Messages

31

Software & Accessories / Re: Adobe Creative Cloud - Adobe Owns you!

« on: June 07, 2013, 01:49:32 PM »

My 2cents...

I hated this idea at first for many of the reasons brought up here.  But, I am kind of coming around in thinking about it.  I may have to go and thoroughly read the terms of service.  But - I am currently on CS5, I have not felt the push to upgrade to CS6 because the bulk of what I do is in Lightroom (I use PS for the fine tuning side of things that lightroom just can't do).  So for a user like me, PS is just a fine editing plugin for lightroom - and yeah that's definitely not worth forking over the dough to upgrade unless there is some substantial new tool I feel I need to have.

So, for someone like me, this new CC may actually not be a bad thing.  Unless there's something I am missing, I can now have the latest capabilites without having such a large up front price.  As a wedding/portrait shooter in an area that has very defined seasons - meaning my need for PS would be from May-November - at $20 a month that would mean I'd be paying about $140  (maybe more if I need it in the winter).  I have to check the fine print to see if there are penalties for letting your subscription lapse, or, some kind of silly startup fee.  This may be a loophole that they find a way to fill by implementing penalties, but, it may be awesome for the occasional user because they can now have access to $600 software for $20 (as long as they don't mind just using it for a month. 

I do hope they don't go cloud with lightroom.  We shall see what happens I guess.  If enough people boycott CC, then it won't take adobe too long to change their tune...

It looks like the month-to-month plan is $30 per application, so more like $210 for May to November. You could buy the annual plan and cancel, but there are cancellation charges after the first 30 days.

Also, if you don't have an older version of Photoshop already on your computer, you won't be able to access or edit your files during those down months.

As far as I understand - that's just for the PSD files...anything saved locally in TIFF or Jpeg is still accessible? 

32

Software & Accessories / Re: Adobe Creative Cloud - Adobe Owns you!

« on: June 07, 2013, 12:44:39 PM »

My 2cents...

I hated this idea at first for many of the reasons brought up here.  But, I am kind of coming around in thinking about it.  I may have to go and thoroughly read the terms of service.  But - I am currently on CS5, I have not felt the push to upgrade to CS6 because the bulk of what I do is in Lightroom (I use PS for the fine tuning side of things that lightroom just can't do).  So for a user like me, PS is just a fine editing plugin for lightroom - and yeah that's definitely not worth forking over the dough to upgrade unless there is some substantial new tool I feel I need to have.

So, for someone like me, this new CC may actually not be a bad thing.  Unless there's something I am missing, I can now have the latest capabilites without having such a large up front price.  As a wedding/portrait shooter in an area that has very defined seasons - meaning my need for PS would be from May-November - at $20 a month that would mean I'd be paying about $140  (maybe more if I need it in the winter).  I have to check the fine print to see if there are penalties for letting your subscription lapse, or, some kind of silly startup fee.  This may be a loophole that they find a way to fill by implementing penalties, but, it may be awesome for the occasional user because they can now have access to $600 software for $20 (as long as they don't mind just using it for a month. 

I do hope they don't go cloud with lightroom.  We shall see what happens I guess.  If enough people boycott CC, then it won't take adobe too long to change their tune...

33

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 5D2 / 5D3 / 6D Which one do you use for weddings ?

« on: June 01, 2013, 03:43:14 PM »

hmm i see!

well the lenses i have are
- 24-105L
- 70-200 f/4 IS L
- 100mm f/2.8 macro L

Also an ef-s 10-22 and a samyang 8mm fisheye for my 600D which i'll use for a second camera which performs quite well in 1600-3200 iso and these lenses doesn't need fast speeds. f/5.6 and 1/60 are ok even for a large print 30x40cm

i'll buy an ef 50mm f/1.4 along the the FF camera. (i love the creamy 1.2 but it goes way beyond my tight budget


