August 01, 2014, 03:06:45 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 - canon816

Pages: 1 ... 10 11 [12] 13 14 15
166
Lenses / Re: Keep 70-200 f4 IS or go for f2.8 IS II?
« on: July 20, 2012, 03:32:52 PM »
http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/999/cat/11

http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/57/cat/11

Check out SLR Gear reviews on these lenses.  Take a look at the Blur Charts that represent IQ.
Surprisingly the f4 lens has slightly better IQ, but with much less weight.  Unless you need f2.8... I wouldn't upgrade at all. 

I own the 70-200 F4is and the 300mm f2.8is.  The only lens I have ever used that even comes close to the 300... is the f4 70-200.


167
EOS Bodies / Re: Should I get 7D now or wait for MKII?
« on: July 09, 2012, 09:14:28 PM »
Thanks for all the great advice guys!! much appreciated!!

I don't think I'm gonna wait for the 7D MKII anymore. lol

Gonna be picking up the 7D in a week or so.  ;D

really looking forward getting into Photography! :D

Congratulations!!!

168
Many of us have thought about it.  But my investment in Canon glass makes it really tough to make the jump.  Also, you won't really be gaining any advantage to jump to Nikon.  Or from Nikon to Canon for that matter.

Both companies make excellent products that perform exceptionally well. 

If I were to be just getting into photography I would make the decision the same way I made it  5 years ago.... Which brand felt more ergonomic in my hand.  The Canon seemed to fit like a glove and the Nikon just wasn't quite right. 

I get a kick out of the venom that is spit from one camp to the other... but the reality is... if you are in either canon or nikon... you made the right choice.   ;D

169
EOS Bodies / Re: Should I get 7D now or wait for MKII?
« on: July 09, 2012, 01:38:31 PM »
Hey guys! I'm new to this forum and new to Photography. I've always loved taking pictures of landscape,cars,people, and just random stuff. Lol So I decided that it's time for me to grab a decent DSLR.

I'm completely new to DSLR's and photography. Still doing a lot of reading and learning on which camera I should go with. Based on the stuff I've read and learned I'm leaning towards getting the 7D. But I'm concerned that when I get the 7D now couple of months later down the road the new rumored 7D MKII comes out.

So my question is should I wait for the 7D MKII (why?) or I should just get the 7D?

Good grief.... Go buy a camera and make some images.  Or better yet.... I heard the 7D Mark III will be out in 5-6 years... maybe wait for that??

Sorry.  Don't mean to be rude but this thread seems to get started once a week.  Everyone gets too fixated on whats going to come out.  So if the 7DII comes out in a year does that render the 7D obsolete?  Are the 40D and 50D no longer good cameras?  Will my Rebel XSI no longer take images worth keeping now that there have been several generations of rebel since 2008?

My advice to you:  Go buy a decent camera (7D is great) and use your spare funds to buy some lenses and go explore the world of dSLR photography.  And have tons and tons of fun doing it!  Best of luck with whatever setup you decide on.  Enjoy!

170
5D MK III Sample Images / Re: Real Estate Photography 5D mkIII
« on: July 08, 2012, 08:54:49 AM »
The problem I have with JPEG, other then the limited data it captures for a scene, is that every time you copy it, edit it, or save it the file is degraded and IQ suffers.  If its a one time job then JPEG might make sense, but if you are trying to create an amazing image and hope to refer back to it many times over the years then your image will break down over time if JPEG.  Also, as editing tech improves all that extra data in a DNG file can be exploited to improve your image....   DNG never degrades with copying, editing etc... It's timeless and a hedge that editing software in the future will be able draw more out of the data.   

Hard drive space is so cheap these days that the filesize of RAW does not bother me one bit.  Also, I cull images that I will never use or that were not as good as one that is similar or if it is OOF, etc...

