September 19, 2014, 11:57:28 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 - privatebydesign

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 158
EOS Bodies / Re: Just for Jrista: 2014 Market Data
« on: Today at 10:50:58 PM »
Crucify me. I've already been hanging on a cross for a while now, not like it's going to matter. :P
Oh please spare us the self-pity. You've been on the attack for months now. Every time you are proven wrong you change the goal posts or pull out the "poor me" card. It's time to move on.
+ several million

I don't cry when I get set upon

"Just as you sow you shall reap": Stuart Adams.

Post Processing / Re: Overall "brightness" when printing
« on: Today at 10:36:31 PM »
25-30% is normally pretty close for screen brightness. The other key point is what light is going onto the print, it must be good even light of a similar temperature to the screen.

Post Processing / Re: Overall "brightness" when printing
« on: Today at 06:35:30 PM »
Invariably your screen is way too bright.

Think about it, if your screen is brighter than a piece of paper then the print will be darker than it looks on the screen. Lower your screen brightness and increase the light onto the print.

Good photogs will probably cringe at the mere though, but I dare to ask anyway :-o ...

... my enthusiasm for "correct" flash gelling has recently diminished a bit because for many scenes with defined edges or surfaces, correcting the white balance (temperature, tint) with the postprocessing tools in Lightroom work just fine. Plus often I need to tweak the local wb anyway since 1/4 or 1/2 cto doesn't necessarily hit the correct spot, and even "real" shadows are often too blue, so why bother at all with gels?

Am I missing something here, is postprocessing wb different than flash gelling? As far as I see it, the flash blocks some up some light frequencies and taking away these from the raw file should amount to the same thing?

Note that this only applies if you can quickly smudge over whole areas with a corrected wb, for fine foreground/background details gelling the flash is the work-saving way to go.

You are not missing anything, I gel but often in very mixed light source venues it is impossible to get everything "right" without going to extremes like gelling windows etc. Nowadays it is easier, quicker and cheaper to use the WB in the brush tool on LR.

Lenses / Re: What do you use your wide angle lens for?
« on: Today at 04:01:39 PM »
You can use the T/S lenses to put people on the edge of the frame with no distortion in wide and ultrawide images. Just shift away from the person and reframe, that way they are at the center of the image circle but the edge of the frame.

Gino, it isn't 5-6 hours work, it is 5-6 hours on the wedding day at the same location as the couple, with probably another 5-6 in travel, getting gear ready, ingesting the files etc etc plus all the pre and post production work.

$2,000 is the budget end for stills and video, at that price I would probably look to get two separate people in for around $1,000 each to cover the event, this is really on the low side but you will probably find two better people than one good one that is working for so low a price. I would be very suspicious of any photographer who was offering that kind of package for that money.

Questions; ask to see their work, if you like it then keep talking. Ask for references from previous couples, at least five or six, and get in touch with them. Ask to see their contracts, good shooters have good contracts.

Other than that, just talk and play it by ear, but don't think for one second it is 5-6 hours work.

Photography Technique / Re: Cropping
« on: Today at 02:00:22 PM »
Just did another video for people without Content Aware Scale, also this method will work better for many images. Knowing the various ways to do things gives you the flexibility to use the most appropriate technique for any particular image.

Hope this helps.

Photography Technique / Re: Cropping
« on: Today at 11:57:44 AM »
Sorry for the delay in answering, but I just got back from my travels.

I thought a screen capture video would better illustrate the technique so here it is.

Obviously I am not very good at videos and was using a laptop through my desktop screen and kept using the wrong keyboard, and the audio sucks! But hopefully this is a good illustration of the technique and will continue the discussion.

Of course you can fine tune the technique and do the conversion in stages to better control what gets pulled etc, as I said, every image and output will probably require a different combination of techniques.

Well Tabor tha is a mighty big upgrade!

The Einsteins make the 600's look like toys, I highly recommend the Cyber Commander as well for remote power control of the Einsteins.

The flat three holed plug fits in the side of the 600 under the rubber cover.

The problem with the 90EX (I have one) is that in E-TTL it has to send out a pre flash before the actual exposure flash, this cuts into the recycle time as in a six shot burst you are actually trying to fire the flash twelve times. In flash M mode it doesn't fire the pre flashes so it only has to fire six times in your six shot burst. Either way you are asking a lot from two AAA batteries!

OK, in that scenario what is supposed to happen is the flash would play no part in the exposure, you should, in theory, end up with a one stop under exposed wall.

However in my experience given that scenario, that is not what you do end up with, but in fairness that isn't what E-TTL is set up to do either, the assumption is that you have the flash on to light something so it tries its hardest to do just that! In my experience you end up with a slightly under exposed wall, but not one stop under, and the flash is clearly visible.

There are many situations where E-TTL will struggle, and not having a subject in the frame is one of them. Try your scenario with a more realistic set up, put something in the frame closer to give the flash metering something to work with.

Lenses / Re: how to get 300 2.8
« on: Today at 12:15:12 AM »
There is no such thing as "lens compression" it is perspective, that is all.

What do you think the term "compression" means?

Quote from: Perspective Distortion Wiki
Perspective distortion takes two forms: extension distortion and compression distortion, also called wide-angle distortion and long-lens or telephoto distortion,[1] when talking about images with the same field size.

I think the term compression means "the action of being compressed", I believe compressed means "squeezed together".

I also reassert that there is no such thing as "lens compression" and the linked Wiki article is a very badly written and illustrated example of writing by committee.

If you take a shot with any lens from the same place then the perspective is the same, crop the wider angle down to the longer focal length framing and the "lens compression" is identical, ergo, there is no such thing as "lens compression". Change focal length and move to maintain subject size and you have changed your perspective, not your "lens compression".

