October 01, 2014, 06:49:55 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 - stefsan

Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8
76
Software & Accessories / Re: DPP for MAC too slow?
« on: September 06, 2012, 05:15:50 AM »
It is slooow. Slow for viewing, rating and developing. Using DLO makes me wanting screw my head off and throw away for an idea using it all.
Finally I found a very stupid and very "workaroundy" but working way to add WATERMARKS on photos using only DPP! Yes, finally watermarks with Digital Photo Professional by Canon.  But this is so stupid way, that I shame to write about it :)

Let's hear it anyway!

Jeeez. But this is so stupid... It works for me with version 3.11.31

OK. You need to have a jpg, or CR2 :) with your watermark. You need to put it into same folder, where your CR2 file is. You open a CR2 file and choose "Start Compositing Tool" from Tools menu. Having your photo seleced, you select the watermark  image for foreground and depending on the photo and watermark background colors you choose an appropriate Composite method. For example below I've chosen "Add". You can finally choose the correct watermark image placement with the arrows below.

Good thing is, that the Compositing Tool preserves CR2 settings made before, so DLO for instance. If someone doesn't use Lightroom, Photoshop or sth like that, but likes DLO results, I think the described process is the best for them to obtain a watermark on their images.

The watermark used here is just an example, I know it could look better :)

But this so stupid.... :D

I wouldn't call that procedure stupid but easy and practical  ;) Thanks for sharing!

77
Software & Accessories / Re: DPP for MAC too slow?
« on: September 03, 2012, 09:33:55 AM »
It is slooow. Slow for viewing, rating and developing. Using DLO makes me wanting screw my head off and throw away for an idea using it all.
Finally I found a very stupid and very "workaroundy" but working way to add WATERMARKS on photos using only DPP! Yes, finally watermarks with Digital Photo Professional by Canon.  But this is so stupid way, that I shame to write about it :)

Let's hear it anyway!

78
I would say that my photos have improved considerably every time I could buy better lenses. As for bodies, the steps from my first DSLR to my actual camera (400D > 40D > 7D) have resulted in better pics too, although it is more difficult to put the finger on what exactly in the picture is better because of the better camera. But higher resolution, better AF, a little less noise and better over-all handling have had a positive impact on my shooting.

79
Software & Accessories / Re: DPP for MAC too slow?
« on: August 29, 2012, 08:00:41 AM »
I can't give you an authoritative answer on that but my guess is that the Canon guys who wrote DPP for Mac never put very much effort into it. I use a quad core Mac Pro 1,1 (2.66 GHz Intel Xeon 5100 series processors) with 16GB RAM to run DPP and it is always very slow. Alright, the Mac is fairly dated but the Xeons are still rather good performers. Maybe altering the quality and size settings of the viewer can speed DPP up a tiny bit but not viewing the picture you want to work on defies the purpose of using DPP at all.  ???
I have not found a workaround for this yet but I always keep handy some books so I can read while waiting for DPP (or Photoshop) to get the work done…

80
Software & Accessories / Re: Aperture and noise reduction options ?
« on: August 24, 2012, 07:35:35 AM »
You could try NIK Dfine 2 ( http://www.niksoftware.com/dfine/usa/entry.php ) as a plugin to Aperture where you should be able to use it on your RAW files. I use it in PS5 to clean up my TIFF's (produced by Canon's DPP) and I like the level of control and (mostly) the results.

81
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II Specs? [CR1]
« on: August 20, 2012, 03:21:16 AM »
Sounds good to me...   I'll believe the "noticeably lower noise than the current 18MP," when I see the RAW files, and not a moment sooner.   ::)

I'll believe the "noticeably lower noise than the current 18MP" waay waay more than I'd believe the "Available this year".

(or at least, i'll believe that the "noticeably lower noise than the current 18MP" will appear on marketing brochures)

I tend to agree that the marketing brouchers will be the place where "noticably lower noise" will be the most noticable. But if Canon manages to deliver such a camera, it will sell like hot cakes. Together with the 5DIII it would make a perfect pair…

82
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Canon GPS Options
« on: August 17, 2012, 02:32:51 AM »
Unless you have either a 1DX or a 5DIII the GP-E2 won't do anything for you that a third party GPS logger would not do for a lot less money. Although if you shoot with one of these two cameras, there are some features that make the GP-E2 an option to consider (hot shoe connectivity, automatic time synchronization, addition of compass data to the GPS data).

