July 23, 2014, 10:34:39 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 - Dantana

Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Medium Format Film
« on: March 12, 2013, 07:38:16 PM »
Plenty of Kiev 88's on eBay.

I haven't used any Russian still cameras, but we had quite a few Russian 16mm cameras at University, back in the day. I remember the glass being nice.

But does the Jackie Chan 550D come with a petal lens hood on its kit lens?

Agreed.  Sometimes I wonder why people even post questions on here.  A lot of times they already know the answer and/or only want to hear the answer they want to hear, and if posters post a different answer, they argue and do whatever they want anyways.  Amazing.

And yet I can't stop reading this thread. It's a mesmerizing train wreck in posting form (with little tidbits of good info thrown in).

Reviews / Re: Hands-on Review: Canon EOS 6D
« on: March 12, 2013, 02:55:12 PM »
Great review, and you have some amazing images up on your site.

I also like the post on Visualization. Great stuff.

Technical Support / Re: A Film Look
« on: March 12, 2013, 01:21:52 PM »
Ah, film look. Honestly, that's become another one of my pet peeves really. What is a "film look"? With film only "gone" for a few years now it seems that a lot of folks who have never used it now assume that film gave/gives us some grainy, low resolution discolored "lo-fi" look. Equivalent assumptions being made in the audio world drive me equally crazy.

That being said: yes, film does look and feel different, especially when you're looking at real prints and not some scanned negatives put out on the same ink jet printers that we have to put up with as digital shooters. But there is not one look. Different film types and processes will render different results - most of which will be tack sharp, not discolored or grainy.

I actually just shot a few rolls b/w Ilford for portraits that I'm planning to develop and blow up myself at a local lab place next week or so. I shot these together with my digital SLR with the same light and settings so I'm really looking forward to a nice A/B comparison that I haven't done yet to that extent. I'll be curious to compare some digital b/w prints from the same session next to them.

My next bigger expense is likely to be a medium format camera and some darkroom gear for my basement. As much as I like my DSLR and wouldn't want to miss it again, for some things I feel those blown up large and medium format portraits still look better. And it's not the hipster-grainy-lo-fi look I'm after but quite the opposite actually.


You really need to define what kind of look you are going for. There are more looks than can be listed, to be honest. Different emulsions, formats, not to mention how they were eventually printed. And for me, that doesn't even include things that I would consider "special fx" to a film shooter, like the aforementioned cross processed look, or something like bleach bypass. They are totally valid techniques but not what I would say is inherent in a "film look."

7enderbender, I'd be very interested in how your prints turn out. There's a part of me that really misses the darkroom experience.

Canon General / Re: your scariest photography moment?
« on: March 11, 2013, 04:57:33 PM »
Long ago, in my much younger and stupider days, I was assisting on the shoot of a dancer on the beach. At the beginning of the day she asked me to hold onto her engagement ring which I proceeded to put in my pocket, since I didn't have anywhere else secure to stow it.

A few hours later I was holding a large reflector about thigh deep in the surf and got bowled over by a wave I didn't see coming. Sunglasses gone, other odds and ends missing, but on incredibly agitated inspection of my pockets the only thing that actually was there was the ring. No thanks to me.

Lenses / Re: EF or EF-S for 7D/70D
« on: March 07, 2013, 05:44:41 PM »
For your zoom options, I would think you might want to wait and see what is being offered with the 70D in a kit. It may be an upgrade over what you have now at a good price in kit form. Maybe not. Won't know until they release that info.

As far as the EF, EF-S debate goes, I would agree with all those that recommend buying for what you shoot now, as far as zooms are concerned.

Of course, a 35mm, 85mm, or 200mm prime would be a nice pickup for both crop of FF.

Lenses / Re: Considering lens upgrade options....
« on: March 07, 2013, 05:28:51 PM »
Maybe you should rent the 70-200 2.8 IS II for a weekend and see how much of a difference it makes for you.

Lenses / Re: Addicted to dof
« on: March 06, 2013, 04:51:33 PM »
I think it's kind of funny that the title for this post is "Addicted to DOF," when it's really a lack of DOF that everyone is talking about. Not saying anyone is wrong. It's just kind of funny how the term gets thrown around.

If we want to get technical, it is the adjective "shallow" that is missing.  You can be addicted to DOF whether it is shallow or deep so the statement is not incorrect, it is just lacking a full description.   

Isn't a lack of DOF a blurry image and not an image with a shallow DOF?

