July 29, 2014, 03:05:02 AM

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 - sanj

Pages: 1 ... 34 35 [36] 37 38 ... 97
526
Technical Support / Re: Questions about PSD to JPEG conversion for Web.
« on: November 01, 2013, 11:49:00 PM »
Thank you Atonegro

527
EOS Bodies / Re: EOS-1 Announcement Q2 2014? [CR1]
« on: November 01, 2013, 01:59:49 PM »
The new EOS-1 body is amazing and a big step over the 1D X. I like it.

Absolutely agree. Me too.

528
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Dynamic range Nikon/Sony vs Canon
« on: November 01, 2013, 08:49:01 AM »
Great explanation Neuro. Yet again!

529
EOS Bodies / Re: EOS-1 Announcement Q2 2014? [CR1]
« on: November 01, 2013, 08:43:05 AM »
I never realized that 1d series drops in price before a new model is announced. Now I know!

530
Technical Support / Re: Questions about PSD to JPEG conversion for Web.
« on: November 01, 2013, 08:36:10 AM »
Thank you Neuro! I appreciate. It helps so much! I had read Juza's procedure but I think it is dated. Do read and tell me your thoughts if you can.
http://www.juzaphoto.com/article.php?l=en&article=28

And yes, the car is yellow. :)

531
Technical Support / Questions about PSD to JPEG conversion for Web.
« on: November 01, 2013, 04:21:00 AM »
Hello.
I want to add photos to my website and am figuring out the best way to save .psd files for web. There is too much of conflicting and perhaps dated information on Internet so am requesting you all knowledgeable persons for help.

I will tell you my current procedure and questions in details for you to comment properly
Photoshop Version CS5 extended.

Step 1: I reduce image size to width 1200 pixels.
I leave the resolution to whatever it shows. On my sample photo it reads 240 pixels/inch.
QUESTION 1: Someone told me it should be 72. Others said it just does not matter! Does this make the saved file larger than what it needs to be for web? Would higher resolution not be better? What should the resolution be at?
I resample image to Bicubic (best for smooth gradients)
QUESTION 2: Is Bicubic (best for smooth gradients) the best option or should I use bicubic sharper (best for reduction) as I am indeed reducing size?

Step 2: I apply Smart Sharpen
As size reduction is supposed to cause sharpness loss. (I learnt this at the famous KR site). Settings of Smart Sharpen Filter: Amount 100. Radius .2. Remove Lens Blur. (I must admit I do this blindly to all photos regardless of their inherent sharpness levels.)
CONFUSION: Supposing I used Bicubic sharper in step 2, could I avoid this step?

Step 3: Save for Web and Devices.
Settings: Quality 100. Progressive. Convert to sRGB. Image quality: Bicubic.
QUESTION 3: Should quality be 100 or 70? I read somewhere that 70 gives best quality/file size balance…
QUESTION 4: Should I tick Progressive or Optimized? What is the difference?
QUESTION 5: Why do I convert it to sRGB?

Some of this may be basic for you but any and all help you provide will be appreciated. Also let me know if you can direct me to a website that you think describes the process perfectly.


THX.


Sanjay

532
I'd much prefer the 24-105mmL for way less, they often pop up for $650.  The longer focal length range makes up for the very tiny difference in MTF.  I have the 24-70 f/2.8 MK II.

The distortion in the 24-105 makes it much less useful than it could have been.

Also, if they discontinue the 24-105L it might even (temporarily) increase demand for it, meaning I could sell it for a bit more than I paid! Bonus!  ;)
...
I'm interested in how that new Sigma is going to perform at the wide end. It could be the answer a lot of people are looking for.  ???

You might find that the release of Sigma's lens impacts the ability of you to sell the Canon one at the price you want...

Nope. Bought my 24-105L second hand for a very reasonable price. In Japan the 24-105L sells really well and for about ¥75,000 used, (which is more than what I paid). At the very least I'll get 95% money back. Cheaper than renting for the same period so I'd still be happy with that. The Sigma stuff is expensive over here for some reason. The 35mm went back up to ¥89,000 on amazon (¥99,000 in stores). Doubt the new Sigma 24-105 will be much different. The cheaper option will still be the Canon. People like cheaper.

The same was said about the Sigma 18-35 1.8 vs the 17-55 but I managed to sell my 17-55 for the price I wanted. People will pay for the stuff that is tried and tested and same brand. Brand loyalty is a big thing over here in Japan.

Everywhere! This also applies to rental business. I rent my gear out and for me buying an 'expensive' canon lens is 'cheaper' in long run as Canon gear will rent out, not off brand even if it may be better....

533
That tells me the 24-105 is not dead yet.
Despite all of the griping we've heard ever since the introduction of the 24-70/4, there has never been any indication from Canon that the 24-70/4 would replace the 24-105/4.  They are different lenses and it makes good sense to keep both in the product line.  Canon offers many similar products that overlap but don't replace each other.  I would sooner expect a version II of the popular 24-105/4 than its discontinuation.

yep

534
I am amongst the people who prefer the additional range.

And I just got a mail from Canon saying this kit is in addition to 24-105. That tells me the 24-105 is not dead yet.

535
Do cameras come with only one kit lens? I mean is it possible that 5d3 is available with either lens as kit? Or has the kit with 24-105 discontinued?
24-105 is a very useful range to me.

536
Lenses / Re: Hello Old Friend.
« on: October 29, 2013, 10:28:59 AM »
Nice story. :)

537
Thanks for the introduction.

538
I have been trying to gift my daughter the 1000D camera for a while now. She outright shows disinterest. She says she is very happy with her old point shoot camera and even the camera on her ipad. She is 16. She takes photos all the time and posts in face book, instagram etc.
She sees me buying top cameras all the time...

I am sure there are lots other like her.

That is exactly what is happening. More and more photos are being pushed online and on FB people are getting less and less concerned about the IQ. The photos have turned into record shots to be shared with everyone.

For any special occasion you will be invited with a caveat - "make sure to bring your camera along"

Disregard for quality will bite them back in the ass. In a few years (display upgrades), it will bite them back in the ass like knock off polaroid film made some family memories disapear.

Their loss. (as long as it doesn't bankrupt or misguide Canon).

"Quality" is so so subjective.

539
Canon General / Re: Consumer DSLRs "dead in 5 years"
« on: October 29, 2013, 02:52:29 AM »
DSLR-like ... looks like a DSLR ... operates like a DSLR ... handles like a DSLR ... only perceivable difference is an EVF instead of an OVF ... Olympus E-M5 and E-M1; Panasonic G3, G5, G6, GH2 and GH3; and Sony A7 and A7r.

So...the AF capabilities of all the cameras listed, in terms of speed and accuracy including tracking of moving subjects, are the equal of current dSLRs such as the 70D or 5DIII?  Or would one perceive a difference?

Frankly, I wouldn't know ... as I own none of those cameras, but have used the E-M5. The Olympus certainly is better at AF than the xxxD series cameras that I've handled. But don't pick one aspect and then use that to trash the mirrorless concept. Rather look at the future potential.

I too believe that looking at future potential is the key in this discussion. Surprising things are happening everyday including the amazing quality coming out of smaller sensors. Quality which is totally acceptable by general people. Auto focus of mirror less cameras will improve soon for sure. But I feel that even current auto focus is acceptable my many consumers...

540
EOS Bodies / Re: EOS 7D Mark II Spec List Surfaces [CR1]
« on: October 29, 2013, 02:34:08 AM »
that would also negatively affect 6D, 5DIII and 1dX sales.

How?


Pages: 1 ... 34 35 [36] 37 38 ... 97