March 05, 2015, 03:37:46 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 - privatebydesign

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 225
EOS Bodies / Re: Check your 11-24L for decentering!
« on: Today at 12:32:49 AM »
Regarding the section on your guide about infinity focus, isn't the purpose of the "past infinity" part of the focus ring to allow for the effect of different temperatures on the lens?
The 16-35L II isn't parfocal. Thus focus must always change for different focal length settings. Temperature of the lens has little effect on where infinity must be set, in my experience. These lenses are very well designed to withstand thermal expansion. It still plays a roll, but not by any noticeable degree.

Also, the article is not saying anything about going past true infinity. It is only stating that to achieve infinity, you must not go by the marking and instead there is extra sharpness to be had by going past it a little based on lens variation from copy to copy. The test is to know where you should set infinity focus by knowing the offset for different focal lengths. Setting it to the marking still gives acceptable sharpness for the most part due to the hyperfocal distances. As you can see in the article, the added sharpness is very little but real.

The lens design also allows for the AF mechanism to hit infinity without hitting the stops when it must rock back and forth. It is important to give a bit of extra room for this to happen. I had a 70-200 lens that was too far out of spec, and at 70mm the infinity setting was too far past the marking, causing the AF mechanism to hit the stops and give up on finding true infinity, even though I could put it manually to true infinity.

It has nothing to do with zoom parfocal or not, if it did the primes wouldn't go past infinity yet they do.

Lenses / Re: Manual macro lenses for intraoral photographs
« on: Today at 12:16:05 AM »
Hello guys. I take some intraoral photographs in the dental clinic using 70d and 100 2.8L. The combo works well, but sometimes I don't like the colors of the mouth tissues, even if shoot RAW. Once in a while I read very nice reviews about some other macro lenses (e.g., Voigtlander SL 125 2.5, Schneider Makro-Symmar 90mm 4.5, Leica R 100 2.8 APO) and I'm wondering if these lenses will give me some better image quality and color rendition?

All pictures I take are manual only, Canon Macro flash, ISO 100, shutter speed 1/100-1/150 sec and the widest aperture is 22 (I typically use aperture 32). Considering these parameters, would any of the above mentioned lenses give me any advantage over Canon 100L?

Another question is does anyone know if I cut a gray card to a small size to fit into the mouth, would I be able to more or less correctly adjust colors in LR?

Thank you!

No, a different lens will not help you, ignore anybody that says it will. Yes you can cut down a grey card but that will only give you a white balance, which is a start, but not the complete picture you need. What you need to do is create a custom profile for your camera using the lighting you do for your images. This can be done easily with a colour card (which doesn't need to go inside the mouth! Just have the same lighting as your images), the most popular one around is the X-Rite ColorChecker Passport. Their website has videos on how to create your profile and then use it.

EOS Bodies / Re: Check your 11-24L for decentering!
« on: March 04, 2015, 11:18:52 PM »
Regarding the section on your guide about infinity focus, isn't the purpose of the "past infinity" part of the focus ring to allow for the effect of different temperatures on the lens?

Yes it is.

And the TS-E lenses focus even further past infinity to give you more control over the plain of focus.

Lighting / Re: Diffuser for Canon 600ex for event
« on: March 04, 2015, 07:26:08 PM »
Mini softboxes are a POS, they are not worth the postage unless you can get them off camera and close, very close, to a small subject. The Rouge FlashBender isn't much better, especially on camera, but it is better in that it has more flexibility.
I guess thats where I'm getting lost. I can bend it, but whats so great about that as far as softening light? It seems pretty useful if you're under white ceilings or a tent cause then you're not wasting all that light going up, but what about for the outside shots with sky overhead? Use the flash vertical and use flash bender to reflect the bit of light it'll catch as fill? Or is bare flash at a low power fine for simple fill?


On camera with no bounce they are both extremely limited, but the Rouge does give you the option to split light in any percentage you want between direct forwards and bouncing if the venue allows that capability. With a small softbox you are stuck with a slightly larger than flash head sized output.

Neither is ideal, the Rouge gives you more flexibility if you get the opportunity to use it, if you don't they also do a little cover to make it a pure softbox, which I also have.

Light is not magic, it is entirely dependent on the apparent size to the subject, with that softbox in this situation you are stuck at one size and one distance, with the Rouge you are not, you have all the capability of the softbox and more options if you can use them.

I'd use the Rouge for your outsides, it makes the light bigger, comparatively, and further from the lens axis, which are both good things. Just curl the top over and make a scoop.

Lighting / Re: Diffuser for Canon 600ex for event
« on: March 04, 2015, 06:11:49 PM »
Mini softboxes are a POS, they are not worth the postage unless you can get them off camera and close, very close, to a small subject. The Rouge FlashBender isn't much better, especially on camera, but it is better in that it has more flexibility.

EOS Bodies / Re: Check your 11-24L for decentering!
« on: March 04, 2015, 02:18:25 PM »
Yes, and the sides. Imagine if this was done on a 5Ds with 50MP. The difference would be pretty huge.

No, the difference would be exactly the same at the same output size.

Lighting / Re: Color temperature and light source
« on: March 04, 2015, 01:15:43 AM »
The biggest problem you are running into is the actual spectral output of the bulbs. Don't be fooled by 'daylight' or high CRI figures, they are easy to get around. What you need are genuine full spectrum bulbs and the only brand that I use are the leading manufacturer of them, Solux.

