December 19, 2014, 04:44:39 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 ... 9 10 [11] 12 13 ... 25
151
Landscape / Re: How would you edit this?
« on: June 09, 2013, 10:57:27 PM »
i wouldn't edit it as the focus missed. i would curse under my breath and then check my calendar for when i could go shoot again.

152
i have experienced this phenomenon using the 5d2 in conjunction with DynaLites and pocket wizards during VERY meticulously controlled before and after shots for QVC clinical trials.

we use the same heads with the same modifiers (each on their assigned head) with all light positions tape measured and power settings recorded. same camera and lens shooting tethered through canon utility using the Kelvin WB setting. shots are typically a series of 3 shots over the course of 1 to 2 months. always against a white seamless. we measure and record all lighting/modifier/camera positions every time so that each shoot is as identical as we can possibly get them.

all shots are scrutinized by the legal department and must be identical in lighting or they get bounced and the client loses the ability to use the photos to promote whatever product they are pushing on air. 

under these controlled circumstances i have occasionally seen color shifts during same day shooting. it is a mystery to me as well but we deal with it by correcting the Raws in ACR. i would chalk it up to either inconsistent light output or just the nature of how the sensor works. it would be nice if the sensor performed exactly the same every shot for tens of thousands of consecutive shots but it is more likely that on occasion there could be a slight inconsistency. such is life...perfection is elusive if not impossible to achieve. 

153
Quote
The best zoom I have ever used is the 24-105, so I guess I feel a hint of skepticism regarding their performance versus primes.

i have always felt this lens was overrated. even the 24-70mm V1 was better than it and anytime i ran across a colleague who had the 24-105 i would let them take the 24-70 for a spin and they always preferred it better.

the new 24-70mm F2.8 seems to be pretty remarkable in its quality. i dont have it yet but i have seen plenty of reviews and shots that support this.

but the 70-200mm F2.8 IS 2 seems to be equally remarkable and again broadens your coverage by quite a bit.

Fast Primes are a different animal....they take more patience to work with. if you don't have them dialed in and you don't shoot appropriately with them wide open they can miss badly. can lead to alot of frustration especially with a subpar focusing system. BUT...when they do hit at F2.0 or wider they are simply stunning.

the 70-200 is easier to work with and can provide that stunning quality even if it is just shy of that 2.0 and wider look.

154
from a focal range point of view the only lens that adds to what you already mentioned is the 70-200mm.

the 24-70mm would definitely outclass your 24-105 and be much sharper but it wouldn't really offer too much of a new point of view for you. the 85mm from what i have seen is a spectacular lens but i think you can still get a look in a similar ballpark using the 50mm you already have.

the 70-200mm is also a very special lens but it offers great versatility. i would get that one if i were you.

if i were starting from scratch the two lenses i would get first are the 24-70mm and the 70-200mm so that i had a good range across focal lengths with the highest quality available for zoom lenses. i would then start addressing lenses for those special eye catching looks that you can get in fast primes. finally i would get specialty lenses such as a 15mm fisheye or the 100mm macro.

get coverage first then go for "the look" then go specialty. my 2 cents.   

155
Canon General / Re: Canon service center
« on: June 07, 2013, 10:56:28 PM »
never ever ever let anyone else (especially airline personnel) handle your cameras or lenses.

ever.

156
i just had a conversation with the owner of the Apple repair shop in my area about storage drives, specifically SSD and Flash storage. it was mostly about the benefits of moving to SSD or Fusion drives for my Desktop but right at the end i asked about CF cards being flash storage.

as he explained it to me, the drawbacks of flash storage is at a certain point they cant be written over and they fail. i forget how many cycles he said but he did specifically say that it is a much bigger concern for video than for still photography because of the shear amount of data that is used in a shorter period of time. smaller cards and older cards can cause some failure issues for video. he said when they fail they fail suddenly and without symptoms and often the data is irretrievable. or at least that is how my paranoid driven mind heard it.

now, i do not shoot video and only concern myself with still needs nor do i profess to be very knowledgeable about all the vagaries of electronics/computing but i would not entirely assume there isn't an issue with your card usage.

i would, if i were you, invest in high end cards that are more than big enough to handle video needs and rotate cards out after a certain amount of usage. i would also eliminate variables in my cards...keep the same brand, same size, and same speed cards.

i'm not suggesting that it might not be the camera but i certainly wouldn't rule out a card issue at this point. eliminating variables will help discover what the problem is. maybe send the cards into canon as well just to get their thoughts as well as google the issues concerning the brand, size, and speed of the cards used. you may also take the cards to a computer repair shop in your area and see if they can test the cards to see what the failure may have been.

