March 01, 2015, 04:08:21 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 - Drizzt321

Pages: 1 ... 55 56 [57] 58 59 ... 112

When I switched from my 5D classic to the Mark III there was a definite shift in the color that I see when imported into Lightroom.  It sounds roughly similar to what you are reporting, although my shooting conditions are different.

So far I have just been moving the sliders manually, but one of these days I need to figure out how to get Lightroom to do that for me automatically when the images are imported.  It is a minor issue for me, but if I were a high volume photographer it would need to be dealt with right away.

That's pretty easy, either in Library mode select all the photos, Right Click->Develop->Auto White Balance, or create a custom preset with Auto White Balance selected and select that preset to apply on import. Or use the dropper function of the LR White Balance to select the point you want to set the WB off of.

Ok, so did my tests. Not quite as scientific as yours, but I think fairly close. I have the 5d2 and 5d3, tripod against a piece of white paper next to some lights, so OK lighting. First shot was AWB and used that to set the custom WB, and took a 2nd. Pulled all 4 photos into LR4, and looked at the color temp & tint values, then took the 2nd shot and approximately the same area, used LR's WB dropper.

Shot 1, AWB: 4350K, -2 tint
Shot 2, Custom: 4200K, -5 tint
Shot 2, LR Custom: 4250K, -3 tint

Shot 1, AWB: 4650K, +7 tint
Shot 2, Custom: 4650K, +6 tint
Shot 2, LR Custom: 4650K: +6 tint

The output on my screen (high quality TN, 95% NTSC calibrated panel) looks pretty darn close to each other, even though they are off by ~300K and 10 tint, more or less. Both cameras have, at one time or another, been through CPS for cleaning/servicing. So, I'd reinforce, it's sensor/electronics differences that is the difference, and not a problem with either camera. Don't worry about it, it's all just fine.

Lenses / Re: Please explain the need for f2.8 zooms
« on: January 30, 2013, 10:33:35 PM »
Faster lenses also allow you to see the image more clearly in the view finder.  You generally get better photos if you can see the composition.  The shallower depth of field enhances the distinction between what is in or out of focus making focus acquisition more precise.

Not always, I believe the stock focusing screen (at least for the 5d3) is optimized to show up to f/2 or f/2.5, and anything faster you won't really see any difference.

Lighting / Re: Constant lighting vs strobe
« on: January 30, 2013, 08:07:55 PM »
You may want to go with a good constant lighting kit for video, and then supplement it with a couple of cheap manual speedlites from someone like Yongnuo, which can also be much more portable and less power hungry.

GREAT question!

If I click as close to the center in each image as possible, there is no change to the Temp in either file and in the 5DM2 there is a slight +3 change to the Tint, so essentially Adobe is seeing it accurately as well.

Interesting, so either Adobe is doing an initial WB off of what the camera says, and then adjusts from there, or it's engine sees about the same values from the RAW data. I'll see what I can get at home, although I don't have an Expodisc, I'll just a piece of plain white paper and the ambient lights I have in my apartment with a tripod.

Lenses / Re: Please explain the need for f2.8 zooms
« on: January 30, 2013, 07:58:52 PM »
as for the tamron well I've had bad tamron encounters in the past so i'm really gun shy about this lens and have a somewhat prejudiced opinion which isnt helped when people report front elements falling out
I understand that and nearly forgot about the tamron until another CR wedding photog tested it and uses it as his wedding lens:

The thing to know about the 6D, is it's not really considered a 'professional' camera as such.
... said photog now uses a 6d and praises it over his 5d2, sure a 5d3 is better (at €1000 more...) but the way I see it either the 5d2 and 6d are "professional" or neither is - except for the fact that the "budget" €2000 6d is only valid for cps silver in Europe, thanks, Canon.

