March 06, 2015, 06:29:01 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 - Skirball

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 30
Software & Accessories / Re: What monitor????
« on: January 20, 2015, 06:02:36 PM »
How is the user experience with the UHD displays?  As far as lag and refresh rate.  I read some articles last year that a lot of computers would choke on all the data, needing special cords, GPU, etc.  Didn't know if that's still applicable or if things have changed.

I've got a pretty good desktop at home (Haswell 4770k, 16gb, SSD, etc), no GPU but I'd get one.  I just want to make sure that I can still quickly sort through photos in LR and quickly kick them to PS.  The higher resolution just isn't worth it if it slows me down.

Any of you have the P2715Q?

Post Processing / Re: Choose a Monitor?
« on: January 20, 2015, 04:22:07 PM »
If you're willing to go up to say, $700, you could get that in a 27".  Dell P2715q.

Some people shun Dell, and go toward Eizo or NEC or whatnot.  But that's out of your budget.  Dell makes a decent middle of the road (but still far better than standard) monitor, in my opinion.

Been doing some shopping myself lately. Just noticed the P2715Q is on sell for $524.99, so I jumped on it yesterday.

Wait, where?

Edit - nevermind.  Wow, straight from Dell, who would have guessed.  A good $100 cheaper than online retailers.

Post Processing / Re: Choose a Monitor?
« on: January 20, 2015, 04:21:49 PM »
I've not a clue what a monitor costs that will do a good job on images ... I have an idea what monitors cost, but that doesn't help me. Generally, as soon as an OP asks a Q like this - the first of many replies say:  "What's your budget" ... so, I guessed at mid-range monitors, wondering if a monitor cost matters much - Why buy a $10K monitor if I don't need it, but yes, buy one if that's what it takes.  That's my dilemma - and why I asked guys that know the technology better than me.   I'm not, nor will I ever be, a 'cheapie' when it come to my gear or satisfying my clients.   

My question is always, "What will do the job well, not how cheap can I do it."  Sorry if that wasn't clear to some of you.

I really wasn't intending to criticize you on it, just pointing out a common line of thinking.  I've followed the same, up till now, and am in the same boat as you.  In my opinion the Dell UHD line is a nice midpoint between the high end, and the cheap standards.  Many disagree.

In my opinion IPS is worth it.  And it's probably worth it for most anyone who values things like full frame sensors and good glass. 

Resolution is a personal choice.  I've never had a UHD, but I'd like to give it a try.  Just make sure you've read up a bit on the requirements for 4k; make sure your computer can support it.  And you can deal with possible scaling issues.

Other than that is just choosing size and brand.  Again, some may hate Dell, but I think they make a decent product (so long as you're not getting the low line stuff they sell).   Based on your size needs, I'd recommend the 27" Dell, if you're ok with UHD.

Post Processing / Re: Choose a Monitor?
« on: January 20, 2015, 01:37:28 PM »
Shoot with a 7D2 and a 5DM3 w/ all "L" zoom lenses ... if that matters ?

It doesn't matter as far as you're editing is concerned.  But I will point out that you have over $5000 worth of camera - two of the best that Canon makes, and who knows how much in L lenses.  Maybe you should give yourself a bit more leeway in budget for a monitor?

If you're happy with 24" you can get a good monitor.  Not upper end, but not basic level either.  IPS for good color and consistent viewing angle.  Ultra HD display, so even though it's only 24" you can pack a lot more on the screen.  Have a look at the Dell P2415Q, you can find it for $500 if you look.

If you're willing to go up to say, $700, you could get that in a 27".  Dell P2715q.

Some people shun Dell, and go toward Eizo or NEC or whatnot.  But that's out of your budget.  Dell makes a decent middle of the road (but still far better than standard) monitor, in my opinion.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Body + lens for design office
« on: January 20, 2015, 12:52:11 PM »
I don't see why you'd get anything above a Rebel; it'll work find for your use.  If you're using in the studio with lights, for static subjects, there's not going to be much difference with higher end lines.  Even the lack of AFMA, isn't going to matter much for product shots.  Portraits?  Maybe, but I'm guessing we're not talking high end portraits here.

