January 30, 2015, 07:41:43 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 - agierke

Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10] 11 12 ... 26
136
...and if you put an order for one in now you will receive it in 10 years when it finally gets in stock.

:)

137
EOS Bodies / Re: Another 6D v 5D3 body battle...
« on: September 04, 2013, 08:23:08 PM »
If you shoot weddings and events then the mrk3 was tailor made for you. The AF system, while complex, doesn't take long to learn. I was comfortable with it after about 2 hours on the first wedding I did with it. And I was coming from the archaic 5D2.

The 5D3 will be a fantastic pairing w the 7D.

138
um yeah....thx but no thx adobe.

139
1D X Sample Images / Re: Weddings
« on: August 24, 2013, 09:29:06 AM »
Quote
I'm positive there was a trick to change the aperture but it requires you to use live view mode and change the aperture with the lens attached to the camera and then you take the lens off and work with that. 

You don't need live view. All you need to do is press the DOF preview button while you dismount the lens and the aperture will stay stopped down to whatever your camera had it set to. Even stopped down you still get razor thin depth and the viewfinder will get increasingly darker the farther you stop down.

140
Site Information / Re: Money for something
« on: August 19, 2013, 03:28:05 PM »
Instead it's a money for nothing and pics for free thread.

Bummer

141
Lighting / Re: Light Meter Help
« on: August 12, 2013, 12:45:45 PM »
calibration depends on the model of the meter.

i have the sekonic L508 and to calibrate it i have to hit both ISO buttons at the same time (it has two to keep track of different film stocks or to quickly figure out polaroid vs film exposure). once both buttons are depressed the screen shows the exposure compensation scale and i can dial in the exposure by 1/10th of a stop.

i used to have it calibrated using polaroids to figure out what a decent exposure was. you could use your camera to spot meter a grey card and use that for calibration or you could just shoot a picture in good light, adjust camera settings until you like the exposure, and then adjust your meter based on how far off its readings are.

you will have to refer to your manual on how to do it on your meter though.

142
forgive the naive question....this is for video purposes only correct? or their still applications for this as well?

143
Lighting / Re: Light Meter Help
« on: August 08, 2013, 07:29:34 AM »
Quote
Did you calibrate it with your camera ?

+1

Meters need to be calibrated before you use them. If you had a meter that was calibrated for film at one point it needs to be recalibrated for digital. My sekonic showed over a stop difference between what my film calibration was and what my digital needed to be.

144
Lenses / Re: What should I upgrade? I can't be done, can I?
« on: August 07, 2013, 10:52:25 AM »
Quote
a happy wife leads to a happy life

upgrade her dinner plans this weekend and maybe she will upgrade your goodnight kiss.

sry...couldnt resist.

145
Lenses / Re: What should I upgrade? I can't be done, can I?
« on: August 07, 2013, 09:19:19 AM »
I'm of the mind that you buy gear based on what you feel you can't do. I don't upgrade simply for the sake of upgrading.

So you have money burning a hole in your pocket but have you considered upgrading your savings account? Maybe upgrade your kids college tuition fund? Just a thought...maybe you have those things locked up already.

Of course there's always the keep what you have and upgrade your photography option. I don't recall ever seeing your work posted so I don't know if you need this option or not.

I'm not being facetious about this either. These should be serious considerations for us all.

I would recommend downgrading you sig though. It's confusing and not very useful to know what you used to have but don't have anymore. Just show what you currently have.

146
Portrait / Re: Senior Portrait Session. Criticism Welcomed :D
« on: August 05, 2013, 08:29:31 PM »
nice pics good pp.

the only thing that is kinda not cool is that her full name is in the file name. i wouldn't be posting that if i were you, she is most likely a minor and you should be extra careful about revealing her identity.

147
Lighting / Re: Using (Fill) Flash
« on: August 03, 2013, 08:26:02 AM »
What do you mean by general photography?

The size of speedlights on camera is pretty much ideally suited to fill for portrait work when ambient needs to be preserved. Any subject matter larger than that and the usefulness of a speedlight on camera begins to diminish greatly. At that point, getting the speedlight off camera is ideal.

I guess I'm confused as to what you are trying to achieve if portraiture is not a concern to you. More specifics would be useful...maybe a sample image?

148
For weddings the farthest I would push the mk2 is 2000 iso. For this type of work it's fine with a little NR. If I get an under exposed shot at high iso I will just covert it to b&w and add photo grain in my Nik suite and any noise disappears entirely.

I do use a flash with a 2nd light (ab800) during receptions though so I'm usually shooting between 800 and 1600 iso max. Church ceremonies is the only time I find myself pushing to iso 2000 and I'm typically maxed at F2.8 on the 70-200mm.

149
Canon General / Re: What's so bad about HDR?
« on: August 02, 2013, 11:44:10 AM »
to illustrate my earlier points:

here are two examples of hand assembling bracketed shots to achieve greater dynamic range while maintaining a "realistic" look.





here are two examples where Photomatix was used and where a more "illustrative" look was the intent.






all four images required significant retouching after assembling to maintain the integrity that i personally feel a photo should have (density, contrast, saturation, tonal qualities, and tonal gradations).

i certainly understand if a particular aesthetic doesn't appeal to an individual. my particular position is that if a "look" is appropriate for the subject matter then i accept it as part of the photographic experience. i will be critical of using a certain "look" simply for the sake of using it, without thought or regard as to how it informs the viewer.

arguments dismissing certain techniques as "cheating" or "wrong" or not "photographic" are just silly to me and represent such a narrow view of photography as a whole that i tend to find it just plain useless.

anyway...my 2 cents.


150
Canon General / Re: What's so bad about HDR?
« on: August 01, 2013, 08:04:00 AM »
Quote
As far as I am concerned, just give me a camera that can capture the same light my eyes can see. If I have a need to artificially boost shadows and color and can't do so by 3+ stops - so be it.

No dslr or film stock has ever come close to recording what the human eye is capable of seeing. We are capable of seeing 256 shades of grey total. In optimal conditions the average human eye can see up to 100 shades of grey at once with that number falling lower depending on lighting conditions. Every single variance of photographic format and technique is simply a representation of what we see as human beings.

The terms "accurate" and "realistic" are highly subjective when it comes to photography representing what we see.

I use 2 different techniques when I want to expand the range of tones in a scene in the digital format. The first being a manual merging of bracketed shots in photoshop (if I am going for the "realistic" look) and the second being the automated HDR technique via plugin software (when I want a more stylized look).

Both require a ton of effort in post to pull off successfully. Most "HDR" photos that I see suffer from 1 or 2 critical mistakes. Either mishandling of the technique (wether it be inappropriate lighting, insufficient bracketing, or straight up slider delirium ie overcooked file) or unfinished post-production after the file emerges from the HDR process (halos not corrected, noise not being corrected, localized color shifting not being addressed, etc )

The only attempts I find egregious are the files where the tonal range ends up getting anhialated and file photo looks like a chalky washed out mess. Whenever I use either method I try to protect and enhance my tones throughout the scene (zone 1 through 10) making sure that I still have rich shadows, rich highlights, and pure blacks and whites.

In the hands of a proficient photographer these techniques can be very useful and successful.

Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10] 11 12 ... 26