What do you think the term "perspective" means?
Call it whatever you want.  That extra stop makes different compared to my 70-200. It's compression under my dictionary

Well Dylan you are introducing yet another inaccurate term, and I would be remiss if I didn't try to help.

The only thing one more stop can do is reduce your dof, that has nothing to do with "lens compression" or perspective. DOF is DOF, an 85 f1.2 has less dof than a 200 f2 at the same subject size, so does a 50 f1.8, but what a 200 f2 does give you is a unique combination of DOF and perspective.

Lenses / Re: how to get 300 2.8
« on: Today at 12:10:08 AM »
Dude, you might want to check the part where it says "when talking about images with the same field size". 

We all understand that it is perspective but when using actual photographic lenses in real world applications, the distortion effects are clearly observable.  Its not really possible to crop a 16mm to a 300mm fov in the real world, nor can you make the 300mm replicate the perspective of the 16mm when shot close up.  That's why real people talk about "compression" when discussing long lenses and portraiture or landscape.  We know that the lens isn't literally casting a magic spell to literally warp the fabric of spacetime and literally crush a model's face flat.  Compression is a photographic term to describe a photographic effect and everybody knows what you mean when you say it.

Why, it is so badly written as to cause half this confusion.

As for "We all understand that it is perspective" well, that isn't true, many don't, and because of that we constantly hear this "lens compression" meme.

No, "compression" is an uneducated term to describe what photographers see when they mean perspective, "compression" isn't a "photographic effect" it is what is seen from the viewpoint you have.

If you want the background to appear larger in relation to the subject make the distance between you and them similar, if you want the background to be smaller in relation to the subject make the distance between you and the subject smaller than the distance from the subject to the background, this has nothing to do with the lens. The "effect" is perspective, another, inaccurate, term for it really isn't needed.

Lighting / Re: Basic help: How does Flash exposure compensation works
« on: September 18, 2014, 11:44:54 PM »
Do you guys mean that,

What ever the FEC setting is, when flash is ON, it will always makes the subject "well expose" at least?


Even if FEC is set to -3, flash will still give light such that 'subject' (refers to background if nothing in between) will be "well expose" (means standard exposure = 0)


With flash on, the camera will try to make two exposure readings, one for the ambient and one for the subject. The ambient will be taken care of in Av and Tv automatically, you take care of it in M, the flash will try to determine the subject and with FEC 0 will assume the subject is 18% grey and send enough power to do that. FEC +3 will make the subject three stops over exposed, FEC -3 will make the subject three stops under exposed, but you have to determine how far off 18% grey your subject is, a bride with a white dress is going to need FEC +1 to +1.5 for instance.

If the camera can't separate a subject from the background it will try to expose the background as you have the FEC set, again FEC -3 will be three stops under exposed etc assuming the flash has enough power.

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II Specifications Confirmed
« on: September 18, 2014, 10:51:54 PM »

Says you and one other guy.
What about all the posts from Romy, myself, Jrista, wildlife photographers, etc. etc. that don't all align with a 20% under the most ideal scenario and barely there if ever at all in the real world.

Well other than nobody ever actually quantifying >20%, let alone the farcical 60%, I have never seen your images and the Romy images you keep harping on about consist of this one post

If you do some searching you can find his 7D and 5D MkII comparison here as everybody does he did the comparison in totally artificial conditions, especially considering he is a wild bird shooter, and how do you quantify >20% from that example?

Jrista's moon mages, after he was corrected on his methodology a large portion of his results were found faulty, and again, we are talking shooting conditions far from average, good mounts, Live View manual focus etc etc.

Show me your comparisons showing >20% crop camera advantage and I will find errors in your methodology too.

I tested these things in pursuit of the best wildlife camera;

The problem with the crop advantage argument back in the day was that the files fresh out of the 7D had to be tweaked, worked and processed to get that 20%. (I say 20% but it wasn't 20%, it didn't make it to that level)
So if you didn't want to PP every picture to is best, you didn't see the advantage. This was somewhat true with the 5D II and it was very true with the 1D series bodies.

A person with no PP skills saw little or no benefit from the 7D crop.

This was a subject that was kicked to death back in the day.

NOW, maybe with the 7D II it will have some decent processing power in body and we can have the debate again. Again I will buy one, test it against my 1D IV because that is what I am still using. If the 7D II is better I will switch. If not I will gift it to a relative and just laugh as everyone spouts the numbers out in the forum without ever testing one.

This image, created with an original 7D, has had minimal processing. A slight amount of NR slider and Sharpen slider in LR, a slight boost to clarity and vibrance...then a few minutes masking the the foreground out to apply heavy NR on the background. Other than that, it's basically as-is out of camera...critically sharp, high quality data:

This was shot with an EF 500mm f/4 L II lens on a tripod with a gimbal. I was sitting in a chair. Not a particularly unusual situation...I do pretty much the same thing out in the wild when photographing other birds and wildlife. Although my chair is usually a tree stump or log...or I'm simply standing. I found a subject, hit the focus button, grabbed a burst of 3-5 frames. Pick the best.

Not much to it. I rented the lens for a couple hundred bucks for a week. I honestly don't understand arguments about how difficult it is to make the most of your equipment. Honestly don't. If your a novice who's just getting started, sure...but if you are someone who actually seeks out better equipment to up your's really not difficult.

Not my idea of minimal processing, besides, what you are saying is the appearance of detail in the bird is actually uncorrected noise. Which is a point I have made many times too.

But whatever, if it floats your boat I am glad you are happy.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 158