Personally I think the 24-105L and say a sigma 35 f1.4 would be a more reliable combo
the 24-105L with some flash is a superb lens tough and very versitile and when f4 aint enough then swap over to the 35. If f4 isnt enough it doent take too much more light loss to make f2.8 not enough.
That's basically what I figured, too - but I don't have enough experience yet to be sure of that reasoning considering the very strong "everyone needs f2.8 zooms" opinions.

a neat trick with event photography is use a slower shutter speed to balance the ambient while keeping a decent iso
Thanks a lot for this and the other hints, it's just a pity the Canon cameras have such a slow x-sync (6d: 1/180s...), but I really have to test 2nd curtain sync more to get a feel how much it can make a bit of motion blur "snappier" and at what export resolution.

I'll second that the Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 VC is quite good. Maybe not quite up to the Canon 24-70 v2 in terms of sharpness and most build quality, but I can say from experience the build quality is definitely up there, and even wide open at ISO 6400 it was giving me quite good photos. Lighting for me was just horrendous though, probably worse than pretty much any wedding.

Reviews / Re: Kirk Security Strap review
« on: January 30, 2013, 07:28:28 PM »
Oh boy! I have a BR, and it's been great, especially for a large event where I'm out and about but not using a tripod like Burning Man. For when I'm out and about, but want to switch to my tripod, this would be perfect. Thanks!

Thank you for your reply!

I think your missing my key point:  Adobe Camera, Lr (essentially the same engine) with WB set to "As Shot" to view the in-camera set custom WB RAW files: So there is no parameter other than the cameras data to tell the program WHAT the WB is.  I don't think the variance should be this big.  50-150K I might accept, but 550 and +10 tint is excessive to me.

What does LR/ACR do when you use the WB dropper? Is the correction the same value or different? I'll try and remember to do a similar test as you this evening after I go home, I have 5d2 & 5d3.

Lenses / Re: Please explain the need for f2.8 zooms
« on: January 30, 2013, 07:19:26 PM »
When you say 1 stop better, are you just talking about sensor noise performance or AF sensor performance?

My question is purely about sensor performance and why f2.8 will stay that important forever.

There is also another thing that you may not think of, is that lenses wide open generally don't perform their best.

... unless you're scraping together the money for a Canon 24-70L2

basically having a wide aperture available is like a condom
its better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it :P

Ok, thanks for the answer from a real world pro, so you're on the side that even f2.8 isn't really "fast" enough and it just happens so that the fastest zooms available are f2.8. So if I understand you correctly you'd rather go with a Tamron f2.8 + a faster prime like the Sigma 35mm than a Canon 24-70/f2.8 for the price of both combined?

Well, even the Canon 24-70 v2 performs better stopped down. I never said that wide-open you can't get a lens that performs awesome. But if you stop down the Canon 24-70 v2 it gets even better.

That said, what lens(es) you chose often boils down to shooting styles, convenience (a high quality 24-70 is a lot easier to go 24, then 35, then 50 than changing primes), and can it get you what you want. Is it the best tool for the job, for what your budget can afford, and for how and what you are shooting.

Personally, while I wouldn't quite call myself a shooting pro, but I am shooting the residency for a small dance group, and while I'm renting the Tamron 24-70 for the next performance in a week, and probably buying that lens in the next 3-4 months. Not quite the weight of wickedwombat, or a couple of the other forum members, but I always seem to shoot in low or crazy lighting and I've found fast primes or f/2.8 zoom is practically a necessity. If you're shooting in decent lighting, or a studio or something, then ask if you really need a f/2.8 zoom. For me, I'm not shooting in those environments, so I've said yes, I do need a f/2.8 zoom (and the 70-200 some day, *sigh*).

Do you find yourself wide open all the time even as the ISO climbs higher and higher? Or are you comfortable going with a slower shutter and/or higher ISO and find an f/4 zoom is fine for you?

You are correct that color temperature is not subjective. But you're missing the point that a different sensor will render the colors a bit different, especially if it is from a different line of sensors. Like the T3i & 60D & 7D all use more or less the same sensor, so the color rendering should be fairly similar. But the 5d2 and 5d3 sensors are actually different.

Now, do the colors look exactly the same when you apply the 2 different white balance settings? Remember, the RAW file is the data the sensor collects. You then need to add a white-balance to correct what the sensor sees, which means even when you 'view' it without any processing, you're really either viewing the embedded preview JPG, or the RAW viewers processing with the built-in settings based on what the camera said the WB should be.

