Messages

421

Black & White / Re: Black & White

« on: August 10, 2012, 02:30:40 PM »

Brilliant! The second alomost seem like it has been made as a lumography and then converted to b&w

422

Software & Accessories / Canon Pixma Pro 1

« on: August 10, 2012, 02:20:24 PM »

Has anyone here tried this printer? Is it really as good as the product info suggest. I am tempted to get pro quality at A3 size for such a relatively low price.

G.

423

Lenses / Re: Lens Filters etc.

« on: August 09, 2012, 04:21:30 PM »

You cannot replicate a polarizer in Photoshop. GND yes, CPL, no.

Ok? Why? Is it because the informaton on the RAW file is insuffisient, thus not giving you the range to tweak in pp? I thought that you could alter the type of saturation through masking afterwards. If this is right, and I am not suggesting that you and Neuro are wrong, means that I will have to get a CPL for all my lenses, before I take a plunge into Lee.

When you boost saturation in Photoshop, you can introduce noise, artifacts, and other funky undesired effects. If you do it via physical filter, the saturation is real and looks better.I guess its kinda like digital zoom vs optical zoom. If you "zoom" digitally your really just making things worse. The only way to get a good result is to make the modification before the capture.

Thank you. That makes a lot of sense and a good comparison to the digital vs. the optical zoom:)

424

Lenses / Re: Lens Filters etc.

« on: August 09, 2012, 03:42:09 PM »

You cannot replicate a polarizer in Photoshop. GND yes, CPL, no.

Ok? Why? Is it because the informaton on the RAW file is insuffisient, thus not giving you the range to tweak in pp? I thought that you could alter the type of saturation through masking afterwards. If this is right, and I am not suggesting that you and Neuro are wrong, means that I will have to get a CPL for all my lenses, before I take a plunge into Lee.

425

Lenses / Re: Lens Filters etc.

« on: August 09, 2012, 03:29:36 PM »

With a dSLR, only 4 types of filters are useful (not counting special effects things like starburst filters):

• UV/clear - Protection of the front element (there are many debates on the utility of this, and regardless of filter, you should use a hood).  Personally, I have B+W MRC UV filters on almost all my lenses (except the 40/2.8 pancake)
• Circular polarizer - increase saturation, reduce reflections
• Neutral density - slow shutter speeds on bright days (moving water, etc.), shooting fast primes wide open outdoors for portraits
• Grad ND - controlling sky vs. ground exposure, these should be the rectangular ones, not screw-in circular filters

Cheap filters will reduce IQ, not improve it.  The effects of CPLs and NDs can't be replicated in post, grad ND's maybe with HDR but it's not the same effect.

I am a bit puzzled.. I have UV protection filters on all my lenses for protection, and Circular ND, and CPL. It is the latter where I am now confused. I thought that the effects you get using a CPL could all be replicated in pp if you shoot in RAW (except for reflections, unless you are very skilled in photoshop). I have mainly used it for for reflections, although I like the saturation they give.

426

Portrait / Re: Need some Photoshop/Editing help

« on: August 07, 2012, 05:58:13 PM »

I'm no expert on this. Do you use CS 6? If so, you have a content aware spot healing brush tool, or the content aware patch tool. I think that is probably an easier way. I agree with SandyP that you should work in 100-200, and zoom back and forth to see the whole picture several times. 

427

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Camera Crossroads :)

« on: August 02, 2012, 02:11:09 PM »

I am not in your league, being a amateur (with a few paid gigs a year). However, I think it is hard to weigh in given that I don't know your sports (wast difference if it is soccer, American footbal, or basket), so it is hard to know your range requirements. Is the sports you shoot fast sports? If so, I would opt for another 1DX, then you have two 1DX with a 70-200 F2.8 IS II on one, and a 500 on the other?

428

Lenses / Re: Canon EF 135 f/1.8L IS

« on: August 01, 2012, 05:20:02 PM »

So a quick round-up:

http://www.canonrumors.com/2012/02/more-lens-suggestions-cr1/ - 135 f/1.8 L IS mentioned

http://www.canonrumors.com/2011/12/canon-files-a-patent-for-a-bunch-of-lenses/ - 135 f/2 metioned

http://www.canonrumors.com/2011/04/a-random-roadmap-lenses-body-cr1/ - 135 f/2 II mentioned

http://www.canonrumors.com/2011/02/what-next/ - 135 f/1.8 L mentioned

http://www.canonrumors.com/2011/01/new-l-primes-cr2/ - just post mentioning upgrade of current model

http://www.canonrumors.com/2010/05/50l-85l-135l-to-get-upgraded-cr1/ - 135 f/2 L IS mentioned

http://www.canonrumors.com/2010/05/ef-135-f1-8l-is-cr1/ - 135 f/1.8 L IS mentioned, also mentioned that 2 versions were tested

So let me count (in last 2 years):
3 posts mentioning 135 f/1.8 L IS (including current one)
1 post mentioning 135 f/1.8 L
1 posts mentioning 135 f/2 L IS
2 posts mentioning 135 f/2 L II
and 1 without given aperture and IS info.

