July 31, 2014, 02:29:34 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 - dirtcastle

Pages: 1 ... 12 13 [14] 15 16 ... 27
196
EOS Bodies / Re: 85mm 1.2 version I or II
« on: November 20, 2012, 07:24:59 PM »
I think Lee Jeffries shoots with the 85L f/1.2 Mark I, based on checking out his EXIF info.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/16536699@N07/
http://500px.com/LeeJeffries

I have the Mark II and would have considered the Mark I, but I wanted the faster focus speed and it is unlikely that there will be a Mark III (with improved focus) for awhile. IMO, the only major thing lacking with this lens is focus speed, and both Marks I and II suck in that department.


Thanks for that link.


You're welcome! He's amazing, right?

Almost all of Lee's public images appear to have been shot with Mark I versions of the 24 f/1.4 L and the 85 f/1.2 L, on a Canon 5D body. For me, that's inspiring because he takes equipment that many of us, including myself, love to complain about, but does absolutely phenomenal work with it. He reminds me that the mind, not the equipment, is the most important piece of equipment. ;-)

197
EOS Bodies / Re: 85mm 1.2 version I or II
« on: November 20, 2012, 02:26:15 AM »
I think Lee Jeffries shoots with the 85L f/1.2 Mark I, based on checking out his EXIF info.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/16536699@N07/
http://500px.com/LeeJeffries

I have the Mark II and would have considered the Mark I, but I wanted the faster focus speed and it is unlikely that there will be a Mark III (with improved focus) for awhile. IMO, the only major thing lacking with this lens is focus speed, and both Marks I and II suck in that department.

198
Canon General / Re: Photography websites. Where are you posting?
« on: November 17, 2012, 06:23:06 PM »
500px has the better interface, and overall higher caliber of photos. But I still prefer the community at Flickr for some reason. Flickr seems more casual than 500px.

199
Technical Support / Re: Best Methods For Long Term File Storage ??
« on: November 15, 2012, 02:19:01 PM »
@ MSP

I totally agree with you on the facts. Cloud storage has risks. Local storage has risks. And print is a great format, with a long shelf life.

With regards to "prints as backup storage", I think it boils down to volume. The problem with print storage is that it has scaling issues. For smaller collections (or people with lots of money), print is a great way to preserve and backup photos. But for most shooters, print doesn't work as a primary method of cold storage. It requires one to have both a digital storage system and an analog system. It's just too much work/money for most of us.

Now, having said all that... for selected images, having prints makes a lot of sense.
I'm not suggesting prints as a solution for the reasons you mention, just pointing out that with digital media, we do not have a nice reliable long term solution similar to the store it in a shoebox method so our descendents can view images 100 years from now.
I'm hoping that someone steps up and creates a storage media that is reliable, its certainly possible, but only available to the technically astute, and who knows if anyone could read the media in 50 years.  Its not happening because no one sees a market, or maybe there is no good known technical solution (I doubt that).

Agreed!

200
Technical Support / Re: Best Methods For Long Term File Storage ??
« on: November 14, 2012, 08:23:09 PM »
@ MSP

I totally agree with you on the facts. Cloud storage has risks. Local storage has risks. And print is a great format, with a long shelf life.

With regards to "prints as backup storage", I think it boils down to volume. The problem with print storage is that it has scaling issues. For smaller collections (or people with lots of money), print is a great way to preserve and backup photos. But for most shooters, print doesn't work as a primary method of cold storage. It requires one to have both a digital storage system and an analog system. It's just too much work/money for most of us.

Now, having said all that... for selected images, having prints makes a lot of sense.

201
Lenses / Re: 135mm L
« on: November 14, 2012, 08:04:30 PM »
The relatively low weight and size of the 135mm f/2 makes the shooting experience very pleasant. I think a lot of people will agree that the size/performance ratio of the 135mm is nearly perfect, especially since the performance is so good at f/2.

202
Technical Support / Re: Best Methods For Long Term File Storage ??
« on: November 14, 2012, 07:59:20 PM »
Anyone know how various stock image companies store their data?

203
Technical Support / Re: Best Methods For Long Term File Storage ??
« on: November 14, 2012, 03:02:21 PM »
f

Certainly, storing them online is a poor answer, companies go out of business, their systems fail, you forget to pay your bill, not a 50 + year solution at all.  In about 2000, my hard drive crashed and everythinng was lost.  I had a one year old backup on CD of my images, and recent backups on floppy disks.
 

While it's true that many online solutions could be risky, I would trust the lifespan of Amazon over a consumer-grade hard drive. We've all had personal hard drives fail. I've also had hosted drives fail too. But the difference was that my online host had a backup system and restored everything without me paying any extra money or doing any extra work.

