November 25, 2014, 03:53:02 PM

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 - Marsu42

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 340
Post Processing / Re: My RAW Processing Workflow
« on: November 21, 2014, 06:00:02 PM »
What secrets are there for website color-management.  I assumed that sRGB should be the right output.

It is. Do you have a wide-gammut monitor? When rendering sRGB on that, you need to be extra-careful - afaik a reason why pure web-devs prefer a high-quality sRGB monitor.

I'm not sure how to post an example of what I'm seeing.  I can say this... I know for certain that using Firefox or Chrome yields very different results than IE for viewing... with Firefox or Chrome being much more accurate than IE.

You can enable color management in some browsers, too. Chrome seems to be broken atm, IE seems to work by default, for Firefox see this link and try again:

Test web pages: and

Post Processing / Re: My RAW Processing Workflow
« on: November 21, 2014, 04:56:10 PM »
and I'm happy to expand on the why for any of the specific adjustments

It's indeed helpful, unfortunately too late for me as I've figured out a lot for myself before you posted it :-o

For specific enhancements that might be elaborated, imho the highlight & shadow controls of ACR might be a good point. That's because there are 2 times 3 different ways to adjust these, and I find each shot requires different options. As ACR's process version 2012 is "intelligent", it's not easy to predict what a slider does anyway because it always depends on the settings above in the ACR hierarchy:

  • highlights / shadows
  • whites / blacks
  • tone curve

Btw one annoying habit of ACR vs DxO is that if you recover highlights, often saturated color borders appear on edges - example: tree branches that reach into the sky get a blue border. The only way I know around this is to de-saturate that color (or probably wait for LR6).

EOS Bodies / Re: what is the body you want to see canon release next ?
« on: November 21, 2014, 04:25:03 PM »
* The ability to program the shutter button, so when it is pressed down half way, the autofocus points can be moved with the joystick on the back of the the Nikon D4

I guess this can be done through Magic Lantern, if you want it do a feature request in their forum.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Sending my 7D2 back due to high ISO noise
« on: November 21, 2014, 03:52:04 PM »
Although I'm sure there are folks who think the 5D3 has awesome AF. It's all relative I suppose.

Indeed. Try a 6d :-p

As a viewer, I'm not sure what I'm supposed to make of these things as I play around with them (e.g. "Ball, Fuzzy Boy; Boy, Fuzzy Ball".)

I agree changing the dof seems to be rather childish (like I laughed my a** off as a 5-year old when seeing a movie backwards). But I am impressed by the interactive 3d effect you can create when "focus-stacking" the whole dof region of the camera. Imho ( :-p ) It's not only nice to play around with, but you can even change the composition in post.

Post Processing / Re: POLL: Do you need to fill the histogram in post?
« on: November 21, 2014, 02:34:29 PM »
If the scene was a chess board then you would have very little between the spikes at close to black and close to white, if the scene was a grey card you would have one spike just below midpoint.

Indeed, that's why I was writing natural as in "grass, bush, tree, sky, horse" which usually results in one or two histogram bumps around the center (at least around where I live and shoot).

If there were blacks and whites in the scene then setting the black and white points makes complete sense, but very often we are missing one or both of those within the scene so introducing one or the other is 'painting yourself into a corner'.

That's just it: There are black and white in every scene, it just depends where you define the black and white point to be. Basically it's about how much you change the relative histogram distribution in post. Lazy /me usually doesn't change it lot, but I try to find reference areas I can pull towards the left or the right if possible.

For me (again, in "natural" scenes") having these white/black points results in a more pleasing look as my eye has a reference what white/black is supposed to be. Only then can I recognize "this image is low or high contrast", otherwise it could just be that the specific output device or print is high or low contrast by default.

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Sony - Question of a Differing Variety
« on: November 21, 2014, 02:16:56 PM »
If it were possible at some point to get usable performance with adapted EF lenses, I think full transitions into the Sony ecosystem would be much more painless especially with some of the new features being offered in the latest body announcements.

It doesn't seem that easy as Canon doesn't release the lens protocol to everyone. Afaik some 3rd party lens manufacturers licensed it, and some tried to reverse engineer it. For the latter group, there's always some hassle and the danger they could have gotten something wrong and the next Canon lens won't work anymore. And Canon certainly won't help Sony/Nikon/Whatever use their lenses, it's one of the few things they've left in the competition.

Fyi the newest Canon bodies (5d3,1dx) and lens generations have enhanced af precision, usable only in this combination. I doubt 3rd party manufacturers have gotten around to tap into this yet.

EOS Bodies / Re: what is the body you want to see canon release next ?
« on: November 21, 2014, 02:13:23 PM »
Mad small & cheap yo.