Lenses are quiet hard to preddict but rumors say that there are 4 possible versions:

• 135 f/1.8 L IS
• 135 f/1.8 L
• 135 f/2 L IS
• 135 f/2 L II

So summarizing your findings we are 100% sure, that such a lens exists or doesn't exist.

+ 1. Brilliant humor. Reminds me of my old professor who stated that calling people average was just mean.

429

Lenses / Re: Canon 85 1.8 vs. Sigma 85 1.4

« on: August 01, 2012, 04:14:10 PM »

Regarding AI Focus, you would think that with the word "focus" in the description that this setting would get you the best focus...but it surely doesn't...it's far and away the worst setting of the three.

It's really interesting when you think about it....you have this company that spends tens of thousands of hours of time and countless dollars developing and testing their product, and then they put a function in the product (ai focus in this case) that just doesn't work well.   It makes you think, they must know right?  And if they do know why do they do it?   Marketing a camera "feature" is the only answer I can come up with.

I'm pretty sure they do know.  On 1-series bodies, the only options are One Shot and AI Servo.

interesting...i didn't know that.  that makes me believe i'm correct in my assumption about marketing the feature.  they believe that marketing that feature(even though it isn't a good feature) eventually results in more profit for canon......even though the user will eventually dislike or become dissapointed in the feature and not use it...or even possibly return the camera.

the thought process in the corporate world, especially product management...sigh.

Whatever it is, I have now stopped using it But like you said, not only is it intuitive to use it, it was also listed in several photobooks like the option that would serve me most for the type of pictures I take most. Well, no more.

Like neuro said, I have the 1Ds III that I have borrowed with the 85 1.2, and it does not have the AI Focus option.

430

Lenses / Re: Canon EF 135 f/1.8L IS

« on: August 01, 2012, 04:10:27 PM »

I just bought the 135 f/2 2 weeks ago and it is my new favorite lens. I am very particular about "sharp" images and the 135 is insanely sharp. I would have to be very convinced to give it up for a new version.

+ 1

431

Lenses / Re: Canon EF 135 f/1.8L IS

« on: August 01, 2012, 03:59:23 PM »

I have the 135L F2.0 and love it, and I am not thrilled by the prospect of such a lens.

However, this looks fake to me. It looks like a photoshoppet barrel of the 100L F2.8 HIS Macro. They have changed the lower distance ,3 to ,8 (which should not be too hard to alter). Besides that. If as it says, you have the option of .8-2.5m, then 2.5 towards infinity, why would you need a separate Full option???

432

Lenses / Re: Canon 85 1.8 vs. Sigma 85 1.4

« on: August 01, 2012, 09:38:54 AM »

Regarding AF mode...you wrote that you primarily use Al focus.  There are many people that believe this is the worst AF mode to use, and that using it results in far too many oof shots.

I leave my 5d3 on al servo because I shoot a lot of moving subjects, and then I switch to one shot with stationary subjects.

I thank you all for your good advice, and a special thank to Northstar for your brilliant advice on not to use the AI Focus. While I still love my Siggy 85 1.4, I have now borrowed the 85L II for a month, and after shooting with One Shot, instead of AI Focus, the keeper rate have had an exponential growth. Here is one I took today of my eldest son with my 5D II  and the 85L II (I have as you all see done nothing with the picture, except converting it to jpg and rezised it for web).

433

Portrait / Re: Heat Wave! 100 Liters of water + model + sunshine....

« on: July 31, 2012, 02:43:11 PM »

I think sometimes that people forget that not all photography is the same and that some people use cameras to create art instead of "just" capturing a scene (don't be thrown off by the "just", capturing a scene perfectly is definitely art as well, but it should also be clear that there are uses of cameras beyond capturing all available detail in a subject).

just as an abstract artist might represent a mountain wIth two slashes of color on a blank canvas, photographers have the freedom to manipulate reality in order to achieve a desired emotional response.

This is a long way toward saying: Great photo!  I appreciate you pushing the bounds of what can be done.... we all need to remember to be creative and use our imagination with our images instead of "just" capturing what we see... You never know what might be possible!

I think your point is valid. Photography threw the shackles of resemblance to suject away in art painting. One could actually argue that photography liberated painting. Today with photoshop and other programs (I do not know enough about the alterations that could be done in shooting and post-processing in analog times) has liberated photography from being a documentarian device. Although the latter exists and is important in its given task, photography is much more than this, and can rightfully be used for art representative of the ideas in the photographers mind. Look at Joe McNally and many of his images... they are not only representations of a defacto stasis. Photographers are social material constructivists, divided only by the degree in which they tamper with 'reality'.

434

EOS Bodies / Re: Sell 5D2 for a 1Ds 3

« on: July 19, 2012, 06:41:56 PM »

I did the same as you - sold the 5D2 and got the 1DS3 instead of a 5DIII - due to the better metering. If has more than met my expectations

Here is one from today - my father's new cat.

1DS3, 70-200 f/2.8 II, 1/50, f/6.3, iso200

And here is one I took yesterday with my borrowed camera and lens:)

435

EOS Bodies / Re: Sell 5D2 for a 1Ds 3

« on: July 19, 2012, 02:09:13 PM »

My new baby, thanks all, I cant believe this is a mint camera, not 1 scratch also,

thanks to this forum for all your help!

x

+1

Brilliant!