March 03, 2015, 11:52:02 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 - daveheinzel

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4
EOS Bodies / Re: What's Next? A General Breakdown
« on: March 07, 2012, 03:38:42 PM »
Thank you for all your hard work, Craig. This site has become one of my favorite daily visits. Keep up the good work.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: A dilemma - 7d -> 5d mk ?
« on: March 04, 2012, 02:50:55 PM »
Nice photos, Geoff. I'm in the same place. 7D, same lenses (except trade your 17-55 for my 17-40). But I want to go full frame. I shoot video and take stills. I'm torn between the 5D II and III. I think I'm leaning more towards the 5D II. I don't need dual cards, I can live without the headphone jack and slower autofocus and fewer points is ok for most of what I do. But it's hard to make a commitment with a camera that has a newer brother with superior image quality. And I think that's what I'm still waiting for... some solid real-world comparison of image quality between the two cameras. When it comes down to it though, it's going to be hard to NOT spring for the III. But really, I'd probably do fine with the II.

EOS Bodies / Re: Eye Control Focus
« on: February 27, 2012, 01:48:09 PM »
My EOS 3 is my favorite camera (best DSLR I have is the 7D), but I haven't found eye control focus dependable. Like a previous poster said - the 5D III, for me, would be an upgrade for the EOS 3, not the cropped-sensor camera. I know I'm not adding anything useful to the conversation. Just can't stay away from any mention of the EOS 3.

Software & Accessories / Re: TIFF or JPeg for storage
« on: February 03, 2012, 09:06:40 PM »
There is no advantage to saving anything as a JPEG and it is not a legitimate way to archive RAW files.

There is an advantage, and it's file space. It's your call if this is an advantage to you, but it's very easy to quantify the advantage in megabytes. And no, JPGs are not a way to archive RAW files. They are a way to save images. You missed the point.

You talk about this burden of storing your raw files as if they are a heavy weight you carry on your back everywhere you go. But at the same time you do a double back up AND you leave it on your memory card for a few months ata time???? It doesnt make any since.

A bit dramatic perhaps. I do a *single* backup and then leave the memory cards intact until the project is done (usually in a week). The memory card backup (which is on a hard drive) is what I keep for months. And it's "sense."

In 5 years i will be able to buy an external hard drive thats larger than all of the hard drives i have now put together. And i dont really care about cost. If im going to buy a DSLR and concern my self with IQ then i can foot the small sum of cash for a hard drive with several TB of storage and it will hold A LOT of 20MB files.

That's great. Your unlimited cash-flow lends itself well to long-term RAW file storage. My workflow works for my situation, and I wanted to share it to give the perspective of why someone might not care about storing RAW files indefinitely.

I mean hell, while your at it why dont you just convert everything to B&W to get rid of color data and junk the metadata right off the bat to? Why stop at JPEG compression? Lower the resolution as well?

You have to agree that a processed RAW file is very comparable to a good JPG of the same resolution. I would be surprised if you could tell the difference, even at 100% on screen. I don't carelessly trash my images for the sake of file space. I spend a lot of time and effort making them as good as possible. But at some point, everyone needs to make a decision about what to do with a project once it's done. I'm really curious to hear about what other people do.

To the original topic... when I am done post-processing images in Photoshop, I re-import into Aperture as PSD and save these images long-term as JPGs only. So I don't personally use TIFFs (but I used to for years). If a photo did require several layers in Photoshop, I usually backup the layered PSD file for the long-term. I'm sure 40 years from now it won't open. But hopefully it will in 2.

Software & Accessories / Re: TIFF or JPeg for storage
« on: February 01, 2012, 10:13:18 AM »
After years of searching for the right workflow for me, here's what I've been doing for a long time:

1) Shoot everything in RAW (with a rare exception of shooting in JPG in some cases)
2) Import to Aperture
3) Back up memory card(s) to external hard drive
4) Set aside memory card(s) and don't use until project is complete
5) Editing passes (each step usually done separately):
    a) 1 star for images that I want to save (then I delete non-starred images from the Aperture project)
    b) 2 stars for images that are probably keepers
    c) 3 stars for the best images
    d) I flag all images that I want to send to Photoshop to edit (usually not many)
6) I export all flagged images as PS files, edit in PS and import back into Aperture
7) Once project is finalized, I export all images to full-size JPGs for long-term storage on two separate external hard drives and clean out the Aperture project.