I don't know if one lens will do it all.  You say wider than 50, but for product shots?  You're really going to want a macro lens.  I prefer working with a 100mm, but the 60mm macro is a good choice if you're concerned about your working space.  You could also shoot portraits with it.  Then use the 17-55 kit lens if you really need wide.  You can stop down and it'll be just fine.  If you end up wanting wide and wide aperture you'll have to get a wide prime or step up to an expensive lens.

Get a couple of Yonguo 560 III (or IV).  They're $70 and have a RF receiver built in.  Then get either an RF-602 or RF-603 transmitter.  Best thing going for non-eTTL use.

I would recommend shooting on a tripod indoors/studio.

Lighting / Re: On Camera Flash Diffusers For Fill
« on: January 19, 2015, 05:06:04 PM »
I tried the foam thingy at home just to give it a go, and it seems to have worked fine.  But any time I've done it while actually out shooting I've grabbed any old piece of whitish paper and wrapped it around my flash (I keep hair ties on all my flashes).  Worked as good as a foam thingy.

I don't shoot on-camera flash enough to drag around yet another piece of gear, and it's usually not hard to find a white piece of paper

Post Processing / Re: simple before and after architecture photo
« on: January 19, 2015, 01:05:14 PM »
Only am I think the perspective correction is exaggerated? When I see pictures of buildings, seen from below, I hope the top look more narrow, the way my eyes see.

If the top seems wider, it is unpleasant to my eyes.

It takes getting used to, but eventually not having straight verticals bothers you more than the exaggerated look.  If you work in the architectural/Real Estate world, you get used to it, as it's just how it's done.

EOS Bodies / Re: NEW CAMERA - EOS 80D?
« on: January 15, 2015, 04:06:26 PM »
I love going back and reading comments in threads like these after the truth has been revealed.

Software & Accessories / Re: Photo Editing Laptop Recommendations
« on: January 14, 2015, 01:58:28 PM »
I recently purchased a Lenovo Thinkpad W540, i7-4700MQ, 16 GB RAM, 1 TB drive, with a 15.5" IPS 2880x1620 non-glare display.  Also came with a built-in xRite color sensor.  The display and sensor was a big selling point for me and it works great.

I have had issues with the Intel 7260 single-band wifi card.  Might want to try a different one.

Be careful.  Do some research first.  If it's not a Lenovo approved card, the BIOS will not allow it to work.  Your best best is to get it replaced under warranty first or switch to a different WiFi module that Lenovo sells for that laptop.

For a WiFi card?  Interesting.  I didn't realize that laptop manufacturers put that kind of control on upgrades.  I assume they do this to force you to buy their recommended parts instead of cheaper ones?

Software & Accessories / Re: Photo Editing Laptop Recommendations
« on: January 13, 2015, 04:55:37 PM »
Thanks for the replies.

Regarding Apple vs. Windows PC, I am open to looking at a Mac, just don't have any experience with them.  Would I need to purchase new copies of my software (MS Office, LR5, PSE13)?

I'm less inclined to purchase a desktop, even though I know you can get more computer for the money.  I travel often for business and don't spend much time at home.

All I had to do was call support and they gave me a link to download a mac version from adobe . It was a 45min  fight with Microsoft but they gave it to me. I just wish I would have changed 10 years earlier.
May not be that easy now, that was several years ago. Good luck

I don't know if Adobe still allows a platform swap now that they moved to the cloud.  But they might.

As far as switching to Mac - why?  If you love the OS, then by all means.  But otherwise, why move to a new platform you're unfamiliar with, that will also cost more for the equipment.  Photoshop, Lightroom and anything else are going to perform the same, regardless of the OS.