Lenses / Re: Please explain the need for f2.8 zooms
« on: January 30, 2013, 06:41:23 PM »
Well, as Ziser said, f/4 or f/5.6 would be better since it gets more of your subject(s) in focus, and with a strobe you get plenty of light while stopping down further would make it harder to get any of your background in the image, it'd end up basically just being extremely sharp, or you'd see drastically more shadows from the strobe.

The thing to know about the 6D, is it's not really considered a 'professional' camera as such. Sure, it's a fine camera, but features and build quality is generally not up to 'pro'. Heck, Canon only calls the 1D-series as 'pro' cameras, everything else isn't.

When you say 1 stop better, are you just talking about sensor noise performance or AF sensor performance? Even though the center point AF sensor works fine with f/4 lenses, I believe it also has a double cross-point sensors there which are likely only available on an f/2.8 lens. Thus, you still get the point where your AF will likely be improved by having an f/2.8 lens, even if you take the shot at f/4 or f/5.6, even in available light.

The other factor is, if you could choose between f/2.8 or f/4, and the difference was ISO 3200 vs ISO 6400, which would you chose? If ISO 6400 is perfectly fine with you, go for it. If you want to drop down to ISO 3200, or increase your shutter speed while staying at ISO 6400, then you'd need to go for the f/2.8 lens.

There is also another thing that you may not think of, is that lenses wide open generally don't perform their best. I'm referring to resolution, CA, etc. f/2.8->f/4 can often make a difference for a lens, and f/2.8->f/5.6 can make a big difference. That's why the top end primes go to f/1.2-f/1.4. Sure, being able to shoot wide-open and get pretty good performance is great, but if you stop them down to f/2 or f/2.8, you get some really great performance while still being able to keep higher shutter speeds.

Sports / Re: Horses / Horseriding etc
« on: January 30, 2013, 06:30:12 PM »
@Narcolepsy, great shot, like the original. If it was mine I think I'd keep full width but crop it top/bottom to give 1x2 format.

Agreed. Make it seem more of a panoramic. If that were mine I'd make a print of it and hang it on the wall, it's fantastic.

Some decent lighting will let you stop down which will increase the DoF which will make it easier to get the subject in focus. And you can always put a mark on the floor or something, and start recording, go stand in place, wait for a second or two, then begin which will let you edit out the start & end.

Yep...right now, I'm working on learning more about lighting. I have some stands and I've bought different sized clamp lights from the hardware store, and a few diffusers and clamps.

I'm trying to do somewhat of a 3 point lighting...but am limited to the layout of my kitchen..and the mixed lights there (halogen track lighting) and my clamp lights are CFLs...all in the daylight (5500 I think?) range.

Like I mentioned, I got something heavy to clamp a large, tall ruler onto....which I used instead of marking the floors...with this I can know where my head,  nose and chin are...and compose the scene knowing better where I'll stand..and focus on that ruler...

Do something like big deal hitting start manually...walking into the scene..doing your bit...walking to hit stop.

That's what editing is for....and since I don't have a clap board, I often use that beginning to talk to describe anything about the scene I want to remind myself about during editing....

Don't forget to do manual white balance, and you also can use some gels to get all the lighting to be more or less close to the same color temp, which will make it a lot easier to get good looking footage. Don't forget you can use just about anything to flag (block) to get the lighting right where you want it, or use some poster board to reflect light to fill in the side or bottom or your face, or somewhere else. There's a ton you can do with lighting. And use gaffer's tape, a lot easier to work with than duct tape for anything you may not need to permanently tape together.

Sports / Re: Horses / Horseriding etc
« on: January 30, 2013, 11:49:23 AM »
One I got in December

Gorgeous! Just a tiny bit of motion blur to the rider and horse, but it's perfect sense of motion and capture of the moment. Well done!

Site Information / Re: Forum recommendations
« on: January 30, 2013, 11:48:14 AM »
For the login issue, instead of simply using the username/password boxes in the upper right, use the login link, and you can choose how long to stay logged in, or to always stay logged in.

Pages: 1 ... 55 56 [57] 58 59 ... 112