After several months, I delete the memory card backups, leaving me with only a double set of backed-up JPGs. I do NOT save RAW, PSD or TIFF files for the long term. I use WHCC for prints, and they print from JPGs. I couldn't be happier with the print quality.

For me, the benefit of RAW is to allow greater flexibility in post-processing. Once my post-processing is done, I don't want the burden of storing that much data. Not only does it cost substantially more, but it takes more time to transfer the files. And it means more drives to manage. And for what? The obscure chance that a client will have me change an image from a completed project in a way that requires the extra latitude that a RAW image would provide? In my case, that just doesn't make much sense.

That said, I do, on occasion, save an image in RAW if it's truly exceptional.

I shoot with a 7D and 70-200 2.8 IS II frequently. It has been a great combo for basketball and football.

There are a few reasons your photos could be blurry, and it's totally normal to end up with a fair amount of blurry photos when shooting action. The key is knowing why they're blurry and having a good amount of focused images to choose from.

I'd imagine that shooting on a bright, sunny day, you can close down your aperture a good deal to f8 or so. This will help eliminate any sort of depth-of-field blurriness as long as the focus is close. I'm usually always at 2.8 indoors or at night, but action at 2.8 is tricky.

I have the AF set to the center point and just leave it at that. I'll use AI servo most of the time, but sometimes I'll switch to manual focus.

Your shutter speed needs to be pretty high too - usually 1500 0r 2000 or higher depending on several variables. Sometimes you can get lucky with a slower shutter, but it's tricky. If you're following the subject and they stay about the same distance from you, you can drop down the shutter speed to put some motion blur on the background.

Post some photos if you'd like - it's usually easier to tell what's up when we can see photos and camera data (ISO, shutter speed, aperture).

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: First Kodachrome, now Kodak?
« on: January 04, 2012, 08:54:24 AM »
I got a Canon camera

You made my day. :)

Lenses / Re: Help! 70/200mm f/4 IS OR 70/200mm f/2.8 IS II
« on: December 30, 2011, 09:28:20 AM »
You will not question the weight once you start seeing the photos the 2.8 can produce. And it's really not ridiculously heavy.

Build quality - unreal. Mine was dropped (not by me, but I saw it happen) from waist-level onto a very hard floor. No damage whatsoever. That thing is a tank.

I would have cried like a little girl  :'(

The world did seem to stop when it happened. I had the lens in my camera bag, which was opened and sitting 'safely' on a table. I was demoing my camera to some high school students, and a student, trying to be helpful, picked up my bag and was going to bring it to me for some unknown reason. When the lens fell... the thud it made was unreal. Everyone kind of froze, and I didn't know how to react. But I tried to not make him feel too awful. Maybe just a little though. :) I tested the lens exhaustively as soon as I was alone, sure something was going to be wrong. I couldn't find anything. It landed on the edge of the front element, in a way that the lens hood, on in reverse for storage, didn't seem to cushion the blow. Probably way more information than any wanted to know, but oh well. :)

Lenses / Re: Help! 70/200mm f/4 IS OR 70/200mm f/2.8 IS II
« on: December 29, 2011, 11:58:55 PM »
You will not question the weight once you start seeing the photos the 2.8 can produce. And it's really not ridiculously heavy.

Build quality - unreal. Mine was dropped (not by me, but I saw it happen) from waist-level onto a very hard floor. No damage whatsoever. That thing is a tank.

Lighting / Re: Canon 7d built-in flash master
« on: December 28, 2011, 03:19:24 PM »
It's possible -- I do it often with the same exact equipment. I'm guessing your settings are off, or like handsome rob suggested, maybe you don't have direct line-of-sight.

Software & Accessories / Re: Battery grips
« on: December 28, 2011, 03:17:49 PM »
I have a 7D and purchased the Zeikos grip. I had the Canon grip for my old 20D, and I can't say I notice a difference between build quality of the two. I haven't had any problems with the Zeikos grip in over a year of solid use. The only oddity is that the removable battery compartment door from the 7D doesn't really snap into its holding place on the Zeikos grip, but this has never been a problem (nor has the door fallen out of there).

If price wasn't an issue (this is half the Canon grip), I'd still go with the Zeikos. No complaints.

Lenses / Re: New Photographer. Need suggestions :)
« on: December 28, 2011, 11:48:17 AM »
I have been in your shoes - I shot my brother's wedding several years ago. I had done a few before, and I've done about a dozen since. But man - you really have your work cut out for you.

