Cinque Terre with TS-E 24 II and TS-E 17

« on: February 22, 2013, 09:30:43 PM »

Thank you.  Yes, we did get to Lucca.  The following shots were taken there.  Both were taken with a 24-105/4.


JSC_1539_HDR-Edit.jpg by CalevPhoto, on Flickr


JSC_1554-Edit.jpg by CalevPhoto, on Flickr

32

Abstract / Some more water drops

« on: February 22, 2013, 07:58:35 PM »

Took these over the last week with my new water drop setup.


The Sound of Colors by CalevPhoto, on Flickr


Water Arch by CalevPhoto, on Flickr

33

Street & City / Re: Tuscany and Cinque Terre with TS-E 24 II and TS-E 17

« on: February 22, 2013, 07:50:15 PM »

Thank you for the kind words.  Looking at the duomo shot again I do see your point.  There is a bit of a halo over it that I should have avoided.

For the Sienna shot, here is an alternate version of it taken with the 8-15 fisheye.

JSC_2681_HDR-Edit.jpg by CalevPhoto, on Flickr

34

Street & City / Tuscany and Cinque Terre with TS-E 24 II and TS-E 17

« on: February 22, 2013, 02:24:55 PM »

Sienna - TS-E 17

Sienna by CalevPhoto, on Flickr

Cinque Terre - TS-E 24 II

JSC_2110_HDR.jpg by CalevPhoto, on Flickr

Florence - TS-E 24 II

JSC_1013_HDR-Edit.jpg by CalevPhoto, on Flickr

Florence - TS-E 24 II

JSC_1238_HDR-Edit.jpg by CalevPhoto, on Flickr

Florence - TS-E 24 II

JSC_1374-Edit.jpg by CalevPhoto, on Flickr

Florence - TS-E 17

JSC_1399-Edit.jpg by CalevPhoto, on Flickr

Florence - TS-E 17

Florence Duomo #2 by CalevPhoto, on Flickr

Florence - TS-E 24 II

JSC_1506_HDR-Edit.jpg by CalevPhoto, on Flickr

Pisa - TS-E 24 II

JSC_1667_HDR-Edit.jpg by CalevPhoto, on Flickr

Pisa - TS-E 24 II

JSC_1705_HDR-Edit.jpg by CalevPhoto, on Flickr

Cinque Terre - TS-E 24 II

JSC_2314_HDR-Edit.jpg by CalevPhoto, on Flickr

Sienna - TS-E 24 II + polar mapping

JSC_2847 Stitch-Edit-Edit.jpg by CalevPhoto, on Flickr

San Gimignano - TS-E 24 II

JSC_3804_HDR-Edit.jpg by CalevPhoto, on Flickr

La Crete - TS-E 24 II

JSC_4166_HDR-Edit.jpg by CalevPhoto, on Flickr

Montepulciano - TS-E 17

JSC_4888_HDR-Edit.jpg by CalevPhoto, on Flickr

Florence - TS-E 17

Staircase by CalevPhoto, on Flickr

35

Lenses / Re: 400 mm f5.6 non-IS / 300 mm f4 IS with extender 1.4 III or waiting?

« on: February 22, 2013, 10:47:14 AM »

I own both the 400/5.6 and the 300/4.  I also have the 70-200/2.8 II + 2x III and have owned the 100-400 in the past.  For your purposes (aviation) the 400/5.6 would seem to be a no brainer.  You will already be using a high shutter speed so you won't miss the lack of IS.

Contrary to what you may read elsewhere the 300/4 takes extenders very poorly.  I tried it once and was so disappointed by the results that I never tried it again.  That being said, it is a great lens.  If you can get close to your subject then it has a great macro capability. On the aviation side it could be used for interesting closeups of aircraft on the ground.

I heavily use my 400/5.6 for birding now and I keep it in my bag vs. the 300/4 which stays in my closet.  It is a bit annoying when a bird gets too close and I can't focus on it, but otherwise it does a very good job.  The 300/4 bare lens does AF faster, but that is probably more a case of the camera being able to use more focus points at the lower aperture.  It is far quicker AF-wise than my 100-400 was.

