Messages

1

Software & Accessories / Re: Adobe Releases Lightroom 5

« on: June 10, 2013, 04:00:38 PM »

If its faster than LR4, thats all I need.

I found it to be noticeably faster (particularly module changes, but also some other stuff), however my overall workflow was hindered by numerous restarts of the software. Will see if it's fixed.

2

Software & Accessories / Re: Adobe Releases Lightroom 5

« on: June 10, 2013, 10:08:57 AM »

Wow, quick turnaround from beta to final. Hope the bugs are fixed (adjustment brush being the most annoying to me)

3

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 1DX and 5D3 RAW files

« on: May 31, 2013, 09:14:34 AM »

We're discussing 5D Mark III RAW files vs. 1DX RAW files are we not?

Not.

4

EOS Bodies / Re: Digitalrev speculates on D7100 vs. 7D2

« on: May 29, 2013, 06:47:33 PM »

Exactly! Look at the image below.... it is a pileated woodpecker hoping along a fence. It is the timing that makes it an interesting picture.... a mid-air capture that is in focus... not dynamic range or iso performance.

I do find myself wishing there was more detail inside the crack directly below the bird. DR is severely lacking.

 

5

EOS Bodies / Re: Digitalrev speculates on D7100 vs. 7D2

« on: May 29, 2013, 02:30:14 PM »

A shot with less noise and more DR that's slightly OOF and  a fraction of a second after the peak of action is a throwaway [compared to one with more noise, less DR, proper focus and timed correctly]

Absolutely.

When I take multiple images of the same subject with more-or-less the same framing (these days most often my son), I look first to focus and exposure. If all of them are equal, I'd then look to noise. With my moving target, I'd rather shoot ISO320 1/400 than ISO160 1/200, that's for sure.

6

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Do you trust your camera?

« on: May 11, 2013, 11:05:26 AM »

I tend to trust my center AF. The others are fine for landscape, but hit and miss for portraiture (unfortunately).

7

Animal Kingdom / Re: Wrong Photography Ethics?

« on: May 09, 2013, 06:28:48 PM »

That's great Artwork than involved good photography but the final product would be classified by me as Artwork.

I'd say it's good artwork that involved great photography.

Think about how you'd have to shoot. Intentionally under or overexposing certain areas to result in thin or thick negatives to aid in composting, printing and printing and printing to find placement and build masks, then going through an elaborate sequence (I think I read once he uses a dozen or so enlargers for some of his more elaborate works) of printing in the dark with no indication what's been exposed until you drop it in the developer.

It boggles my mind, regardless of what one calls the final product.

8

Animal Kingdom / Re: Wrong Photography Ethics?

« on: May 09, 2013, 06:21:58 PM »

If I can do it in the wet darkroom (cropping, dodging, burning, filtering) then it's completely legal

You might not be able to do it in the darkroom, but if someone else with a different skillset can, does it become legal?

Was it illegal when Jerry Uelsmann shot all the requisite film, built the appropriate masks, and then used a series of enlargers along with consummate skill to print this image in a darkroom in 1976?

9

Animal Kingdom / Re: Wrong Photography Ethics?

« on: May 09, 2013, 06:10:23 PM »

I found the sky boring and added clouds to make it more interesting.

Do you think this is cheating? I really want to know.

Am very confused. I have made changes but not altered nature. Have I done something wrong?

Thx

No, you have not. It looks better. It's not as if you added an extra cheetah. I don't even particularly think you need to disclose it. It looks natural.

There is a common theme on photo forums, with certain people suggesting that a photo should be what the photographer saw. Maybe if one takes that statement metaphysically (as in: saw in his mind's eye type of thing), I agree. Literally? I do not, and I find it funny when those same people then post desaturated images of their dinner at f/1.2 with the camera held at MFD. This isn't that theme, but it's kinda like it.

To me, the end product has always been about what I want it to be. I'm not a photojournalist; there are rules in that realm for good reason. When it comes to art, do what you want to do. Your image is art.

10

Software & Accessories / Re: Manfrotto Repair: I thought I was buying from the best

« on: May 02, 2013, 02:18:41 PM »

Seems like the smartest thing is to buy gear made on the continent where you live.

So only people living in Asia should buy cameras?

11

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: D7100 ... Will Canon meet this specs?

« on: May 01, 2013, 08:32:42 AM »

Wait, 1.3 crop? I think you guys are thinking backwards...

No we aren't.

A 1.3 crop sensor is BIGGER than a 1.6 crop... so how can Nikon offer a BIGGER crop than the 1.5 crop sensor they put into the camera?

A 1.3 crop of "FX" is obviously bigger than 1.6 crop of the same, and they can not enlarge the sensor with software.

Clearly, it's a 1.3X crop from "DX" (i.e. a 1.3X crop of a 1.6X crop of FX).

http://www.nikonusa.com/en/Nikon-Products/Product/Digital-SLR-Cameras/1513/D7100.html#tab-ProductDetail-ProductTabs-TechSpecs


Sensor Size 23.5mm x 15.6mm
Image Sensor Format DX
...
DX-format
(L) 6,000 x 4,000
...
1.3X Crop Mode
(L) 4,800 x 3,200 (13.5 MP)

I have to laugh at their product overview where they claim in camera cropping provides better reach. In for a dime, in for a dollar, I suppose.

12

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: D7100 ... Will Canon meet this specs?

« on: April 28, 2013, 10:36:32 PM »

what is 1.3x crop mode?
how can a camera that has an 1.5 crop sensor have an 1.3 crop mode?

does that mean the image is cropped further with an 1.3 factor?
only a part of the sensor is used?

Pretty much. I imagine the whole sensor is used but only the center crop is recorded. The viewfinder draws some dark borders to aid with framing.

Basically, it reduces file sizes to boost framerate, and I suppose saves some flash memory space if your lens is too wide for your subject. The bit about "extensive AF coverage" is marketing nonsense (the coverage doesn't change, obviously).

13

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: D7100 ... Will Canon meet this specs?

« on: April 28, 2013, 11:48:13 AM »

It's possible canon will use the 1Dx AF unit which would make for incredible coverage on APS-C (and if it has dual processors maybe it could be fully functional unlike the 5D3).

Unlikely. Canon doesn't work like that.

The 7D Mark II needs to be clearly inferior in every way to the 1DX.

That is the Canon way.

Yah, it would be a long shot. Even the version the 5D3 got would be cool. I kinda expect they'll develop something for the format specifically, though. Maybe they'll use some double crosses, though.

14

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: D7100 ... Will Canon meet this specs?

« on: April 27, 2013, 11:02:57 AM »

Will the 7D2 or the 70D meet this Specs? I hope so....

A 7D replacement I suspect will match or beat the D7100's framerate. It's possible canon will use the 1Dx AF unit which would make for incredible coverage on APS-C (and if it has dual processors maybe it could be fully functional unlike the 5D3). If on the other hand they develop a new one, I doubt it will be as good.

I don't think either will be quite as good as the D7100 when it comes to high sensitivity, and would bet the house neither will have an equivalent to Nikon's flash system (sad - would be exceedingly easy to implement).

They'll both have better ergo.

15

Software & Accessories / Re: [editing pictures] I can't live without...

« on: April 27, 2013, 11:02:01 AM »

Black clipping.