The way i'm thinking of it.
my FF will play with the 50 1.4 and the 24-105 for start
and the 600D with 10-22, fisheye, and the 100L which is ideal for head portraits as it becomes like 160mm

Your 10-22 won't work on a FF body (you may know that already though).  I'm not sure if the 8mm is FF capable, but that would be almost tooo wide for wedding work

Also, I was on a 7d before upgrading to the mk3 (I also had the 10-22).  I tried my best to use both side by side at weddings.  But, I found that the 7d became a very heavy lens holder...It did great at outdoor ceremonies, but  the difference in IQ above ISO 1600, that is a game changer and yeah, led to my 7d just sitting in the bag all day, then not even in the bag at all, then sold to a friend who was going to africa and wanted more than a P&S.    So, be ready for your 600D to become a dust collector!

Also, after you snag your mk3, you could sell the 600d with 10-22 and then the 8 mm and snag yourself a 6d as backup body.

Lastly, I see your hot to trot for the 50 1.4, but, take a good look at the 85mm 1.8...same price basically but IMO a much more useful lens!

either way, be ready for the 600d to become a paper weight!

i see your point.
if i'd sell the 600D + 10-22 i'd go for the 16-35 2.8, i was thinking to keep the 600D with the 10-22 for the wide angle shots and also as a backup camera and put some money on primes.

the EF 85mm 1.8 is an excellent lens no doubt, better in everything than 50mm 1.4 (sharpness, bokeh)
However, the 50mm range is more "all around" than the 85mm and the churches here are a bit tight.

I had thought the same thing ---re: " i was thinking to keep the 600D with the 10-22 for the wide angle shots and also as a backup camera and put some money on primes."...But your 24-70 will actually cover the wide end on a FF body!  It was startling to me, my 24-70 was a whole new lens on FF vs crop.  And the quality at 24mm on FF vs the 10-22mm,...yeah, I quickly decided that its just better to take a few more steps back and use the 24-70 on the mk3 than to use the 10-22mm on the 7d.  That really ended up being the final nail in my 7d's coffin.  That and the reach factor with crop vs cropping the FF image...cropped FF was superior.

LOL --- the primes I have now, I bought them thinking - OK, lets see if maybe using the 7d with the 50mm and 85mm would get me to use it more.  What ended up happening?  I used the primes on the mk3.  Seriously, I was fighting to find a way to make the 7d relevant, but in all cases the mk3 outshined it by so much that I just stopped using the 7d.  So yeah, be ready for that (and the 7d is a bteer body than your 600d!!!!).

34

Canon General / Re: Noooooooo....!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

« on: June 01, 2013, 12:48:49 PM »

newspapers have big problems.  I understand keeping the reporters & getting rid of the photographers.

It's funny, here in buffalo our newspaper is doing just fine, but that's because they are using their presses to print a ton of stuff for other businesses.  Sounds to me more like an old business that's not changing with the times...

35

Street & City / Re: How to not get beat up when photographing public places?

« on: June 01, 2013, 12:37:18 PM »

I once had my car break down on a busy freeway and since I had to wait for the repair service to come pick it up, ......It Didn't take long for the police to show up to question me what I was doing there either, so I guess the police just looks for unusual behaviour.

I think the police stopping by when your car breaks down is a good thing. 

Having worked for a Highway Patrol department in one state I'll tell you it's more than a "good thing."

Interstate highways (freeways in general) exist to move vehicles. Anytime a vehicle or pedestrian or dog, ladder, mattress, etc. is stopped anywhere on the highway, it is unsafe. At the very least, it's a distraction to drivers. At worst, it's an obstacle. With the prevalence of cell phones the last 20 years, every such instance floods a dispatch center with calls so everything is known. Officers are dispatched. Depending on where/what it is, they don't give it a high priority, but they'll eventually investigate. It's also gender specific. If a woman is reported to be sitting in a car on the side of a road, that's a higher priority than a man -- from days of yore when chivalry ruled, I suppose. Nevertheless, it's a reality.