I suppose you could look at it that way, though if someone told me (without me looking) that an image had more depth of field than another, I would take that to mean that it had deeper focus, a larger depth of field.

Besides, blur is about motion, depth of field is about focus.

Not that this has anything to do with the original post. Sorry about that.

Lenses / Re: Concert haze causing out of focus pictures
« on: March 06, 2013, 04:42:49 PM »
Why not just use manual focus?

That's always an option, but my post is less an issue of manual vs auto focus as it is an issue of whether haze (or other particles in the air like smoke, fog, etc) will throw off auto focus.  Besides, have you ever tried to manual focus with the 50 1.8?  The focus ring is impossibly small and not very smooth.

Sure, but you're 250' away from the stage, something is making the AF focus closer than that (the fog, the crowd, the guy at the board). It seems like manually focusing at infinity would be the way to go, set it and forget it, unless you are also getting shots around the scene at different depths. Then I totally understand not wanting to manually focus in the dark with the tiny ring on the 50 1.8.

If nothing else was in the region of your AF points, I think you've kind of answered your own question, that the environmentals used at the concert are messing with the AF.

Lenses / Re: Concert haze causing out of focus pictures
« on: March 06, 2013, 01:44:32 PM »
Maybe this is a stupid question, but at 250', shouldn't you be at infinity with most lenses?

Lenses / Re: Addicted to dof
« on: March 06, 2013, 01:38:09 PM »
I think it's kind of funny that the title for this post is "Addicted to DOF," when it's really a lack of DOF that everyone is talking about. Not saying anyone is wrong. It's just kind of funny how the term gets thrown around.

I'd shoot test charts, brick walls, and the inside of my lenscap.

One of these days I'm going to take it as an artistic challenge to make interesting art out of the typical measurebator subjects. Not sure yet how I'll pull it off, though I've got a few ideas....


That's a great idea. It reminds me of a time back in school. We had a list of subjects that were so cliche that they were off limits to shoot. One classmate took it upon himself to combine them all in very creative ways. It was one of the best, or at least most memorable, pieces in the class.

I'd love to see what you would come up with using charts and brick walls and color chips...

Of course not with the last roll of Kodachrome. I think the right person had access to that.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 6d w/ eos remote and tablet connection?
« on: February 28, 2013, 02:40:23 PM »
I have the 6d and Nexus 7.  I have used the eos remote app to view and take shots with the 6d.  Compatibility is great. It just works! hope that helps.

It does :-), though I'm wondering why Canon writes that it isn't guaranteed to work - maybe they only test it on phones and/or the non-adapting resolution is the reason.

Android is open source and device manufactures modify the OS, sometimes significantly (e.g. Kindle Fire), for their own uses.  It's an unfortunate consequence of open source, that it creates conflict issues.  Canon is just covering their butts, any third-party manufacturer would do the same.  One of the pluses to open source, is that if there was a conflict on a popular Android platform you can pretty much guarantee that developers would be on it ASAP.  Go poke your nose in at XDA developers, those guys writing patches to stuff before the average user even knows it's a problem.

I've been working on flashing a custom ROM to my Kindle Fire HD for awhile now just so I could tether it to my camera.  Looks like the 6D may fix that.


I work for a company that develops mobile apps and I can tell you that keeping up with new Android hardware and software forks from device manufacturers really keeps our engineers busy. iOS is much more predictable since only one company is messing with the code. As Skirball says, Canon is just protecting themselves.

Nothing against Android (I have an SIII), developing for it is just complicated. It makes me thankful that I only have to deal with the art side of things.

Landscape / Re: Yosemite in the wintertime
« on: February 26, 2013, 08:57:46 PM »
I did notice that about 80% of photographers were walking around with a 70-200 F2.8 (canon/nikon/tamron/etc.). For the life of me, I could not figure this out! For my entire trip, I was constantly reaching for my 14mm uwa lens. If that was not on the camera, the 50mm was. I only put my 70-200mm on my camera 3 times over the course of the trip.

And when I look at your photos, what do I see? Uncorrected lens distortion.

Where does lens distortion come from?

UWA lenses that people don't know how to use.

Your photos are a great example of why lots of people don't use wide angle lenses in Yosemite Valley.

Best lens for the Yosemite Valley is arguably 24-70. It would be 24-105 except that the 24-105 is rubbish wider than 28mm.

That's interesting. I see a couple beautiful shots.

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