April 21, 2014, 09:56:04 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 - 3kramd5

Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8 ... 14
76
Canon General / Re: 24-70Mk2 fell off my 5DMk3 and smashed
« on: March 30, 2013, 11:26:44 AM »
To the OP: Have you checked for looseness with other lenses? Perhaps the spring is too weak.

edit - re-read. Never mind.

77
Canon General / Re: 24-70Mk2 fell off my 5DMk3 and smashed
« on: March 29, 2013, 11:31:33 PM »
Tolerance buildup can cause lenses to be tight or loose on the mounting.

Hmm. I guess so, but it's really just two parts. The body assembly and lens assembly tolerances shouldn't come into play for that joint. They should be able to spec them out such that it's not loose even with worst-case tolerances.

Could be a QC control. Maybe they aren't inspecting toleranced features.

78
Lenses / Re: Best lens for baby portraits?
« on: March 28, 2013, 05:52:04 PM »
I know you went with the 85 1.8, but it is fun posting these shots anyway.


Agreed!

24-70@2.8 near the wide end obviously can't come close to the shallowness of 50@1.2 (to say nothing of the 'creaminess'), but I can live with a little background clutter.


79
Lenses / Re: 24-70 f2.8L II or.....
« on: March 28, 2013, 11:38:10 AM »
Option C:

used  24-70 f/2.8L (here's one for 1050: http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=233131)
+ 35 f1.4L

You may be able to get the 24-105 new cheaper than a grand (though taxes may be an issue depending on your location), but not significantly cheaper.

80
Technical Support / Re: Lightroom crashes when I try to import...
« on: March 25, 2013, 06:34:06 PM »
That happens to me occasionally. Also, sometimes the adjustment brushes stop working (or lose intensity, like I can push +4 stops and barely see a change).

I've always traced it back to a corrupt preferences file. Don't know exactly what causes it.

my best practice each time I install a new version is to set it up how I use it and then back up the .agprefs file. Whenever anything gets screwy, I overwrite that file in the user folder, and it goes back to working fine.

81
Lenses / Re: Why some lens says "macro"?
« on: March 19, 2013, 02:02:25 PM »
Macro traditionally has to do with magnification, in specific a 1:1 or better ratio of size-on-film/sensor to real life.

Somewhere along the way lens makers muddied the waters. I don't know if there is a clear definition as to when they put a macro label on a lens, but suffice it to say that if it isn't a dedicated macro lens, it's not macro.

82
Animal Kingdom / Re: Zoo Pics 2
« on: March 17, 2013, 06:23:14 PM »
^^ that elephant perspective is amazing.

Thank you, but just for the record it is a rhinoceros, not an elephant.

Well crap. I thought its mouth looked wrong, but mistook the horn for a trunk.

83
Animal Kingdom / Re: Zoo Pics 2
« on: March 17, 2013, 12:15:06 PM »
^^ that elephant perspective is amazing.

makin' babies:


84
...
What would be great is if cameras and media could match the DR of human vision, and clipping black or white was a creative choice, not a technological necessity.
I don't know the neuroscience of human vision, but my experience tells me that the brain does a lot of processing to create a virtual dynamic range much greater than what the eye is capable of seeing. For example, in the photo of the alley, the cobblestones in the sunlight are much brighter than those in the shadows. Possibly by 7 or 8 EV, I don't know. When a human focuses on the stones in the light, it sees detail, but does not simultaneously see detail in the shadows, as the eye is not focused there. When the eye moves to focus on the shadow, the human adjusts to see detail there, but again, not simultaneously focusing on the highlighted stones. The brain processes these local contrast elements of the scene with detail. When looking at the scene as a whole, the brain now combines the global scene with the details of the highlights and shadows and creates a clear "picture" in the viewer's mind. But this is not a print, or anything equivalent to a print. Or even a scene in a movie or video. It's some image in a person's mind. I've concluded that it can't actually be recreated in the physical world via print or video. I also believe that the reason some people like HDR images is because they try to reproduce the "wider DR" we see in our minds, with both highlight detail and shadow detail.