These days I'm guessing if you stop on the shoulder AND get out and start taking pictures, officers will get there faster!

Last summer the first day I took my bike out, I didn't notice I was already on reserve. So drive few miles, the engine stalls as I ran out of gas. I rolled to stop and parked the bike, called AAA to bring me enough gas to get to a gas station. The neighborhood was fancier than average, not B. Gates style but still better than many around here.

It was nice day, so I laid down on the lawn next to the road while waiting for AAA. I was highly tempted to have a beer as I was carrying couple in the saddle bags, but eventually didn't. Give 15 minutes, a police car pulls over. I get up and go say hi to the officer, and explained the situation, and he drives off.

I was thinking to myself that maybe someone had reported a biker stopping at their nice neighborhood. That was quite remote spot for police just randomly go around. Don't know.

Not really sure how this went from street photography to rights and wrongs of the police...but ---

my 2 cents...

To protect and serve...more times than not the police take the protect roll to the extreme and forget about the serve roll.  I have had a mix of experiences with police, but for the most part i have been thankful for their presence.  From running out of gas and having them pick me up and give me a ride to call AAA (yeah, that was before the age of cell phones).  I just think we're conditioned to see those flashing lights and assume cuffs are next, where that's not always the case.  To protect and serve...yeah, that sometimes means hop in and I'll get you to the gas station. 

36

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 5D2 / 5D3 / 6D Which one do you use for weddings ?

« on: June 01, 2013, 12:29:06 PM »

hmm i see!

well the lenses i have are
- 24-105L
- 70-200 f/4 IS L
- 100mm f/2.8 macro L

Also an ef-s 10-22 and a samyang 8mm fisheye for my 600D which i'll use for a second camera which performs quite well in 1600-3200 iso and these lenses doesn't need fast speeds. f/5.6 and 1/60 are ok even for a large print 30x40cm

i'll buy an ef 50mm f/1.4 along the the FF camera. (i love the creamy 1.2 but it goes way beyond my tight budget


The way i'm thinking of it.
my FF will play with the 50 1.4 and the 24-105 for start
and the 600D with 10-22, fisheye, and the 100L which is ideal for head portraits as it becomes like 160mm

Your 10-22 won't work on a FF body (you may know that already though).  I'm not sure if the 8mm is FF capable, but that would be almost tooo wide for wedding work

Also, I was on a 7d before upgrading to the mk3 (I also had the 10-22).  I tried my best to use both side by side at weddings.  But, I found that the 7d became a very heavy lens holder...It did great at outdoor ceremonies, but  the difference in IQ above ISO 1600, that is a game changer and yeah, led to my 7d just sitting in the bag all day, then not even in the bag at all, then sold to a friend who was going to africa and wanted more than a P&S.    So, be ready for your 600D to become a dust collector!

Also, after you snag your mk3, you could sell the 600d with 10-22 and then the 8 mm and snag yourself a 6d as backup body.

Lastly, I see your hot to trot for the 50 1.4, but, take a good look at the 85mm 1.8...same price basically but IMO a much more useful lens!

either way, be ready for the 600d to become a paper weight! 

37

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 5D2 / 5D3 / 6D Which one do you use for weddings ?

« on: June 01, 2013, 12:17:20 PM »

hmm so you're saying that the 5D3 AF system worth the extra cash, and focus is everything, where i agree on that.

I haven't been experienced with 1D series AF systems, and a when i played a bit with 5D3 it confused me a lot. I found it so complicated that i said "do i really need that" , where the simpler AF settings of the 6D with the -3ev sensitivity in the center point is tempting, making me ask myself and you of course.

However you're saying 5D3 AF system is more reliable and tested from the one of 6D.

another +1 about the 5D3 is the second slot card used as a backup for weddings something 6D lacks off
i don't know if the wireless function of the 6d permits backup

2 cents

I own a 5d3 and have rented a 6d (I may end up buying one as backup in the next few weeks), and I shoot mostly weddings and portraits.  Unless $$$ is really tight, I'd opt for the 5d3 now then fill in your glass needs later (hard to say though because I do not know what glass you have). 

