February 27, 2015, 01:20:04 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 ... 10 11 [12] 13 14 ... 27
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: My dead 5D Mark III Story
« on: July 28, 2013, 12:17:51 AM »
you are right! watching a movie while typing late at night and i start to not make sense! lol...reverse what i said...but i see it alot.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: My dead 5D Mark III Story
« on: July 27, 2013, 11:50:12 PM »
One thing, though, is if you bring the camera quickly from a hot/humid area to a cold (e.g. aircon'ed) area. That would make the humidy condense quickly, and possibly creating shorts.

this sounds like a much more likely scenario. it is quite common for this to happen on weddings moving from hot exterior conditions to air conditioned interiors. i've seen it several times though i have never personally seen a camera die from it.

the "sweat" scenario seems far fetched. i have been dripping wet while shooting weddings (quite a disgusting condition i might add) and have never had a problem on any of my 5D cameras.

sorry for your troubles though.

so...any chance you could enlighten us all?

don't hold your breath.  seems like a tall order to me.

RLP...you got any popcorn popping?

Lenses / Re: Dxo tests canon/nikon/sony 500mm's
« on: July 15, 2013, 08:52:39 AM »
   DxO should come out a standard testing camera for testing lens... a mirrorless camera should be idea since it'll have the shortest flange focal distance and can use adapter for different vendor lens... then the only variables will be the lens and the result can be valid to compare between different lens.

that wouldnt really be more valid as you still have to mount those lenses on their brand camera for real world purposes. why would i care what the test results of a lens would be mounted to a camera i would never shoot. i would rather see test results from a lens/body combo that i could actually use.

not that i really care about DxO that is....

Canon General / Re: fair compensation?
« on: July 11, 2013, 06:52:56 AM »
This is a usage fee situation and it varies greatly depending on market, region, and print run.

I would personally do no lower than 150.00

Landscape / Re: My photo on the Bing home page today!
« on: July 06, 2013, 12:08:35 PM »
Did they pay you? Or are they profiting off of you at no cost?

this was my first thought. did they ask before using your image or did you submit it to them?

if not....having an image stolen is cause for excitement and congratulations? can you please clarify how this came about.

i can say that i highly recommend the 600 EX-Rt. i picked one up recently and put it through its paces on a wedding. didn't falter even once. i find that they are much more responsive and reliable than my 580's ever were. plus they offer alot more functionality over the 580's.

Technical Support / Re: Help me save this photo!
« on: July 02, 2013, 11:05:29 AM »
Scanning with a scanner or enlarging with an enlarger is the same thing: make a positive from a negative.

Um...if you are trying to deal with removing scratches then scanning versus enlarger prints is two entirely different problems.

I'm guessing something is being lost in translation here so I'm gonna let it go.

As for the OP, scratched negatives suck but be glad you do have the digital option to correct them. The healing brush is probably the best tool to deal with it but if you want to try a potentially easier solution, check out the content aware fill features in PS. I think they started getting pretty good in CS5. If your version is earlier then you are stuck with healing brush.

Technical Support / Re: Help me save this photo!
« on: July 02, 2013, 08:40:32 AM »
Lines are black!! Scratches in the negative are always white

Scratches in the negative are white true...but they turn black when a positive is made. Like a scan.

As others have clearly noted...this is such a minor issue especially since you were gonna need to use the healing brush like crazy to clean up all that dust.

Now if you wanted to have an enlarger print done...that's a different story.

as a wedding photographer i would have to recommend the 5D3 as your highest priority. it was built for doing weddings.

the focusing system is so good in that camera compared to the 5D2. it will add functionality to all of your current lenses and change the way you are able to shoot in a very good way.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Wedding Bloopers; Grab Your Popcorn!
« on: June 30, 2013, 01:14:09 AM »
i got two off the top of my head....

the first i came across was actually when i was working at a commercial lab. i ran all the E6 and C41 film so i saw ALOT of photography from many sources. one memorable roll came through with a 3 shot series that just dropped my jaw. 1st shot was bride and groom coming out of the church with arms raised about to walk down the steps (see where this is going?). 2nd shot everyone starts throwing rice, grooms arms still in the air and smiling....bride has started to stumble and is going down. 3rd shot everyone faces show realization of what disaster is about to happen, grooms face has an "oh @#%&" look and his arm is being pulled down as he starts to stumble while the bride has both arms completely outstretched and her face about an inch off the ground about to eat some serios pavement. there was no 4th shot.

the second instance i was a 2nd shooter on. we were at the brides place with her getting ready. the flowers arrive and are placed on the coffee table. the main shooter starts shooting the bouquet and arranges some small candles that were lit on the table around the flowers (mind you they were already there and lit...we didnt initiate that). she finishes up and goes back to shooting the bride. a couple minutes later someone comments on smelling something burning...we all start looking around and then suddenly POOF! brides bouquet bursts into flames. we scrambled to put it out and with some creative trimming and rearrangement the bride still had a bouquet.

Lighting / Re: photographing paintings that have thick paint
« on: June 29, 2013, 08:57:51 PM »
For large artwork an H-frame easle is indespensable. Got mine for just over 100.00 but you can certainly spend up to 1000.00 or more for a heavy duty one. Sandbags to secure the bottom and a level to square artwork up and you can fly through large pieces.

Shooting raw will allow you to take advantage of ACRs lens correction features to eliminate vignetting and barrel distortion so that you can really square it up. Use the crop feature with perspective on so that if the artwork was off axis you can correct that as well.

As boring as copy work may seem it does present a bunch of interesting photographic challenges to overcome

This is a forum where I can express my opinion

can anyone else express their opinion here as well without being put down by you? or should we change this forum to CarlTNRumors....

Software & Accessories / Re: Camera RAW
« on: June 27, 2013, 11:01:55 PM »
not really sure why raw is such a big mystery. its fairly straight forward and you see what is happening instantly.

when i taught beginning students digital photography, their biggest hurdle was understanding what adjustments to make and how much. most were very clumsy and heavy handed with their adjustments...naturally their edited images ended up looking much worse than OOC.

this had nothing to do with a perceived complexity of raw but more to do with a lack of understanding about the aesthetic qualities of density, contrast, color balance, and tonal gradations. i came to understand that these concepts were better grasped while learning on film as you really needed to pay close attention to what you were doing or your results would be disastrous. it is almost too easy in digital to make adjustments.

i would end up giving demos to my students showing how subtle adjustments combined together could really make an image stand out while large heavy adjustments would end up looking awkward. it takes time to learn these subtleties and to employ them effectively but it is by far worth it. raw also doesn't negate the necessity to know what good lighting is and how to expose properly.

you may find that raw is not for you and that you get more enjoyment out of just shooting jpg, but don't be fooled...a large segment of photography is putting raw to use very effectively and find it necessary to get the results they cant get from jpg.   

Software & Accessories / Re: FoCal Target Image
« on: June 25, 2013, 04:56:41 PM »
just downloaded the manual today. it helps to read it. you may want to print a larger target.


Pages: 1 ... 10 11 [12] 13 14 ... 27