Is my brain doing some sort of sampling? Maybe. But whatever the mechanisms at play, I see what I see. We may never get there with imaging technology, but it's a worthy goal.

85
Lenses / Re: 17-40mm advice please!
« on: March 14, 2013, 03:18:53 PM »
Although the 17-55mm F2.8 IS is the full frame equivalent of 27-88mm F4 IS

The 17-40mm is 27-64mm F4 on crop

Just to avoid some confusion:
The 17-55mm f/2.8 IS is the full frame equivalent of 27-88mm f/4.5 IS.
The 17-40mm f/4 is equivalent to 27-64mm f/6.4 on crop.  ;)

You don't lose a stop and a half by cropping. You must mean 'as it pertains to DOF'. Just to avoid confusion.

86
I have absolutely no intentions of sitting down at the computer and bringing the shadows up so they are any different than what I saw and what made me want to take the picture to begin with.


I don't think that's really part of the discussion.

More like showing detail which you did see but which is occluded either by shadows or by blown highlights in a digital image.

For example, I betcha that when the photographer looked up, he didn't see that blotch of white.


And I similarly expect that the photographer here could see cobblestones at the bottom left.


Granted, in the second case, the clipped shadows look good, but is what she saw? I doubt it.

What would be great is if cameras and media could match the DR of human vision, and clipping black or white was a creative choice, not a technological necessity.

87
If you plan to wait around for future tech improvements to go out and shoot, you'll be waiting quite a while.

lol, okay.

88
I stated that technique will improve DR more than any sensor will.

What techniques are you referring to to improve DR? Genuinely curious, not being pointlessly argumentative.

Are you talking about post processing like your Before/After? Making brights darker and darks lighter compresses DR and improves the image, yes. There are other ways to limit the DR requirement. You can choose to shoot when the scene doesn't greatly exceed camera capabilities. You can choose to limit the scene DR as viewed through the lens with filters, or by artificially lighting the shadows.

If you don't have those options, and if the scene you photographed clips white and black, what do you do?

Those are a few methods. I knew you'd get it sooner or later.

You stated technique will improve DR; those are a few methods which reduce it.

I understand working within capabilities. The best camera in the world is the one you have with you and all that. But is not this forum fundamentally about future technology, not working around the limitations of current technology?

Should I expect [CR2] about canon's next great camera which will audibly instruct you to take 60 a second exposure whilst waving your hand in front of the lens like you're burning in the darkroom?

89
I stated that technique will improve DR more than any sensor will.

What techniques are you referring to to improve DR? Genuinely curious, not being pointlessly argumentative.

Are you talking about post processing like your Before/After? Making brights darker and darks lighter compresses DR and improves the image, yes. There are other ways to limit the DR requirement. You can choose to shoot when the scene doesn't greatly exceed camera capabilities. You can choose to limit the scene DR as viewed through the lens with filters, or by artificially lighting the shadows.

If you don't have those options, and if the scene you photographed clips white and black, what do you do?

90
I don't believe your understanding what I'm stating. It's not about DR, its about being at the right place at the right time.

Being at the right place at the right time is all well and good for pro landscape photographers (or even hobbyists with ample time). But that's not most people. It's not so good for people who photograph things which don't coincide with the solar cycle, or for people who can't get out of the house before dawn or return after dusk.

Suppose someone gets home from his once-in-a-lifetime trip to... Banff for example. He downloads his pictures and is instantly disappointed at the block of white at the upper 1/3 of all his landscape frames, or at the big shadow between the trees where he knows a bear was playing with her cubs.

Technological advancements are welcome. They aren't the end-all-be-all, certainly, but they're welcome nonetheless (and not just for the lay user).

Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8 ... 14