The 6d is a fine camera, but I would be leary of depending on it too heavily as a primary body because it just didn't feel as sturdy as the mk3 (mind you, I'm not saying the 6d felt like junk, just that the mk3 does for sure have better build). 

The 6d AF system isn't all that bad...just limited as the light gets lower (depending on the ceremony sight it would be center point only, where the mk3 will use all points flawlessly).

either way, I'd go mk3 over 6d.

The tracking capability of the 5d3 on moving subjects like walking down the isle, first dance, dressing room, etc...  Too many situations where AF is crucial.  Also good point about durability...  At a event I was hired to do a photobooth/candid photographer for Union Pacific, my second assistant tripped over a cord and knocked my 5d3 which fell 3-4 feet onto concrete...  It has a paint scuff on the bottom corner, but other than that, it is in perfect condition... even my 24-105 suffered little to no damage...  Cant say enough about the durability.

That's why I say snag the 5d3!  If you already have one and are in need of a backup, then the 6d is a fine choice (of course, if funds allow it, a second 5d3 would be better).  But if your making the move to a FF primary body for weddings, 5d3 wins that battle hands down. 

38

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 2 Ways the 6D's Wi-Fi Have Proved to Be a (Kinda) Lifesaver

« on: June 01, 2013, 12:04:47 PM »

I rented a 6d and am 90% sure I will have one of my own in the next week or 2 to be a backup body for my 5d3.    the one thing that kind of disappointed me with the wifi, and kind of potentially ruins one of my plans with it is --  for weddings I had had the idea to set it up in an area I can only access before the ceremony (like behind the altar).  The problem is after like 5-10 minutes of not being in use the camera and phone lose connection and there is no way to reestablish the connection without direct access to the camera.  It can still be done, set up, then just make sure to snap a shot every minute to keep the connection active.

Another valid point.  Have you tried changing the Auto Power Off setting?  You have a lot choices there, including never shutting off.  I haven't tried that, but I suspect it should keep the camera live and thus the connection on during that time. 

BTW, that is a very clever idea and use for the Wi-Fi connection, particularly considering you can you change DOF and lighting on the fly.

I forget the name of the device, but there's a thing floating around that connects via USB and supports a variety of remote control functions. Sounds pretty analogous to the 6D + WiFi + Canon Remote app for anyone who doesn't have a 6D or can't use their phone (non-Android, non-iPhone user here).

I think turning off the auto-power off might do the trick for you. Probably kind of distracting to try and work both that and shooting from the normal angles. How do you manage that? Or is it simply knowing which parts of the ceremony are better captured from the alternate camera and using it then?

I tried turning the the auto power off off...camera did as it was supposed to, it stayed on, but the connection still timed out, and you need access to the camera to reestablish connection.   I only had the 6d for a few days so my tests were less than scientific...lol.

As to " Probably kind of distracting to try and work both that and shooting from the normal angles. How do you manage that?"  Specifically I was thinking about Catholic weddings, where the ceremonies are long and the B&G are up by the altar kneeling for a half an hour, I can only take so many shots of their backs!  So my idea was with the 6d, get there early, talk to the priest and ask him if setting up the remote camera was allowed...on that kind of wedding there are plenty of moments where you just have to chill out and wait because again, how many shots do the B&G really want of their backs?  The remote came would be able to get their faces.  So I don't think it would be too distracting for me, at least on those kid of weddings.