The argument shooting JPEG over RAW due to Harddrive space is a silly one.  Our camera kits contain thousands of dollars worth of camera bodies, lenses and accessories.... yet it's too expensive to go to costco or best buy and drop $120 on 2 Terabytes of storage!?  Even CF and SD cards are relatively cheap especially when considering the old days of shooting film.

A funny story on that though.  My mom switched to digital a few years back.  Just point and shoot for fun.  I found out that she had over 20 2GB SD cards and asked why she had so many.  Her response.... because they kept filling up!  LOVE IT!!! (Still cheaper then film....  ::) )

171
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Argh! Photos don't look like 7D photos.
« on: July 07, 2012, 01:38:20 PM »
As was previously recommended, try to have the sun behind the subject.

I think what photophreek meant to say was try to have the sun behind the you (the photographer) so your subjects are facing the sun and have more even lighting on their face.

Unless I am wrong with this assumption and photophreek was suggesting backlighting to produce a nice rim-light effect around your subject...  Much harder to pull off though... :o

172
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Argh! Photos don't look like 7D photos.
« on: July 06, 2012, 09:21:28 PM »
Also, always be mindful of where your light source is.  Unless you are going for a specific effect with side or back lighting try to keep your back to the sun so that there is even lighting on faces etc...  Even in harsh mid day light you can increase your chances of a decent photo by eliminating harsh shadows over facial features. 

If you are trying to isolate your subject more from the back ground shoot at a wider aperture (smaller f stop number), longer focal length and fill the frame with your subject. 

When your camera is set to AWB it is always trying to figure out what neutral gray is and bases all other colors off of this assumption.  Sometimes a simple WB adjustment in post to "warm" up the scene will help with the harsh lighting and overpower the tones that make skin look pale.

Biggest thing.... shoot, shoot, shoot.  And in a wide variety of light.  Go out at sunrise and sunset, shoot when overcast etc....  You'll figure it out.  Your camera and lens are just fine so have tons of fun learning...  :)

173
5D MK III Sample Images / Re: Real Estate Photography 5D mkIII
« on: July 06, 2012, 07:14:45 PM »
Do any of your clients gripe about the light and dark halos and shadows, as seen in your 3rd shot next to the windows and doorways...

No.  I try to keep halos and shadows to a minimum, although sometimes they still shine through.  A curse (and blessing at times) with the MLS system is that the images are displayed at a very small size and resolution when potential home buyers are searching.  For my clients to have 25 professional looking images posted for their home or listing it really sets their house apart from the homes with 3 crappy pics snapped with a smart phone. 

If my clients are looking to print anything of any size, I spend a little more time cleaning up images for print.

I will admit, that to keep my pricing fair and my turn-around time short I have set up a semi automatic workflow process that keeps my "hands on" editing to a minimum.  While the HDR artifacts are not completely absent the images do look quite clean for the most part and clients feel like they get good bang for the buck.

I understand where you are coming from when you mention time input with editing compared to income, so I try to provide the best product I can for a reasonable price.  On a typical 2,000 square foot home I spend about an hour shooting, let my computer batch process for an hour, and then about 40 min-60 min in post polishing the final HDR images.  Clients end up with about 35 photos depending on the house and grounds....

174
5D MK III Sample Images / Re: Real Estate Photography 5D mkIII
« on: July 06, 2012, 07:05:41 PM »
canon816 - I must admit, I think your photos for HDR look very natural.  I am pleased to see that HDR can produce such pleasing quality..excellent work.

Thanks Revup67.  I have struggled with many programs and settings to find more natural looking HDR effects.  I must admit is a constant battle, but I do like the final product better then non HDR (For real estate) when it comes out with a nice natural look.  Personally, I do not like the "HDR" look when images are over processed and end up looking more like graffiti art then photography.  Although, some folks can even make that look beautiful....   