Look through here and get the best for your situation, the halogens do produce a lot of heat but there are other options. Once you get them set it up, do the ColorChecker once and you are good for any subject, same exposure, same WB and same camera profile, make that an import preset and you are done.

Hi Roo.
Very nice shots, love the mini tornado, the wall of fire looks spectacular!

Cheers, Graham.

Thanks Graham

Here's a few of the WW1 aircraft flying

Very nice series Roo.

The airplane in the fourth picture is odd.
Doesn't seem te be one that was used in the period that the nazis were in power. So don't get it why they put a swastika.

The Nazi swastika was quite different, it was at 45º and the 'legs' went the other way. As it is drawn on the earlier plane it is as the religious symbol in India and the Far East, it is important in Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism, and is sometimes actually drawn the other way around too. But I believe only the Nazi's drew it at 45º. In Europe and the USA it is very stigmatised and closely connected to Fascism and extreme right wing leaning people, whereas in India and the Far East it has no such connotations and is considered auspicious. It is a little disconcerting the first few times Westerners see it daubed randomly in holy places though.

Obviously it is a German plane and I am sure it progressed from the original auspicious symbol it represents as drawn into the Nazi version many of us are familiar with.

Photography Technique / Re: Does this photo work?
« on: March 03, 2015, 11:48:48 PM »
I prefer the original composition with the launch pad. It brings my eye back into the frame after looking at the blurry bird and then back to the launch pad. Without it, it doesn't do anything for me.


The bird is blurry, out of focus, and therefore doesn't work well as the subject. The launch pad might be subtle, but it's the star of the show.

Only if you look at it in the literal. Start to look at it in the abstract and the rock kills it. Defocus your eyes and they get pulled to the 'launch pad', take it out and you drown in the colours, your mind is free to swim in the abstract that is the blur and motion.

Take a look at some of Franz Lanting's work, for many years he was a preeminent wildlife shooter and I have a signed ltd edition of his book Eye To Eye (and yes it also comes with a signed Cibachrome!) he explored this kind of wildlife abstract many years ago.

Lenses / Re: Review: Canon EF 11-24mm f/4L
« on: March 03, 2015, 11:39:50 PM »
Jut to let you guys know--a full double rainbow requires a focal length not longer than 14mm to capture.

Surely that would depend on the time of day/season/height of the sun?

Don't have a lot of experience with portraiture, but it's something I trying to learn. I'd welcome any thoughts and comments.

Very nice!

It is the kind of situation where off camera lighting really would have lifted the image, just a cheap white umbrella and a speedlite over to your left and higher then drop the ambient exposure a touch, half a stop or so and you would have a really really nice picture.

Nice framing, nice pose and wardrobe too. keep it up!

You might not be buying any more of their stuff, it seems they don't care, meanwhile they have come out with world leading optics like the 11-24, the much more modest but very high performing 16-35, the 100-400 MkII, along with world class 24-70 f2.8, 70-200 f2.8, accessories like the 600-EX-RT, and bodies like the 7D MkII, the 5DS and 5DSR. There are plenty of people that want those products despite your belief that Canon are so far behind.

I will be very interested to see how many D810 and 14-24 users swap over to the 5DSR and 11-24, they might not get as much DR, but they get tons more everything else! I am really looking forwards to a resolution test between the two systems to see how many of those pixels are delivering good detail from the matched lenses.

How about putting some funds to a new fab so you can build modern sensors?

They have proven there is no need at this point, that is why. Besides, what do you think they made the 120MP APS-C sensor on?

Half the time most of you decriers seem to confuse your 'need' with a business need, Canon rarely seem to do that, they are extremely conservative and cautious in their camera strategy, if you don't like that or have a need for features Canon don't sell buy something else.


If Sony would sell their sensor business, Canon might be interested, but for now, that's almost all
Sony has that's worth anything.

I know you know Mt Spokane, but Sony is an insurance company and that is how the group manages to keep all the diverse and costly arms going. Sensors make money now, but nowhere near as much as the financial division and the investment has been stratospheric.

Lenses / Re: Next L Lens From Canon Will be a Prime [CR2]
« on: March 03, 2015, 04:28:21 PM »
If they are attempting to replace the 50mm f/1.2, why not go all the way and introduce a new f/1.0 or f/0.95 (with optimal sharpness and focusing capabilities, of course)? It's time for Canon to introduce another revolution, not just an evolution. They've certainly proven that they can do this on the wide end (ie 11-24), but it would be great to see this innovation in the form of a new extreme-aperture lens.

The reason the 50mm f/1.2L is f/1.2 is because by making it f/1.2 Canon was able to significantly increase sharpness and focusing capabilities and reduces artifacts over the 50mm f/1.0.  50mm f/1.0 requires a massive amount of glass to move around and there is not much way to get around that as it is physics.  There is no free lunch with lenses where you can have the widest aperture, fastest focusing speed, best sharpness, and least artifacts - everything is a tradeoff.

Personally I would like to see an 85mm f/1.4L, basically redo the 85mm f/1.2L II with the improvements they made in the 50mm f/1.2.  It would be nice to have an 85L that focuses as fast as the 50L f/1.2.

The 50 f1.2 was not a replacement for the 50 f1.0, they were very different. Canon has a long history of both the 50/55 f1.2 and the 50 f0.95.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 225