39

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 2 Ways the 6D's Wi-Fi Have Proved to Be a (Kinda) Lifesaver

« on: May 31, 2013, 12:28:37 PM »

I rented a 6d and am 90% sure I will have one of my own in the next week or 2 to be a backup body for my 5d3.    the one thing that kind of disappointed me with the wifi, and kind of potentially ruins one of my plans with it is --  for weddings I had had the idea to set it up in an area I can only access before the ceremony (like behind the altar).  The problem is after like 5-10 minutes of not being in use the camera and phone lose connection and there is no way to reestablish the connection without direct access to the camera.  It can still be done, set up, then just make sure to snap a shot every minute to keep the connection active.

40

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 5D2 / 5D3 / 6D Which one do you use for weddings ?

« on: May 31, 2013, 12:04:00 PM »

hmm so you're saying that the 5D3 AF system worth the extra cash, and focus is everything, where i agree on that.

I haven't been experienced with 1D series AF systems, and a when i played a bit with 5D3 it confused me a lot. I found it so complicated that i said "do i really need that" , where the simpler AF settings of the 6D with the -3ev sensitivity in the center point is tempting, making me ask myself and you of course.

However you're saying 5D3 AF system is more reliable and tested from the one of 6D.

another +1 about the 5D3 is the second slot card used as a backup for weddings something 6D lacks off
i don't know if the wireless function of the 6d permits backup

2 cents

I own a 5d3 and have rented a 6d (I may end up buying one as backup in the next few weeks), and I shoot mostly weddings and portraits.  Unless $$$ is really tight, I'd opt for the 5d3 now then fill in your glass needs later (hard to say though because I do not know what glass you have). 

The 6d is a fine camera, but I would be leary of depending on it too heavily as a primary body because it just didn't feel as sturdy as the mk3 (mind you, I'm not saying the 6d felt like junk, just that the mk3 does for sure have better build). 

The 6d AF system isn't all that bad...just limited as the light gets lower (depending on the ceremony sight it would be center point only, where the mk3 will use all points flawlessly).

either way, I'd go mk3 over 6d.

41

Animal Kingdom / Re: Wrong Photography Ethics?

« on: May 21, 2013, 06:21:03 PM »

lol...sorry...but lucky looked lonely in the one edit.. I think he's happier now with his family...LOL

42

Animal Kingdom / Re: Wrong Photography Ethics?

« on: May 21, 2013, 06:10:29 PM »

My view is quite a simple one. If you look at National Geographic magazine you will see photographs beyond what we see on here. Yet,they were all taken in camera. If such can be taken in camera, why do you need a computer to make your images look better when they dont?

The thing about this statement --for the most part...nat geo shots are carefully planned voyages (sometimes multiple voyages) to epic locations ---- EPIC LOCATIONS!!!!!!!! (and yes they do post process things too)...  I live in Buffalo NY, and while there may be some nice spots to shoot... other than niagara falls is there truly anything epic here? --- nat geo Epic?  I do not have thousands of dollars in travel budget...and my wedding and portrait clients don't have thousands of dollars to spend to have their wedding at the top of Mt Everest, or the jungles of Brazil, or deep in greenlands glaciers, or off in the magical hobbit land that is new Zealand...we aren't going to the tops of the Andes, not hiking through Cambodia, no sleek desert dunes of Tatooine (LOL...Tunisia), no engagement shoot at the great wall of China, no South African Diamond Mine, and not in a tribal village in New Guinea......I could go on and on but you get the point I hope.  Nat Geo goes to EPIC places!!!!! They also have the budget to wait out the weather if need be.  They also have the budget to go back if they wait 2 weeks and the weather doesn't work out.  They have their own submarines for crying out loud, subs, helicopters, planes, large boats....so yeah, Nat Geo can hold to a more natural approach...because they are generally going places that are so epic they don't need much manipulation.  Most of us don't have EPIC locations at pur doorstep, most of us are engaged in the art of pulling the beauty out of and or creating magic from a mundane scene.  LOL...  in the portrait/wedding world, it's like wondering why you handle a sports illustrated swimsuit model with full wardrobe and makeup crew differently than a plus sized bride at a budget wedding....