Software & Accessories / Re: Photo Editing Laptop Recommendations
« on: January 13, 2015, 12:02:55 PM »
The laptop computer I use for most of my photo editing is nearing the end of its useful life.  It's over 5-years old now and starting to act erratically.  I recently reformatted the hard drive and re installed everything and its working better, but I am planning to replace it this year.

I'm looking for recommendations, my budget is roughly $3K.  I only have experience with Windows PC's, so I will probably be looking in that direction instead of a Mac.

Does it have to be a laptop?  For that budget you could have a top of the line desktop and IPS monitor.  You could do it for much less too, if you'd like

I just got my kid an office-grade desktop (SSD, i7, 32GB RAM) and Windows 8.1 takes a LOT of getting used to; it's frustrating because I can set up a Win7 box so an XP user can find everything in 20 minutes.

Agreed, but the key word there is office grade.  Windows still dominates the work place, and will most likely continue to do so.  So unless Microsoft gives up on the new interface style, or decides to maintain two styles, one for personal/tablets and one for professional use, you're going to have to learn it sooner or later.

I dislike how Windows 8 looks, unless that has some big advantages I've missed, they're the same price so I'm happy to be converted to the newer OS.

I stuck with Win 7 for my desktop for similar reasons.  There are some minor advantages to 8, but in my opinion they're not significant.  The biggest reason I considered 8 was that the base version can go over 16 gigs of RAM, but that's not going to be an issue on your laptop.  Win 8 can start up a bit faster, but I find Win 7 with an SSD to be plenty fast enough.  Win 8 claims to have minor performance gains, but I can't imagine it's significant, otherwise there'd be a lot more hoopla over it.

I intend to add another 8GB of RAM in a year or so, prices will hopefully have fallen, and it spreads the cost out.

If you're putting your own RAM in it shouldn't be that expensive.  But you can get by with 8 for awhile (but make sure you have the 240 gb for scratch).

As for SSD, I'm going to and fro between 120GB and 240GB, again for price.

I would save until I could afford the 240.  I just can't imagine dealing with a 120.  Just your OS, programs, and some music, photos, and a few movies can fill that up pretty quick.  And that doesn't leave any room for Scratch or work in progress.

Rather than start yet another which laptop thread, I thought it might be better to revive this one. How important is a graphics card for use with lightroom, maybe elements in the future and potentially a small amount of video editing? The cards below are the two I am looking at.

I have almost no experience with video, but for stills it doesn't matter - assuming you have a modern CPU with integrated GPU.  I use the integrated GPU (Intel 4770k) in my desktop and it runs Photoshop CS6 and Lightroom smooth as butter.  Based on the research I did at the time I built my PC, unless you get a really high end video card, it doesn't make a difference for stills editing.  Even then, the difference was that the high end GPU would run such and such a filter 0.2 seconds faster than the integrated card.  That kind of stuff doesn't bother me, so long as it can edit large documents smoothly without stutter and quickly select through photos.

And +1 to everything Rusty said above about the desktop vs. laptop.  If you have no choice but to choose a laptop, then deal with what you can get.  But as far as value, a laptop can't come close to competing with a desktop.  And a desktop is much easier to upgrade down the line.   I have to use my laptop, and I make it work.  But when I have a lot of editing to do I wait until I'm at my desktop.

EOS Bodies / Re: 6D HDR problem
« on: January 08, 2015, 04:24:51 PM »
Also, you can take some solace in knowing that Canon's top dog, the 1D X doesn't even have the HDR feature :)

I'd also guess that the majority of 1Dx owners would prefer the control of doing it in post over in-camera.  Then again, I'd like to think that 6D and 5d owners feel the same.

Wanting it in RAW makes it even more a mystery to me.  If you shoot RAW then obviously you post process.  If you PP, why wouldn't you want to do your HDR in post?

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 30