83
Lenses / Re: What lenses do you own?
« on: August 15, 2012, 12:01:15 PM »
Lenses I use (on a 7D):
- EF-S 15-85 (+) very handy zoom range, decent optical quality (–) plasticky build quality (lens creep drives me nuts)
- EF-S 10-22 (+) rather spectacular zoom range, good optical quality
- EF 100 I (+) spectacularly good optical quality, tack sharp
- EF 70-200 f4 L IS (+) light, very well built, superb optical quality, quite nice bokeh
- EF 70-300 L IS (+) ultra versatile, very well built, superb optical quality, zoom lock (–) compared to my other lenses a bit heavy (but not really a problem)

84
While they're at it for the 1DX and the 5DIII, I would appreciate a fix for the 7D as well. Normally it's not a problem causing me much trouble but I would definitely prefer the red focus point indicators in all shooting modes.

86
You may want to have a look into the Millar series by fstop (http://fstopgear.com/en/product/millar). Their Mountain series are perfect (access to gear from the back panel) but way out of your targeted price…

87
Software & Accessories / Re: Backpack for photoequipment and hiking
« on: May 13, 2012, 04:40:51 AM »
I own a Satori Exp and a Loka as well as small and medium ICU's. As far as I can see the ICU's are all the same width, so even a small ICU is wide enough that nothing should drop out of your pack (see Dan Carr's review: http://dancarrphotography.com/blog/2010/11/02/introducing-the-new-f-stop-tilopa-bc-photo-backpack/ and scroll down to the pictures).

It looks like they now make 'shallow' and 'pro' depth ICU's.  I'm guessing the 'pro' is the original depth.

Yes, the difference is that the pro ICU's are designed to take pro (i.e. gripped) bodies whereas the shallow ICU's are intended to take up prosumer (i.e. not gripped) bodies. (see http://fstopgear.com/en/product/mountain/icu)

88
Software & Accessories / Re: Backpack for photoequipment and hiking
« on: May 12, 2012, 11:36:46 AM »
F-Stop seems to be a good choice. Looks good.
I´m interested in the Satori Exp. If you take a smaller ICU inlay, thats smaller than the opening on the carrying side, does it cover the things you carry within the bag? Or is it open, so that the things outside of the ICU can be seen?
And how is the air circulation on the back and the carrying comfort?

I own a Satori Exp and a Loka as well as small and medium ICU's. As far as I can see the ICU's are all the same width, so even a small ICU is wide enough that nothing should drop out of your pack (see Dan Carr's review: http://dancarrphotography.com/blog/2010/11/02/introducing-the-new-f-stop-tilopa-bc-photo-backpack/ and scroll down to the pictures). The air circulation on the back is the only point that can be perfected on the F-Stop packs, the padding on the back panel is made from a relatively dense material and does not allow for very much air to reach your back. But apart from that, the packs are near perfect. For serious hiking or mountaineering (and depending on how long you want to be out and what you want to bring) I would consider the Tilopa BC because it is the most rugged one of the mountain series and its volume (48l) is pretty good.

89
Thanks NWPhil for all the advice. Esp. rain sleeve and P&S. What make of tripod is that? Bag choice was why I joined the forum. As an ML I've got a very large 80lt pack with compartments and a 40lt daypack without. The one I was looking at (see link) had dedicated compartment in base and some room in the top for normal gear. Wondered if anyone had experience of these.

Have a look at this one http://fstopgear.com/en/product/mountain/tilopa-bc, they are awesome! I own two f-stop packs and can recommend them for pretty much everything from hiking to skiing or mountaineering. The Tilopa BC is 48lt and will take all your photo gear, water, extra clothing etc.

90
Although I've never been to Nepal or Tibet, I have some experience with mountain hiking and carrying photo gear. In general I would agree with the other posters to go light. My standard setup is a 7D with 15-85 and 70-300, polarizers, spare batteries and CF cards. What to bring depends on what else you have to lug around and on how much time you have to take photos (there's not much sense in taking too many lenses if you have not the time to change them). And in my experience it depends also on the quality of your backpack. If you don't have one already, it really pays to invest some time (and money) on a very good pack that lets you carry relatively heavy loads comfortably for several hours and allows you quick access to your photo gear…
Most importantly: have fun and take care!  :)

Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8