This was taken with the 300/4 - demonstrating the close up capabilities. (not cropped)

JSC_3116-Edit.jpg by CalevPhoto, on Flickr

This was taken with my 400/5.6. (cropped)

Taking Flight by CalevPhoto, on Flickr

36

Lenses / Re: Recommendations for Selling Expensive Telephoto

« on: February 18, 2013, 11:07:39 AM »

Any suggestions for EU countries? We do not have Fred Miranda or craiglist over here.

Do what just about everyone else on the planet does...Google it. I just did a search with this in the search field:
craigslist alternative to in EU
Do it yourself. There's plenty to read.

-PW

Of course, if you want to actually find things when you search - then just Bing it.

Alternatively you can just send it to me and I will ensure it is well taken care of.

37

Animal Kingdom / Re: Wild dogs at impala kill at savuti in Botswana

« on: February 18, 2013, 11:04:27 AM »

Nice shot and nice portfolio!  What camera/lens did you use for this shot?

38

5D MK III Sample Images / Re: Single raw real estate photos

« on: February 16, 2013, 11:36:29 AM »

Haha, well I hope you're not taking offense at anything I said, because that would be quite unfounded.  I certainly never condoned doing a half ass job.  My point, which you might have missed, is that RE photography doesn't quite belong in the Louvre.  You seem like a fairly aggressive salesman with a relatively high opinion of your work, so I'm sure that helps you market yourself to a degree.

The last time I was in the Louvre I saw mostly paintings - not so many photos.  I agree that most RE photos will never make their way to a fine art gallery - but that is irrelevant.  They are different genres and I honestly cannot understand fine art photography at all.  That profession is more connections + drugs + self marketing and I'll never understand it.  The important thing is RE photography is extremely difficult to get right.  It is similar in difficulty to most other genres.
I do have a high opinion of my work.  Any professional photographer needs this or he/she shouldn't be in business.  That being said, do I believe I am the best architectural photographer out there? - No.  There are numerous others who are better, but with each job I work to improve myself to reach their level.

However, the key to your work, your leg up...is that you used your wife's connections...which is not a bad thing either.

Not sure how this is relevant to the conversation.  This discussion is not about how I obtain my business.  It is about how I complete the jobs I have.

Another key, is that you live in probably the wealthiest place in the country, so it's not as hard to imagine being able to charge a lot of money to do your work.

Not true and not relevant.  I live near Seattle, which is above average but far from the wealthiest.  There are numerous areas in California, New England, and the Atlantic coast that are higher.  Several neighborhoods in S Florida are pricier than the worst here.
In addition, the point I was making is it doesn't matter what you charge for your work - you are a professional and owe the sellers your best work.  If you do not feel it is worth the effort for the pay, then don't take the job.  For the sellers, regardless of their economic profile, this is a huge transaction.  You are being hired to drive more traffic to their home - which will increase the odds of sale and the realized sales price.  I have photographed mobile homes and I have photographed waterfront mansions.  My properties have ranged from $30k to $12M.  In all of them I did the best work possible because I chose to do that job and I owed the sellers my full attention.

So, no, my work is unlikely to be regarded as a new breakthrough in photography that will hang on millions of homes throughout the world, but it is extremely important to the sellers who depend on me to help sell their home.  Every RE photographer owes their clients respect and professionalism.

39

5D MK III Sample Images / Re: Single raw real estate photos

« on: February 16, 2013, 12:34:52 AM »

I think much of the commentary here is a bit overdone, and too critical towards the OP.  The photos look more than satisfactory to me.  In my area, there is no emphasis on quality real estate photo work done from the ground.  The realtors just snap the shots themselves...even for $5 million homes.  They don't consider photography to be worth anything, I guess.  So they rely on the sex appeal of their agents, and that must work pretty well. 

If you can actually get someone to pay you to do the photography, and you do a decent, honest job...and whoever is paying you is pleased, that's all that matters.  Otherwise, you're raising real estate photography to some kind of high art form, and I'm not sure that's what it is.  It's more a means to an end.  The photos aren't seen by millions of people, as opposed to high fashion photography or other advertising photography (not that I do either of those myself).  Just my two cents.  I will grant you, if the property is a $20+ million mansion or something, then I guess I can understand all sorts of energy being expended on doing the actual photo work, and the critiquing of that work by the photo Da Vinci's of our time.