157
Lenses / Re: $1550 for a used 85L f1.2 II
« on: June 06, 2013, 11:12:52 AM »
there is a code stamped on the mount of canon lenses that will give you the date of manufacture.

use this site to decipher the code:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Canon-Lenses/Canon-Lens-Aging.aspx

158
Reviews / Re: what utter crap this is.... samyang 24mm TS
« on: June 03, 2013, 05:17:28 PM »
Quote
love my canon 24mm TS II for wedding photos with narrow DOF.
and for landscape photos with as much DOF as i can get.

donĀ“t limit yourself because you think a lens is made for a specific purpose

maybe i mispoke...i almost never have used it wider than F11. i've done the tilted wedding shot with the 24mm and i personally didnt find it all that rewarding given what the subject was so i stopped doing it. it was more of a gimmick in my mind than "creative". my cousin uses the 45mm TS during the portrait portion of a wedding and i find that much more of a "creative" use of TS. but whatever...to each his own.

Quote
Isn't one of the possible application that you can (apparently) have a large DOF with wider apertures? Foreground to background sharp without having to stop down to f/11 or higher?

very true but at some point you reach diminishing returns. if the goal is to maximize DOF through tilting then you are not likely to push it wide open as this would defeat the purpose. you are more likely to push it to F8 and tilt than to go wide open. but sure, i guess there are "creative" moments where you would want wide open with a maximum tilt....but not to maximize your DOF.

my point was clearly missed. the lens is designed for architectural and landscape photography which traditionally requires large DOF. is it such a stretch to imagine Samyung kept costs down by designing a lens that would fulfill the traditional needs of this genre of photography and bypass any IQ on the wide open end?

if you already have a 24mm TS II then why is this of concern to you? do people really expect a 3rd party 900.00 lens to match up with one of the best canon lenses ever made at a price point of 2300.00? seriously...common sense would suggest no. to me this is no surprise and really very little concern.

mountains are being made of molehills


159
Reviews / Re: what utter crap this is.... samyang 24mm TS
« on: June 03, 2013, 03:53:18 PM »
I have never used my 24 tse wider than F11 and can't really imagine a need to so if you are budget minded and need to go with the samyung over the canon I'm not sure if this is much of an issue.

It's a very specialized lens, designed for architectural purposes which require large depths of field. If your needs are more general purpose the the 24mm prime is much more appropriate.

Bottom line is you get what you pay for. Go cheap and it won't be top quality. Another route is a used 24mm ts version 1. I picked one up last year for 800.00 to hold me over til I can afford the version 2. It's still a serviceable lens.

160
Canon General / Re: What else should I have in my armour?
« on: May 31, 2013, 10:07:23 AM »
how much money do you have to spend? i could drop $30,000 of your money based on the info you provided.

studio work is a very expansive proposition in terms of gear acquisition. off the top of my head....

4-5 studio strobes
radio transmitters/receivers
various light modifiers (boxes, strips, umbrellas, grids) + flags, scrims, and bounces
various light stands + grips
various backgrounds
shooting table
laptop or desktop for shooting tethered
a 2nd camera
replacement for the 18-55mm
2 or 3 speedlights

specific lighting setups require certain gear. being as open ended as you were in your first post doesnt narrow it down enough to suggest anything specific.

