April 17, 2014, 06:04:15 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 - CTJohn

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 13
61

Isn't DNG an Adobe product?  Why would I put files in that format, when I have no idea what they're going to do with it in the future?  They aren't winning a lot of friends with their business strategies.

The DNG format is an free and completely open format developed by Adobe, just like pdf's. Converting files to DNG does not destroy your original, you have several options, one, make a copy (this doesn't touch your original), or two, make a copy and include the original RAW file inside it (again, this doesn't touch your original).

Doing this via the free fully supported DNG convertor just means Adobe have given you the ability to use unsupported newer cameras in older software, entirely for free, without touching your original image file. Name me one other software company that does that.

There are good reasons to chastise the corporate way we seem to be racing towards, but I really don't believe Adobe deserve most of the hysteria and inaccurate hyperbole being thrown at them.
I think you're missing my point.  If I do processing in Adobe's format (DNG), then unless I want to re-process at some point in the future when Adobe decides not to support DNG, I'm once again at their whim.

If I carry RAW and DNG in my computer, I have the above issue and eat up more of my hard drive as well.

I repeat my question, do you work for Adobe?

62
However, Adobe have, again as I have already said, bent over backwards to enable that 10% to keep using their current software even with new cameras (no small expenditure in itself), maintain perpetual licensing with Lightroom, and make this new photographer orientated subscription model at prices any keen hobbyist could easily afford.
I'm not sure how they're bending over backwards.  I bought a copy of CS5 Extended shortly before the CS6 release.  CR2 files from my 6D don't work on my version of Photoshop.

Have you updated to the latest available Camera Raw Plugin for your version?

Oops. I see that 6D is not supported by the latest version available for CS5. If you bought shortly before the release then then the upgrade was free. Also, there was an interim 5.5 release.

Using the DNG converter is your best current choice if you want to directly manipulate your RAW files in PS without going through LR, unless you want to do the $10/month subscription.
Isn't DNG an Adobe product?  Why would I put files in that format, when I have no idea what they're going to do with it in the future?  They aren't winning a lot of friends with their business strategies.

63
However, Adobe have, again as I have already said, bent over backwards to enable that 10% to keep using their current software even with new cameras (no small expenditure in itself), maintain perpetual licensing with Lightroom, and make this new photographer orientated subscription model at prices any keen hobbyist could easily afford.
I'm not sure how they're bending over backwards.  I bought a copy of CS5 Extended shortly before the CS6 release.  CR2 files from my 6D don't work on my version of Photoshop.

It depends how "shortly" before CS6 was released, normally Adobe offer a recent purchaser discount to upgrade. But once a version of pretty much any companies software is superseded support stops, Adobe are not unusual in that regard it is the industry norm, they didn't know when you were going to buy a new camera after all. Having said that Adobe did write a fully supported free program that allows you use CS5 and your 6D files, name me another software company that does that.

Also, if you don't like the idea or price of upgrading to CS6 or the "hassle" of the free DNG convertor then get Lightroom 5 for $99, this gives you the very latest ACR, the version above CS6, the CC version, you can then "open in CS5" and "render using Lightroom" and open every camera Adobe currently support in your legacy CS5. $99 gets you the best ACR leveraged against the power of PS.

Adobe give us photographers so many legal ways of working around any "restrictions" or "limitations" they are accused of putting in our way,they can't all be by accident, I believe they are bending over backwards to keep stuff accessible to that 10%, we are just to obtuse to see it, too often we sound like belligerent children being asked to simmer down after a tantrum in a supermarket or restaurant.
I do use Lightroom 5, purchased a few weeks ago.  It will not export to CS5 as layers, only as single files.

Do you work for Adobe?

64
However, Adobe have, again as I have already said, bent over backwards to enable that 10% to keep using their current software even with new cameras (no small expenditure in itself), maintain perpetual licensing with Lightroom, and make this new photographer orientated subscription model at prices any keen hobbyist could easily afford.
I'm not sure how they're bending over backwards.  I bought a copy of CS5 Extended shortly before the CS6 release.  CR2 files from my 6D don't work on my version of Photoshop.

65
I feel its just a short term deal, and prices will start going up after 6 months. 
 
Adobe is undoubtedly hurting.  Let them hurt.
 
Adobe's 2nd Quarter report for 2013 shows.
Cash flows:
Net Income
 
six Months ending 6/1/2012       $409.085,000
six Months ending 5/31/2013      $141,663,000.
 
They are hurting for cash, and as more members drop than signup, a CEO is going to be booted out.
Let's hope he is!

66
Canon General / Re: EF 800 f/5.6L IS II [CR2]
« on: September 03, 2013, 08:44:01 AM »
Yippee!  Time to break the piggy bank.

67
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 6d Highest Usable Iso?
« on: August 28, 2013, 06:16:03 PM »
6D is two stops better or so.  So if 800 is your cut-off now, 3200 would probably be your cut-off on the 6D. Anyone else agree?

That's my experience coming from a 50D, where I was never happy with >800 ISO, and that's at the pixel level so comparing 15 MPix to 20 MPix (even more in favor of the 6D IQ). I set the auto-iso cut-off to 3200 and find those images very usable, and typically don't even apply NR to 800 ISO shots unless I underexpose and have to adjust shadow levels. For JPEG even 6400 is quite good, but with raw you do have to work a bit to do as well as the onboard processor. Pretty amazing, actually.
I agree.  I have a 7D which I limit at ISO 800 in auto ISO...I limit my 6D at 6400 and I think the noise level is better at that level than at 800 on the 7D.  A very pleasant surprise.

68
Lenses / Re: Using Canon 70-300 L without a tripod collar
« on: August 25, 2013, 09:01:59 AM »
You could consider the Vello ring instead, for 1/3 the cost of the OEM.
I can't find the Vello ring C anywhere and I think that's the one for this lens, isn't it?