For most people buying/selling a home will be the most significant financial transaction of their lifetimes.  Yet for some insane reason there are individuals and agents out there who believe the photos responsible for driving potential buyers to the property should be no higher quality than those for a $10 item on EBay.

I live in an area where many RE agents do take photos themselves, despite having relatively high home prices compared to most other areas of the country.  I also am married to a very successful RE agent and through her know many other RE agents - both successful and not successful.  I can share several observations.

1) Among the successful RE agents, every single one of them I know uses professional RE photographers.  Many of them do not use me but instead other photographers - but all of them use some photographer. On the other hand, the vast majority of agents I know who take their own photos are not successful.

2) On a few occasions my wife has had to list a property with photos she took herself or someone else took.  These were cases where we were on vacation or a property had to be listed before I could get to it.  When I finally did photograph the property and she uploaded the professional photos, the traffic to the property increased significantly.

3) RE agents are not photographers.  They will generally judge your photos next to theirs and it doesn't take much to impress them (though most of the highly successful ones are pickier).  I look back at the photos I took when I was starting out and they were complete crap.  Nevertheless, I had people rave about them.  I even had sellers ask for copies and call me to personally thank me for taking such nice photos.  It is our job as photographers to push ourselves to take the best photos possible.  RE agents will often have good input such as "I need this angle", "make sure you photograph this because it is a selling point" or "I need these rooms and not those" but when it comes to actually taking the photo we are the ones who determine the quality.

4) You never truly know where your photos will be used.  Most of them are just placed on the MLS and flyers - so they'll be seen by a few thousand people.  I have had my photos used in the Wall Street Journal and Home Magazines though.  One photo I would never have expected made the cover of a home magazine.  The agent is free to use my photos to market the property in any way he/she likes.

Admittedly, I do this on the side to help pay for my equipment (but I have still photographed ~200 homes), but it is a serious business.  It is very difficult to take high quality RE photos, but due to the money involved it is something that must be taken with care.  So yes I do take offense when someone posts that they did a half ass job to sell someone's most important investment and writes it off as "good enough".

40

Lenses / Re: Need advice on telephoto zoom Lens

« on: February 08, 2013, 11:27:56 AM »

Now I´m going to make suggestions on lenses I have not used or just used once.

The 400 /5.6 is great if you can keep shutterspeeds up, and you can pump the ISO up quite a bit on a 5d mkIII. If you want a zoom, the sigma 120-300 /2.8 OS seems like a really nice lens. From looking at examples on the-digital-picture I got to the conclution that it takes extenders nicely and from 200mm and up it can compare with the 70-200 II /2.8 IS L. Up to 200 the L wins. On the other focal lengths I found the sigma equal or better. But that may be just me. The L is better in the bordes, the Sigma is quite sharp in the middle.
Then again, I don´t know if the sigma has some disadvantage in other areas that are important to you.

 So, my suggestion, have a look at the 400 /5.6, the 120-300 /2.8 OS + 1.4x extender, and the 100-400. Personaly I am seriously considering the 120-300.

good luck. This is not easy.

Personally I have never owned the 120-300/2.8, but I know someone who did and sold it after a year (for 50% of the original price - Sigmas have a poor resale value).  I did own the Sigma 80-400 at one point and later upgraded it to the 100-400.  The 100-400 was far better in both sharpness and AF.

Compare the 120-300/2.8 at 300mm/F5.6 with the 100-400.
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=803&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=5&API=3&LensComp=113&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=5&APIComp=1
The Sigma is a tiny bit better, but costs a lot more.

Now compare the Sigma at 420mm/5.6 with the 400/5.6.
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=803&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=6&API=3&LensComp=278&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0
The 400/5.6 completely smokes it.

Personally I would never buy a Sigma telephoto lens.  They have some innovative lenses (300-300, 200-500/2. but they simply do not have the sharpness and quality that you can expect from a Canon telephoto.