Just a note, Cambodia's countryside is not epic. Ive lived here three years and have yet to find those breathtaking views. Im actually out in the provinces now. It's 5 in the morning herre and me and my friend are going out in a while to capture the sunrise. Will see what I get. Vietnam is epic.

But I agree on your point.

Ok...so as you can see there...never been to cambodia to know it's not epic...lol...

43

Software & Accessories / Re: Flickr is now 1 Terabytes!! For everyone!!

« on: May 21, 2013, 04:12:09 PM »

not sure if someone posted this already... but take a look at some of the thoughts behind the new flickr....

http://petapixel.com/2013/05/21/rip-professional-photographers/

Kind of surprised that 3 pages in here and only one has brought this up....

"there’s no such thing as Flickr Pro, because today, with cameras as pervasive as they are, there is no such thing really as professional photographers, when there’s everything is professional photographers. Certainly there is varying levels of skills, but we didn’t want to have a Flickr Pro anymore, we wanted everyone to have professional quality photos, space, and sharing.” – Marissa Mayer, Yahoo Event, May 2013

I am not a user currently (I have an account, but, never use it).  I think that I will continue to not use it if this is their viewpoint on photography (and unfortunately...this will bleed into the real world...how many more potential brides will look to this quote when thinking why spend $$$ on photography...even the CEO of yahoo thinks theres no such thing as a pro....

44

Animal Kingdom / Re: Wrong Photography Ethics?

« on: May 21, 2013, 04:01:01 PM »

wow...so I'm gonna go ahead and add this wrinkle to the debate ---http://www.slrlounge.com/flickr-steps-towards-improvement-and-leaps-towards-stupidity

So apparently all this talk of ethics and what a true photograph is doesn't matter at all....truly disturbing...

45

Animal Kingdom / Re: Wrong Photography Ethics?

« on: May 21, 2013, 02:33:14 PM »

yawn... this thread is boring... I swear... worrying about altering an image?  For the love of god, anyone who thinks national geographic doesn't alter their images, anyone who doesn't think photographs in some way shape or form was altered at print competitions and fairs, anyone who things a simple head shot hasn't been smoothed, blemishes cloned out, filters applied, double chin and loose skin warped and removed... You are just fooling yourself...  I can almost guarantee you that the only images that haven't been manipulated in some way are those who have no access to photoshop, but then it can be argued even posing someone can be "altering" a natural photograph... get over it, it's not worth 12 pages on canon rumors discussing the "ETHICS"... my lord.... (then again i'd rather talk about this than some pixel peeping nerd debating the file quality of a 7d or 5d or such...)

i agree completely with this notion, as i tried to state before. i understand people who have not considered this topic before trying to hash out their position on this but it has been a longstanding discussion in photography going back to the late 1800's.

the fact is that photography is incapable of depicting "truth". it can only depict a singular viewpoint and "manipulation" begins the moment a photographer looks through the viewfinder and "chooses" what will be shown in the frame and what will not be shown in the frame. nevermind any post that occurs after the fact.

it brings to mind the images that came out of the aftermath of Katrina, in particular there was an instance where news outlets ran a photo of a white family "scavenging" for supplies while an almost identical photo of a black family doing the same thing had headlines attached stating they were "looting". truth in photography is a myth. it is simply a means of communicating an idea, story, or feeling and in the end it falls upon the viewer to determine what truths a photograph holds for them.

so if you want to subscribe to contrived notions of what makes a photograph real or true or whatever...you are welcome to it. i personally don't want to limit my own ability to tell a story how i want to tell it by applying a set of rules that don't make a whole lot of sense considering that manipulation has been inherent throughout the history of photography since its inception.

oh, an National Geographic is far from being the standard bearer for for what "real" photography is. on the contrary, it is a very narrow slice of what photography is and can be.

What is "truth"?  If you can answer that, then what is the meaning of life?

We've been here before Carl - The answer's 42 

  Kudos!!!!