Ultimately, the best strategy is redundancy. For a home solution, it means arrayed drives (and a fireproof safe). But the level of cost and maintenance on such a system is formidable and you will be doing all of the work of maintenance, organizing, and syncing. And then, presumably, you will need to completely rebuild the system every 10 years or so. And without an associated online solution, you have only local redundancy.

For me, the big difference between a home solution and "hosted" solution is that the host will upgrade their equipment over the years. They will transfer your data and maintain backups. I would never suggest relying exclusively on a cloud host. Never. But let's recognize that storing data is what these companies do; and setting up an equivalent system at home is unrealistic for most photographers.

That said, as someone who has had hosted drives go down, I can understand people's wariness of using an online solution. And it's true that if the host goes down, those crusty backups will be the last line of defense. That was why, for super critical collections, I suggested having two online hosts.

It's all about redundancy and multiple points of failure. No single system will give a high level of reliability. All of these systems involve risk.

204
Technical Support / Re: Best Methods For Long Term File Storage ??
« on: November 13, 2012, 10:23:58 PM »
If money is not an issue, I would go with a "cloud" solution. The main two problems with cloud storage is moving the files and host reliability. The issue of upload/download speed can be solved with a Fios or a fast cable connection. The reliability issue can be solved by having two cloud accounts and also have a local backup. Or you could do the double backup on your end and use a single cloud host.

While it's true that there will be some "bit rot" on large collections being stored over decades of time... unless you are the Smithsonian, I don't see why a little loss would be a major problem.

I think the main problem with long term storage is organization. By using a reliable, long term, cloud host, you can have a single storage solution with easy access and no barriers to organization. All existing "local" storage methods will have limits of both size and ability to organize.

If money is an issue... forget long term storage: carefully pick your favorites and buy cheap arrays. Reliable long term storage for large collections costs money; there's no way around it (at least, not that I know of).

205
Lenses / Re: 50mm
« on: November 09, 2012, 03:29:39 AM »
I would recommend reading this first..

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/01/the-great-50mm-shootout


Thanks for the link! The comparison shows what an amazing price/performance ratio the 50mm f/1.4 has, particularly in the < f/2 range.

I'm in the camp of people who want to add the 50mm f/1.2 L to my quiver. But the f/1.4 generally gets the job done. While shooting with the 50mm f/1.4, I often bump it up to f/1.8-2 range for a small performance boost.

206
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Nikon Sales Rising
« on: November 05, 2012, 02:57:48 AM »
I would rather see Nikon do well than go out of business.

207
For me, the choice of gear always starts with getting inspired. I see a style of photography I want to emulate and then I figure out what gear will help me achieve it.

Here's what I have found...

1. The most important tool is software. I use Lightroom and Photoshop. Lynda and other sites have great tutorials. Magazine tutorials can be helpful too.

2. Light is the most important resource. Anything that will create (speedlights), optimize (ISO, big apertures), or channel light (reflectors, diffusers, locations etc.) has the pottential to dramatically improve your photos.

3. Some of my favorite photographers get their style from knowing how to use their gear toward a certain effect. I could get a Leica and Noctilux 0.95 lens, but my shots might still lack the style I'm going for.

My suggestion would be to go through Flickr and 500px, pick out 20-30 photos that you want to emulate and then use those to make some purchase decisions.

I apologize for being pushy and off-topic, but this approach will put you further down the road to some great shots.

208
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 24-70 f/4L IS Coming [CR3]
« on: October 30, 2012, 05:58:34 PM »
Only if it is cheap and small will it compete against the 24-105mm f/4 (unless of course they discontinue the 24-105mm).

209
Lenses / Re: Guesses on lenses for Photoplus
« on: October 28, 2012, 08:17:31 PM »
1/1,000,000 odds

135mm F/1.8L IS USM.  ;D

+1

What a lens that would be. And it would be heavy, even without the IS.

210
Lenses / Re: Should I sell my 70-200L vii for the 85mm 1.2?
« on: October 21, 2012, 02:26:57 PM »
Maybe its just me - but wouldnt it be extremely difficult to take a portrait with an 85mm @ f/1.2? I find f/2 tough - only the eyes and a few strands of hair are ever in focus and if the subject is angled even a bit, one eye will be oof. 

Surely the 70-200 @ 85mm and f/2.8 gives shallow enough dof and excellent bokeh?? I havent used it only speculating.


Yes, but here are a few techniques for getting focused with the 85mm f/1.2.

1. Autofocus Microadjustments can help when lens AF is not properly calibrated.
2. Shoot multiple shots, pick the best ones.
3. Set a high shutter speed to reduce subject motion.
4. Bump the aperture a bit (f/1.4 to f/2). You will get better sharpness and more blur than you'd get at f/2.8 on a 70-200mm.

Pages: 1 ... 12 13 [14] 15 16 ... 27