41

Lenses / Re: Need advice on telephoto zoom Lens

« on: February 08, 2013, 10:07:53 AM »

I have owned both the 70-200/4 IS and the 100-400 in the past.  The 70-200/4 IS takes a 1.4x extender decently, but the quality is quite poor with a 2x (and you lose AF).  So, if you are looking to photograph wildlife the 100-400 is the clear winner.  I owned both of these lenses at the same time, and the 100-400 was always my choice for wildlife.  Travel, however, was a bit tricky because the 100-400 is quite heavy while the 70-200/4 IS is not so heavy but long.

I then switched to the 70-200/2.8 II + 2x III.  After testing them against each other I sold both my 70-200/4 IS and my 100-400.  I sold the 70-200/4 IS because the 2.8 bests it in sharpness (though the F4 is very sharp) and has a 2.8 aperture.  I sold the 100-400 because the differences were extremely small.  It simply was no longer worth it to carry the 100-400 in my bag if I had the 70-200/2.8 and a 2x extender.

Since then I have moved to prime lenses.  The 400/5.6 easily outperforms any of my previous choices at 400mm.  It lacks IS, but I photograph most wildlife at higher shutter speeds anyways.

42

Lenses / Re: 100-400L Version II ain't comin' either!

« on: February 07, 2013, 02:08:54 PM »

The AF of the 5D3 + 70-200/2.8 II is blazingly fast.  When you add the 2x extender is slows down to about the speed of the 100-400.

So far from what I can tell the AF of the 400/5.6 is very quick - or at least far quicker than the 100-400 or 70-200/2.8 II + 2x III.

In both cases you can significantly improve the AF by using the focus limiter switch.

43

Lenses / Re: 100-400L Version II ain't comin' either!

« on: February 07, 2013, 11:08:33 AM »

Thought I would just clarify this more.  I still find that the 70-200/2.8 II + 2x III is roughly equivalent to the 100-400.  The 100-400 is a tiny bit sharper, but nothing very noticeable.  The AF capabilities are roughly the same.

However, at 400mm a 400/5.6 smokes both of them - both in image quality and AF quickness.  The 300/4 is another possibility.  Due to the F4 aperture it focuses much easier.  I have had more problems at 400mm with the lens searching and have to often use the focus limiter + spot focus when animals are surrounded by branches that try to grab focus.  It obviously has fewer problems when my subject is in the open.

The 300/4 has fewer problems in AF here - presumably because on the 5D3 more focus points are used with an F4 aperture lens.  Another advantage of the 300/4 is it focuses much closer - so it's almost like a telephoto macro lens.

For now I have my 70-200/2.8 II and 400/5.6 both always in my bag.  I removed my 2x III extender from the bag in favor of my 1.4x.  At some point I may sell the 300/4 because the 70-200/2.8 II + 1.4x is very competitive with it, but I'll probably wait for some time to truly see which one I favor.  I'll eventually sell the 300/4 when I have enough to buy the new 200-400/1.4x - but both the release of that lens and saving enough money for it are far away.

44

Lenses / Re: 100-400L Version II ain't comin' either!

« on: February 07, 2013, 10:03:31 AM »

To be honest I have since moved away from this combo.  I used my 300/4 at the zoo this Sunday and it was far and away better.  You can see the photos here - http://www.flickr.com/photos/calevphoto/sets/72157632685342696/

I also have the 400/5.6 now - which I mount on a monopod to reduce the shaking - and suspect it will become the longer term replacement.  This is what I will likely take on an upcoming trip to Australia.  The nice thing about it is, unlike the 300/4, it takes extenders decently.  The quality with a 1.4x is roughly the same as the 70-200/2.8 II + 2x III - so once Canon releases the f8 AF firmware for the 5D3 I will have a longer solution - though I plan to stay mostly at 400/5.6.

45

Macro / Re: books on macro

« on: February 06, 2013, 07:16:40 PM »

It depends on your skill level.  If you are new to macro, then the above mentioned books will be useful.  If you are already familiar with macro and want to improve your technique, then there's really nothing I know of that is very helpful.  IMHO this is one area where there is a dearth of quality material.

Your best bet is to find a group of people involved in similar macro photography online.