161
that video demonstrates working the ratios between multiple strobes in a studio set up. your cameras meter is near useless if you want to approach working your exposure like that. if you have the experience with meters and other such things like zone system then you can get by without a meter but if you want to maintain exact control over exposure while using multiple lights in a studio then meters are still necessary.

the video (as most online instructional videos do) assumes the viewer already understands how meters work. to use a meter to its full effect you really need to understand a couple of different things.

first, all meters measure light and give readings for middle grey (or what is sometimes called 18% grey). middle grey is the 5th zone in a 10 step grey scale which represents 10 equal steps from pure white to pure black. zone 5 (middle grey) is the average between pure white and pure black.

second, there are two types of meters...reflective meters and incident meters. reflective meters measure light bouncing off a subject while incident meters measure light falling on a subject. understanding the differences between how these two types of meters work is critical. reflective metering can be problematic at times because light reacts differently depending upon what subject it is bouncing off of. if you meter a white wall with a reflective meter and shoot it at the suggested settings you will get a grey wall. if you meter a black wall and shoot it at the suggested settings you will again get a grey wall. different subject tones will absorb different amounts of the light falling on it (thus giving us the perception of the wall being white or black) but a meter will always try to measure for middle grey, regardless of what the tone the subject is. incident meters forgo the problem of different tones absorbing light differently by measure the amount of light falling on the subject. measure a white wall with an incident meter and shoot at the suggested settings and you get a white wall. do the same with a black wall and you get a black wall.

additionally, reflective meters have several different ways that they will measure light coming through the lens. you will have to refer to your camera system to see the different modes available to you but they generally fall into the following categories:

evaluative: typically measures the entire scene and averages it out
center weighted: typically measures only a portion of the frame in the center and averages that portion
spot: only measures a small single spot in the center of the scene

each of these methods have their advantages and drawbacks depending on the tones present in the scene and the nature of the light you are trying to shoot in. to use these modes effectively you really need to have a very good understanding of different qualities of light and when a certain type of light combined with certain subjects will fool the meter and give less than ideal results. watching videos online or visiting forums wont provide this knowledge...only lots of shooting in various circumstances will provide the understanding you need.

finally, meters are just a tool to gather information to help you decide what your exposure settings should be. they do not tell you correct exposure. exposure is essentially a creative expression and no camera or meter (or electronic device) is capable of making creative decisions...that can only be done by a person.

learn how your camera's meter works by shooting the heck out of it in different available light scenarios. this will strengthen your understanding of light and will inform you of how to approach different studio lighting setups. once you are in studio, an incident meter will be needed if you wish to maintain complete control over all your lights.

162
if you dont know what your in camera light meter is then you shouldnt be buying a hand held meter. know how to use your current gear before buying new gear to fix problems you arent even aware of yet.

that being said....

incident meters are typically far more accurate than reflective meters. reflective meters can be fooled, incident meters will read exactly what the light is doing (assuming you use it correctly).

digital has made it easier to make available light exposures doing adjustments based on preview or histogram displays. i still find incident meters very useful in studio lighting scenarios if you are trying to fine tune the ratios of strobes. in camera meters cannot help with this technique and even tethered shooting will only offer the opportunity to "guess" at what your ratios are doing. a hand held incident meter is still very useful (and a time saver) for situations like this.

but again...if you don't know what your in camera meter is or how it works you are likely putting the proverbial cart in front of the horse by buying a hand held meter. 

163
Animal Kingdom / Re: Wrong Photography Ethics?
« on: May 21, 2013, 11:05:00 AM »
Quote
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.

164
1D X Sample Images / Re: Weddings
« on: May 18, 2013, 10:14:22 AM »
a little note on reverse macro (flipping the lens)...

you can in fact have control of the aperture if you press the DOF Preview button while you unmount the lens. whatever aperture the lens was set to will lock in as you remove it. so you could stop down to say F5.6, press the DOF Preview button while releasing the lens, and gain some extra DOF for your reverse macro shots.

165
Animal Kingdom / Re: Wrong Photography Ethics?
« on: May 12, 2013, 01:15:51 AM »
if i retouch the dust spots out of my image is it no longer a photo?

i am simply stunned at the absurdity of this thread with so many people trying to tell everyone what is and isn't photography. its a pretty pointless exercise. ask yourselves this....who appointed you (in the general sense) the definer of the medium of photography and why should anyone listen?

art and photography are not mutually exclusive.




Pages: 1 ... 9 10 [11] 12 13 ... 25