« on: February 03, 2012, 09:31:03 PM »
I would take the 70-200 f2.8 it doesnt take long to get used to the weight and size
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.
The issue isn't that the pictures have heavy manipulation its the outright hogwash that gets peddled with itOn the bookcases behind me in my study I have a couple of AA's books; The Camera, The Negative and The Print as well as a battered copy og Examples;: The Making of 40 Photographs. He produced some wonderful images, exposed in the wilderness but made in the Darkroom.
Really? Ansel Adams as the poster boy, pun intended, of the true, unmanipulated image? Don't misunderstand, his photographs are beautiful and magical, but he spent an enormous amount of time and work postprocessing those images. Of course, that was in the days before Photoshop, when dodging and burning were done with wands, cutout masks, and light, instead of the click of a mouse, and Adams was a master at those techniques, and use them on most or all of his famous images. We won't ever know what Ansel Adams' photography would be like if he had access to the powerful digital editing and compositing tools we have today.
"You don't take a photograph, you make it."
“There are no rules for good photographs, there are only good photographs.”
"Photography is more than a medium for factual communication of ideas. It is a creative art"
"A photograph is not an accident – it is a concept"
And my personal favourite:
"The negative is comparable to the composer's score and the print to its performance. Each performance differs in subtle ways"
yesssss! I would love a 400mm f/4 L IS! being able to add a 1.4x III onto this would be sweet for us full frame folks (the bare lens itself is awesome enough).
I know this is like, probably 5 years away from happening at the earliest, but I'm definitely willing to hold out for it. besides, there's just no way I can afford the 200-400mm f/4 L.
If only Canon would let us design their cameras....they should totally hire us...
[ And let's make it with an EF mount. That way, when regular EF lenses are attached, the camera reverts to a "full frame" camera.]
Nice idea, good use of crop technology.
The EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 (non-L) IS... Does have IS. And there's no 70-300mm without it. You must be thinking of the older 75-300mm.
One of my concerns with these more blatant modifications is that it cheapens the field of photography, and turns it into more of a field for those with the best graphics artists skills. Consumers and viewers of such art may become more jaded and question more and more geniune work from that in which the capture was "cheated" and not necessarily know the difference. More honest photographers trying to capture the real image and portray the scene as it appeared suffer from this type of abuse.
As a consequence of this today it is typical to see some photo contest or submission requirements state "no photoshop". But this type of blatant statement disregards the distinction between edits that I would define as addressing the limitations of the camera capture and edits that are simply creating a scene or composition that simply did not exist. Edits for addressing exposure, spot removal, color calibration, etc. are really no different than what was possible before in the dark room, albeit at a much higher level of quality and ease. At the risk of being accused of self promotion, I have written about that here (http://www.stephenfischerphotography.com/Commentaries/Limits_of_photoshop/Ethical_limits_of_photoshop.html) in the context of potentially using forensic techniques as discussed by Dr. Neal Krawetz in his blog: http://www.hackerfactor.com/blog/. But there is probably no point in such a dissection here, as it is already clear. It would be interesting to see more photo tool development go toward identifying such work, as I think that would be handy to help improve the "truthiness" in the field of photography.
An "EOS 3C" (between the 1 & 5 and targetted at cinema) would let them escape the problems of naming their camera "3D" if it doesn't shoot 3D video.
Your 70-300 IS is a good lens and you'll have to spend quite a bit more to get anything sharper with IS at 300mm.I dont think that 70-300 has IS you might be confusing it with the newer L