Your wish might become reality - Yongnuo already cloned the 50/1.4, maybe they get around to release a whole Canon-mount dslr sooner or later :-)

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Sending my 7D2 back due to high ISO noise
« on: November 21, 2014, 01:58:07 PM »
When you look at all of the tech that Canon was willing to put in the $1800 7D2. Imagine what kind of goodies they are holding back for the next 1D or 5D or even 3D if that's what it is.

I don't think they're holding back a lot (even tough they would like to) because of the market pressure. For the 5d4 it's clear what you can expect: rgb+ir metering, dual pixel af, probably 4k video, once again updated phase af.

I imagine after that Canon's old-school dslr line will run out of steam and they need to introduce serious tech changes - otherwise there'll be little reason to upgrade to the 5d5 or whatever when you can get used 5d3/5d4 for a fraction of its price.

Post Processing / Re: POLL: Do you need to fill the histogram in post?
« on: November 21, 2014, 01:53:53 PM »
Unless you collect or sell histograms


I would only use it as a guide to help you get the photograph the way you want it to look like.  By definition that is the "correct" histogram for your photograph.

Well, problem here is "what I want it to look like" because it depends so much on the output device. I feel that a "normalized" histogram out of post is easier to handle because I know with what luminosity range I'm dealing with. After export, I often apply a gamma curve or some +-brightness with ImageMagick to get it right for whatever I have in mind.

Lenses / Re: Strange Noise from 70-200mm f/2.8L USM II
« on: November 21, 2014, 01:47:49 PM »

Post Processing / POLL: Do you need to fill the histogram in post?
« on: November 21, 2014, 01:44:58 PM »
I'm currently post-processing a bunch of wildlife shots (horses, my favorite subject) and would like to know how you feel a histogram should look like after postprocessing. I'm using ACR (Lightroom).

Personally, I try to adjust sliders and tone curve until I get whites and blacks somewhere, i.e. the shot fills the histogram with the main data neither to the very left or right. If I cannot manage that straight away, I usually resort to some local editing with ACR's tools like the brush.

At times, this can be a bit awkward if the scene was low-contrast in reality. The other problem is that if for example an animal's eye is the darkest part, it tends to cave in if I adjust black clipping accordingly and I need to do local editing (contrast) to make it look "alive" again.

Question: Am I painting myself into a corner with that approach, i.e. should I simply leave some part of the histogram empty? What's your take on "histogram after postprocessing"?

Note: I'm talking about natural scenes like wildlife or landscape, not about shots that are meant to be "artistic" from the start.

Lenses / Re: 6D and BIF
« on: November 21, 2014, 12:22:23 PM »
This thread seems to be winding down, so thanks again!  The 7D II is the next body for me.  The next lens...well, as advised, I'll see how I like the 70-200/2.8 II with the 7D II and then decide.

Reasonable decision, I hope it works out - but this excellent gear surely will be a lot of fun to shoot with.

Here's one more BIF from my 6D + 70-200/2.8 II.

I wouldn't say this is "bif", even though there are flying birds in it. You don't need any tracking at all for this and can simply focus, recompose and snap away with high speed drive. For *this* a 6d does indeed work ok.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 6D or 7D mkII?
« on: November 21, 2014, 12:18:21 PM »
I'm an amateur photographer, looking to upgrade from my T3i.  I like shooting sports, but they're not all I shoot; I'm only going to have the one camera, so I'd like it to be an all-purpose choice.

The 6d isn't designed to be a all-purpose camera, and that's that. Some people find you can get away using it as such, and I also try to as I cannot afford a 5d3. But I won't stir up this discussion again here. From my experience with the 6d I can only advise: Make very sure you're fine with single-point center tracking, have high-contrast targets and don't depend on a high keeper rate.

Final option is the 70D, which didn't stop being a bad camera just because there's a 7D2.  AF and noise are better than the T3i, but the other options excel in one facet of performance or the other.  It also costs half as much as the 6D+24-105L or the 7D2

The 70d's sensor is only marginally better than the old 18mp crop. Sure the 70d is a nice and competent camera, even tough Magic Lantern doesn't run on it (yet). But Canon has removed spot af from the 70d so you should make sure the large af points work for what you do.

Question here really is: What are your current lenses, what's your budget?

It's just a gimmick. The tradeoff is (*much*) less resolution that would otherwise be possible for a sensor of the same size.

At the moment, that is. A decade from now, people might evaluate current dslr tech as ancient as we do with film cameras. And back in the film days, lots of people would have said "digital is a gimmick, look at the resolution"...

Frankly, I'm skeptical about the whole concept. People want to passively 'consume' photographs, they don't want to actively 'interact' with them.

I understand the concept as a benefit to the photog, not for playing around with the focal point for the viewer. If you can adjust the dof a bit after the fact and get some 3d representation, this would be terrific.

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 340