175
5D MK III Sample Images / Re: Real Estate Photography 5D mkIII
« on: July 05, 2012, 09:28:19 AM »
My hatred for HDR grows a bit more everyday.  Even so, there's a few really good ones here.  Maybe I shouldn't have used "HDR" as my tag search in flickr.  I guess in the hands of a master, they are ok, but 99% go into the trash.  I'm tempted to get an HDR addon for Lightroom to learn how to do it properly.

If you hate the "HDR look" effect, then I recommend Enfuse as a lightroon addon. 

It is very natural, easy to use... and cheap.  (Donation only).

Good luck.

176
5D MK III Sample Images / Re: Real Estate Photography 5D mkIII
« on: July 04, 2012, 10:26:46 PM »
canon 816 that looks really slick! very natural feel I'm gonna have to give that program a try, It looks like colours arent getting out of whack, did you have to do much with its output afterwards to clean up the whites or fix up colour shifts?

I don't have too much trouble with white balance as I rarely shoot with lights on in a house.  I find that multiple temperature light sources wreak havoc on white balance and it is a huge pain to selectively deal with WB issues that vary throughout a single image. 

What I do spend time on is brightening up dark areas of the image.  I find that the HDR software can do this but at the risk of an un-natural look and more haloing.  So I use Lightroom to bring out details in darker areas.  I also adjust contrast and remove wide angle distortion if applicable.

EasyHDR does a decent job at keeping colors true.  I have shot many houses in many different situations.  (sun, rain, mid day, evening, morning, fog, haze, snow, overcast etc..) and every situation requires a little different type of finesse with LR after HDR processing.

177
5D MK III Sample Images / Re: Real Estate Photography 5D mkIII
« on: July 04, 2012, 11:04:44 AM »
I should mention that I shoot 5 exposures from -4 to +4EV and spaced at 2EV and generally use the "natural bright" setting in EASYHDR.

178
5D MK III Sample Images / Re: Real Estate Photography 5D mkIII
« on: July 04, 2012, 10:56:59 AM »
I use HDR for real estate photography and it certainly is a fine line to walk between an appealing HDR rendering and something that looks too artsy. 

The realtors I work really enjoy the dynamic range that HDR captures while at the same time they prefer more natural looking images. 

I own Photomatix, Enfuse, NIK, PS5, EasyHDR and have demo'd several other programs.   Each program has strengths and weaknesses.  I have found that EasyHDR works the best at producing as natural an image as possible while retaining a nice wide dynamic range with nice color tones.  Enfuse is my second choice although it does not produce DR well when shooting in a room with a very bright exterior through the windows.

No matter what HDR program I use the final image requires a fair amount of polishing with Lightroom to finalize.  No program is perfect. 

Here are a few images I have made with EasyHDR for real estate clients.  I can only post 4 it seems so I limited it to interiors and just grabbed a few off my website. If anyone would like to see exteriors I can post a few with EasyHDR as well:

179
Lenses / Re: Good, inexpensive zoom lens? Beginner here.
« on: July 02, 2012, 08:27:18 PM »
I didnt read the entire thread, so I don't know if this was already mentioned or not but Canon makes a 70-200 F4L lens for $700 brand new.  You might find one second hand for your $500 budget range.

It does not have IS, but optically it is one of the sharpest lenses canon currently produces.  I would not hesitate at all to get this lens.  IS is great, but if you are going to shoot at at least 1/200 or faster at max focal length on this lens and develop steady handling you certainly don't need it.

Just my 2 cents worth....

180
Don't know what your budget is, but you could go old school and pick up a Canon 500mm f/4.5 or Canon 600mm f/4 lens.  Neither have IS, but optically they will knock the socks off of any prime lens Sigma currently makes in that same prime focal length.

Depending on what your budget is and what condition you find acceptable you could find something for 3-4k range.  They pop up frequently enough on e-Bay and Fred Miranda.

I bought an old NON-IS 600mm 6 months ago and it is an outstanding lens and $10K less then the new one...  :P

Pages: 1 ... 10 11 [12] 13 14 15