Apologies - you're right, they only make A and D (was thinking of the ring for the 70-200/4).  Looks like there is one from Fotodiox and a bunch of cheapo ones on Amazon.

Personally, I got the Canon ring.

Thanks!

69
Lenses / Re: Using Canon 70-300 L without a tripod collar
« on: August 25, 2013, 08:30:18 AM »
Get the collar.  Balance is much better, meaning positioning is easier and more stable, and it's easy to switch from landscape to portrait orientation. 

You could consider the Vello ring instead, for 1/3 the cost of the OEM.
I can't find the Vello ring C anywhere and I think that's the one for this lens, isn't it?

70
Lenses / Re: Using Canon 70-300 L without a tripod collar
« on: August 25, 2013, 06:42:13 AM »
I have the lens and use it with my 7D and 6D on a Manfrotto ball head with no collar.  Because this lens is so compact it works fine without the collar (although shame on Canon for not including a collar with an L tele lens!)

71
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon 6D Under-Exposing?
« on: August 16, 2013, 11:32:44 AM »
I have not had issues between metering modes and within a same scene.  It's just dark, and if indoors, off color.

I haven't played much with a 6D but still find that is unexpected behavior.
Everything that I've used with that 63 zone metering sensor has provided excellent metering and AWB.

Can you compare your 6D with another, side-by-side, same lens?
No, unfortunately I don't know anyone else with a 6D.  It sounds like I'm not the only one with this sort of problem from the above comments.

72
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon 6D Under-Exposing?
« on: August 15, 2013, 05:02:21 PM »
I've found various bodies to expose with various levels of error, no real surprise.

What I find more annoying tho, is an inconsistent error on any given body.

E.G.
new Pentax K52s with fast zoom and sunlight.
- matrix metering is within 1/3 of Sekonic
- CWA and Spot on the same uniform surface are -1EV from matrix

I thot this may be due to the effect of lens corner shading in matrix EXCEPT that if I move to an indoor location, again on a smooth surface evenly lit by natural outside light thru windows, all metering modes are now the same result!

FWIW, my K52s underexposes considerably and inconsistently when outdoors in sunlight, no matter what metering mode I use and even sunny-16 numbers do not provide proper results but are often nearly 2 stops under...  I need to get that thing checked out...  I can usually rely on full manual giving consistent results but I have to go by the histogram as the metering's too wonky.  Same behavior with various lenses so not sure what its problem is yet, aperture control lever calibration?..  Have to find some time for detailed testing.

Meanwhile..

My D800 does the same -1EV shift in sunlight when changing between metering modes as the K52s but its matrix mode does a very good job for all my shots and rarely under or over exposes by much in complex scenes and is predictable in low dynamic range shots.

My old Canon 5d2 often underexposed a great deal and again, inconsistently.  It occasionally over exposed a scene grossly too, even with no change of scene and from shot to shot.  Manual was the only way to get consistent shot-to-shot results.

my 60D and 7d2 gave remarkably accurate and consistently good metering (&WB) and also agreed very well with my Sekonics or sunny-16 when in manual. 40d gives consistent and predictable metering, even if not accurate.

All my consumer grade bodies, Canon and Nikon, actually seem to meter quite predictably and consistently, if a little conservative at times so they rarely clip highlites or underexpose by much.

So...  not surprised to hear that a 6D underexposes a bit.
But how consistent is it between metering modes and various light levels?
and shot-to-shot on the same scene?
I have not had issues between metering modes and within a same scene.  It's just dark, and if indoors, off color.

73
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon 6D Under-Exposing?
« on: August 15, 2013, 09:09:06 AM »
I'm so glad to read this string.  I've experienced what I thought was underexposure with my 6D as well....never had the problem with my 7D. 

Is anyone have a white balance problem with interior shots?  Even when I set the white balance to tungsten on some shots, they come out yellow/orange-ish.  Exterior shots seem to be fine.

74
Software & Accessories / Re: Lightroom 5
« on: August 09, 2013, 09:41:57 PM »
Youtube has thousands of tutorial, why not take a look there?

Have looked and will look some more, however this is a forum after all. Always good to get some good tips and advice from people as you they might not all be covered in video tutorials etc.
There are people on this forum who use LR in many different ways, and I frequently see advice that I feel is not the best practice.    There is also lots of accurate advice.  The problem for a new user is to determine which is which.  That's where viewing training videos on the Adobe site or on a expert users site is useful.  Utube is neat, but not everything is done by someone who knows the best practice.
I learned Lightroom in Chris Orwig's training session on Lynda.com.  Not free, but they have monthly subscriptions, and the Lightroom course is excellent (as well as those on Photoshop.)

75
EOS Bodies / Re: EOS 7D Mark II Information [CR2]
« on: August 04, 2013, 06:27:00 AM »
I've owned a 7D since shortly after its introduction.  I bought a 6D this past April.  On my recent trip I shot the 6D as my carry-around (still getting to know it) and anytime the light was low.  I used either/or in daylight.  Action (surfers, birds, etc.) in daylight was almost exclusively 7D.  The dynamic range of the 6D beats the 7D hands-down.  7D AF, AF points, frame rate is way above 6D capabilities.  My 7D captures almost double the frames my 6D does in the same amount of time.  I don't regret buying the 6D just for the increased ability to shoot well at night, and for better detail in my landscapes.  The 7D has survived so long because as a new breed it was far superior to the xxD line, and its features pushed the xD line; though it lacked xD DR & ISO capabilities most of these issues could be addressed in ppc.  Marry the best features of the two bodies together for a sure winner in the 7D MkII.
I have the same cameras and agree completely.

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 13