April 21, 2014, 06:53:02 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 ... 39 40 [41] 42 43 ... 85
601
Canon General / Re: Desired fantasy gear
« on: May 15, 2013, 11:26:35 AM »
Great call on the focus screen, want one for my 5DIII.

5d3 does not accept focusing screens... damn. But if I get a super focusing screen I will use it on 5d2 or 1dx.

602
Canon General / Re: Desired fantasy gear
« on: May 15, 2013, 11:20:31 AM »
A pocket (jeans) size full frame camera with super sharp 35mm 1.4 lens with an electronic viewfinder, built in flash.
Asking for too much? Ok, loose jeans... :)

603
Canon General / Re: Desired fantasy gear
« on: May 15, 2013, 11:16:21 AM »
I've been waiting two years for Manfrotto's tripod that dispenses super dry, slightly dirty martinis.

I think it's the Queen Olives that are holding the whole thing up.  When are they going to know their customers?  We'll take it now, with Manzanilla olives instead, just put it out already!

We won't wait forever . . . we'll have to sell all of our Manfrotto and go to Miller  ;D

Hahahaha. :)

604
Lenses / Re: Who has pre-ordered or will order 200-400
« on: May 15, 2013, 03:05:56 AM »
Help, I only have one kidney.  I'm conducting a poll: which organ should I sell to finance my 200-400 purchase?
Ah! Had not thought of that! I have a spare kidney and some other parts. Tonsils anyone? ;)

hahhaha

605
EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: Need help with video lighting!!!
« on: May 15, 2013, 03:03:53 AM »
I tried my best but could not figure out what to say.

What are you shooting and for what? On what format?

What is the kind of end result you looking at?

How many crew members? Will you have someone who can hold reflectors, lights or you will have to fix all on stands yourself?

How many lights do you want to use and what power supply do you have?


606
EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: Need help with video lighting!!!
« on: May 15, 2013, 12:56:10 AM »
I am a working DOP and wish I could help. But your question is too loaded.

607
Most advertising is generally fake at some level or the other. True.

608
PowerShot / Re: Two New PowerShot Cameras Leaked
« on: May 13, 2013, 01:40:15 PM »
Puzzling, this S200 looks the same as the S100, yet it jumped by a full 100 model numbers from 100 to 200. Previously we went 90, 100, 110 ... something doesn't add up. What is this camera?

Good point

609
EOS Bodies / Re: 5D Mark III with Continuous RAW Video Recording
« on: May 13, 2013, 01:28:14 PM »
I think a raw shooting DSLR is a very different beast to the C100 / C300, and to be honest I don't think many pros will be making the switch.

I wouldn't yet turn up to a pressured commercial shoot with a hack and raw though - asking for problems.

At the moment raw isn't practical for most projects where practicality / routine reliability comes ahead of image quality / art. The C100 is a very different camera to the 5D Mark III ergonomically and that more so than image quality is why pros love it so much. The broadcast ready codec on the C300 is also a big thing and raw is not a broadcast acquisition format because you cannot edit it fast or just drop it into the BBCs news workflow! The amount of data it generates is phenomenal.

I think the Blackmagic Cinema Camera now has a stern rival, but the Cinema EOS stuff plays in a different part of the park.

I won't be shooting my own short film / music videos on C300 now I have this on the 5D Mark III though. I am an image quality junkie and that matters more to me than the practicalities of getting it working smoothly, and delivering a quick commercial project.

+1

610
Animal Kingdom / Re: Wrong Photography Ethics?
« on: May 13, 2013, 01:14:11 PM »
Those who are capable of making awesome changes/modifications will continue to do so while those who are incapable will continue to crib that it is unethical.


Bingo.

Blanket statements like "compositing is not photography" don't hold up in all cases. HDR photos are composites of several shots. Are they not photography, simply because they were combined after the fact? You could have achieved the same thing if you used a grad-ND filter, so does using a filter mean the photo is 'not photography'? What difference does it make if you did the composite before the click or after?

Also, compositing doesn't always mean introducing something that wasn't there. The photo below is 3 different exposures, composited together in Photoshop. Point to the element that wasn't actually there.




Point superbly made...!