Here are some practical tips based on your specific situation:

1) Like it has been suggested, strongly consider hiring a professional photographer as a gift to your brother and his wife (and to yourself). I get the sense you're not going to take this advice and will shoot it anyway, which I understand. But yeah, you will not experience the wedding from behind the camera. My memories of my brother's wedding are fuzzy and hectic. It's a shame really.

2) Eat before you arrive and bring snacks. You might get to sit down and have a meal, but do not count on it. You might have all the best equipment in the world, but if you're famished, your work will greatly suffer. Eat and drink (water) at every chance you get, because you won't get many. And honestly, you should use any breaks you have to review your images to make sure you're actually capturing what you think you are. If your lens got switched to manual focus and you didn't realize it, that is one of the most frustrating experiences you can imagine.

3) If you are struggling with low light (which you will, or worse - you won't realize that you are), put the camera on auto, put the flash on your camera and point it straight at your subject and simply focus on putting yourself in the best position possible. Your photos will definitely not look "awesome," but they will be properly exposed and in focus. And because you aren't fiddling with your gear, you can get in places and take photos that none of the guests will, which will set your photos apart from the ones that they'll post on Facebook immediately after (and during) the wedding.

4) Don't plan on switching lenses on camera bodies at any point during the day. Have 2 cameras and 2 lenses (extras in your bag for backup are fine). You'll miss photos when switching lenses, and you'll be rushed, likely dropping things. With your gear, I'd put the 24-70 on the T3i and the 50mm on the 60D. This leaves you without a telephoto lens, so if you can get a 70-200, use that instead of the 50. But don't sweat it if you can't get a 70-200. I love mine and use it a lot, but for weddings, I usually go more wide.

5) Put the priority on capturing the moment vs. making it look pretty. When it comes down to it, just get the photo. And then get lots more.

This is not advice I'd give to anyone who wants to deliver the most professional, aesthetically-pleasing wedding photos, but it is practical advice aimed at simply not screwing up majorly. Good luck, and let us know how it turns out!

EOS Bodies / Re: How often do you shoot video with your DSLR?
« on: December 27, 2011, 04:55:04 PM »
I don't really get all the animosity towards video on DSLRs. I have a 7D and a 60D and use them both about 50% photo / 50% video. It's wonderful having equipment with that flexibility. I have a $5k Panasonic HD camera that I barely touch anymore.

The art of photography is very much related to the art of filmmaking, but they each do have several unique challenges. I love them both and couldn't choose a favorite. They can both be done very poorly and also very beautifully with DSLRs (assuming you have a separate audio capture system).

To me, it's about telling a story. Sometimes it's nice to tell a story with one photo. Some stories benefit from having audio and video, and sometimes you can use a good mix of video, stills and audio in one presentation.

I shoot & develop black and white 35mm film when I want to get back to the essence of photography, and I'll pick up the Panasonic HVX when a DSLR won't cut it for video. But on most assignments, I'll just take my 7D and a couple of lenses. It's a great time to be a photographer and filmmaker.

Lenses / Re: So what kinda gear did Santa bring you this year?
« on: December 26, 2011, 04:53:05 PM »
My fiancee got me a Canon EOS 3 as a Christmas/Wedding present. She's knows how much I love cameras. I've had a EOS 3 on my amazon wish list for about a year. I didn't get into photography until the digital age but I really think there is value in shooting with film. So I plan to go on walks and use my 30 or so exposures wisely and hopefully learn a lot about thoughtful composition. I love it!

That's awesome - I also got an EOS 3 for Christmas (a little early)! I love it. I have a 7D and love it to death, but I've been using an old AE-1 for film alongside it, and it's been a bummer to not be able to use my nice lenses with film. Now I can, and it's amazing. I'm shooting and developing Ilford HP5 film myself, then scanning in the negatives. Digital is great, and film is great. But I'd hate to have to choose just one.

My first roll (albeit not fantastic) is here:

Lenses / Re: 70-200 2.8 IS II Soft at 70mm?
« on: December 07, 2011, 12:26:05 AM »
I haven't noticed any issues in sharpness in mine, and I'm using the same setup (7D). I love the combo. But I don't really do closeup tests or even look at the photos at 100%, so it could be wildly soft and I'd probably never know. On screen and on prints, the photos look awesome, even at 70mm.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4