611
Animal Kingdom / Re: Wrong Photography Ethics?
« on: May 13, 2013, 01:11:51 PM »
The camera captured the image as it was through the lens, That is Photography. Editing and tweaking is allowed, but adding element that were not there invalidates that.
IE: This image is Digital art, Not Photography.

Okay, I think I've got it.  When I take a picture of a model in a bikini in front of a beech backdrop with an industrial fan blowing her hair and her head slightly turned to hide the hideous birthmark on her face and holding in her slightly out of shape gut, that's photography (and therefore honest/true) because it came thru the lens, right?

As a side note, the world has always been in color, which has always passed thru the lens, so by this definition black and white photography has never been actual photography.

??? I will never ever believe that BW is not photography. NEVER. :)

612
Animal Kingdom / Re: Wrong Photography Ethics?
« on: May 13, 2013, 01:10:37 PM »
Once you composite images, Its no longer Photography to me.

He didn't ask whether the results of his manipulations met some definition of "photograph" but whether the manipulations he performed were unethical.  Are you saying that he can manipulate all he wants so long as he doesn't call the results "photographs"?

:)

613
Animal Kingdom / Re: Wrong Photography Ethics?
« on: May 13, 2013, 01:10:00 PM »
But it will be fabricated , it's quite hard to have 3 cheetah's pose like that in the wild ;)
I like gerryvanderwalt's view on processing nature images


https://www.youtube.com/user/gerryvanderwalt

Try The McGurk Effect! - Horizon: Is Seeing Believing? - BBC Two ( cannot find link to entire documentary, but : Is seeing believing? is a nice one from BBC horizon!)


The camera captured the image as it was through the lens, That is Photography. Editing and tweaking is allowed, but adding element that were not there invalidates that.
IE: This image is Digital art, Not Photography.


Okay, I think I've got it.  When I take a picture of a model in a bikini in front of a beech backdrop with an industrial fan blowing her hair and her head slightly turned to hide the hideous birthmark on her face and holding in her slightly out of shape gut, that's photography (and therefore honest/true) because it came thru the lens, right?

As a side note, the world has always been in color, which has always passed thru the lens, so by this definition black and white photography has never been actual photography.



Thanks for the links - very nice! And I also enjoyed your website. :)

614
Animal Kingdom / Re: Wrong Photography Ethics?
« on: May 13, 2013, 01:05:10 PM »
I heard something on the radio yesterday - along the lines of techno electro pop fusion. It was created de novo on a computer, no instruments were used at all.  The DJ called it a song. I bet if I'd Shazam'd it, I'd have found it on iTunes.  Was it music?  Is the person who produced it a musician or a programmer?  Does it matter?

Its true, it does not matter as long as it is music to the ears. :)

615
Animal Kingdom / Re: Wrong Photography Ethics?
« on: May 13, 2013, 01:03:18 PM »
I much prefer the altered image. I'm not sure the clouds were *needed*, but I like them and all the other changes, including the removal of those ugly, distracting, scruffy bushes/trees.  Cheating? Sure, if the sole point of taking a photograph is to show what you were able to make of the scene in front of you using nothing but your ability to interact with a particular lens/camera combination. 

Part of me wants to say that displaying skill/technique is part of the point of the exercise, and that adding interesting subjects and removing boring/ugly ones is as "wrong" as a recording where a pianist who hits 97 wrong notes is able to "fix" it by splicing in correct ones, or where a famous soprano's (Flagstad) high Cs were in fact sung by someone else (Schwarzkopf) and dubbed in.

Another part of me, though, wants to say that photography is different.  Leaving aside honest/accurate reporting, photography is inherently deceptive/manipulative - if you can't "improve" on reality, why bother photographing it in the first place?  The real thing looks better than any attempt at providing a neutral report of it.  For many photographers, the best lenses are those which allow the shallowest depth of field.  Why do we want them?  So we can distort reality and make it appear that the subject is surrounded, not by distracting or ugly details, but by smears of light and colour.  The same is true of wide angle lenses and long telephoto lenses - we want the distortions they provide.  Compared to what all these lenses do, removing a few ugly bushes after the fact seems rather trivial.

Yes....!!! As photographer I want to present everything the best it can be. Regards.

Pages: 1 ... 39 40 [41] 42 43 ... 85