April 19, 2014, 04:31:38 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 ... 107
1
Lighting / Re: New world of Light !
« on: April 18, 2014, 11:04:23 PM »
You need to back the locking knob out a long way, until you can't see it up the mount hole, then the bracket should slide down on the stand the full way, it should cover all the silver top portion of the stand, then tighten the locking knob.

2
Lighting / Re: ST-E3-RT and 600EX-RT to trigger Yongnuo?
« on: April 18, 2014, 10:57:19 PM »
Being a power user of the Canon RT system, and having the Yongnuo YN-E3-RT (the ST-E3-RT clone) I would strongly advise you to not wait for another overpriced, under built, sub performing Yongnuo "clone". Get another Canon 600 and use it without issue for years, then sell it for almost the same money you bought it for.

3
Lighting / Re: Cobra flash (edit:speedlite) softboxes for portraits
« on: April 18, 2014, 10:47:41 PM »
So you used a wired master flash within the Apollo and optically triggered the others with it. That would sound like my kind of starter solutiion. I could even use my chinese flash from the cactus and optically trigger the Sigma with manual control over the output in order to tune the result.  In extreme cases, I could even add my third small flash on the second cactus receiver to give even more power on my key light or as a rim/2nd light. Not the optimal setup, but may be workable to start with.

Outside yes, I used a long ETTL cable that I made myself and had the key light on it as the Master inside a softbox and controlled it via the camera menu. It then controlled any other flashes in A, B or C Group.

Indoors there is no need for the physical ETTL cable link, even standing behind the softbox the optical triggering works pretty well, but I always used an on camera 550EX as a controller and they have full tilt and swivel control to line the head up best for bouncing the control light, I don't know how well a pop up controller would work, but my ways both worked very well.

I also used Yongnuo RF-602's on occasion, but mostly outside in dymanic conditions, an assistant with a softbox mounted 550EX at a function, for instance, or for real estate interiors where I was really tucking remotes away in corners of wardrobes or other rooms and hallways to even exposures.

It was all these different scenarios that pushed me to invest in the newer RT system and I now just have one speedlite system for all my varied shooting situations, no cables, triggers, receivers or transceivers, nor the additional batteries! However for simple portrait shooting situations the optical triggering system is more than capable of dealing with flashes inside softboxes.

5
Lenses / Re: EF Extension Tube Thinner than 12mm?
« on: April 18, 2014, 07:03:25 PM »
There used to be a three ring set on eBay that had an 8mm and two thicker ones.

6
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: How to Annoy a Photography Snob
« on: April 18, 2014, 01:57:50 AM »
Anyway, if you want to pull an Artie, don't come off like a jerk, and maybe actually teach something...your current approach is rather wanting.  :P

As is yours. Wrapping an opinion up in lots of words and figures doesn't make it valid. As for being a dick, well I am on occasion, I have found in my many successful years of teaching headstrong and over opinionated intelligent people who talk utter rubbish it takes a bit of a slap around the face for them to even notice how absurd they are being.

Well, all I can say is I'm really glad I don't take any of your classes.

It only offends the headstrong and over opinionated intelligent people who talk utter rubbish. But they were not classes, it was vocational training in safety critical situations, a smart mouth didn't stop you getting hurt, paying attention to me did.

7
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: How to Annoy a Photography Snob
« on: April 18, 2014, 01:23:34 AM »
Anyway, if you want to pull an Artie, don't come off like a jerk, and maybe actually teach something...your current approach is rather wanting.  :P

As is yours. Wrapping an opinion up in lots of words and figures doesn't make it valid. As for being a dick, well I am on occasion, I have found in my many successful years of teaching headstrong and over opinionated intelligent people who talk utter rubbish it takes a bit of a slap around the face for them to even notice how absurd they are being.

Fair point about aperture, don't disagree with you there. However from the manufacturer's standpoint, I think THEY see it differently. I do believe that faster apertures are used more frequently with the fast primes (especially the fast portrait primes), and I believe that gives manufacturers less reason to invest in designing IS systems for those lenses. I'm not saying the reason is good, as I already pointed out before, the reasoning for why 85mm and shorter focal lengths is INVALID (that's what I've been saying the whole time...you seem to think I'm saying the opposite).


So that would be the reasoning they used in making the f2 35 IS? Even if you tried to dismiss the 24 and 28 IS lenses because they are f2.8's, which you can't for several reasons. The discussion was about the need for IS in short focal lengths, not IS in fast primes.

Your third point is exactly what I'm talking about. Today we definitely have enough resolution to resolve the blur from camera shake at 85mm. Probably at 50mm if your talking about stopping down to f/8 (personally, I've never had a problem with my 50mm f/1.4 up through around f/2.8 or so...I've used it to photograph a good number of nighttime car shows in years past. I don't generally use it at f/8, and I certainly don't try to use my camera at ISO 100 in the dark, personally I think that's a little unreasonable...but to each his own, I guess). If the 7D II comes out with a 24mp APS-C, that will only be even more true that IS on lenses with focal lengths shorter than 85mm will be increasingly necessary. That is exactly what I was saying...hence the reason I'm confused about your responses.

Duh, I just showed you a 24mm image that needed IS with 2003 tech, get pixel size out of your head, it is irrelevant to the discussion of IS in short focal lengths and has been since at least 2003.

That you haven't explored and pushed the capabilities of your bodies and lenses in this way doesn't mean nobody should, does it? I mean I have zero interest in astrophotography and don't push my gear in that direction one iota, but I respect that you do.

Regarding your first image...the kind of softening there looks like a small amount of camera shake blur and a lot of missfocus blur. I think the softness would have been significantly less if the guys head was fully in focus. I think camera holding technique can help there as well...that looks like a pretty well-lit scene to me for a fast prime, and it certainly appears as though you were using a wider aperture.

It might to you, but I know what I am talking about with my files and it is camera shake, 100%. I know my cameras focus and I know missfocus, I have several others in the series, some worse, and it is all camera shake. Sure it was very flat light with low DR and contrast, but there is no missfocus going on here.

As for the second image, it might be possible that IS would let you do what you describe, however your burning up three stops of hand-holdability just to reduce your ISO. That doesn't leave much room to reduce shutter speed any more to compensate for camera shake, and IS gets sketchy in that last stop (even the IS of the much-vaunted EF 600 gets borderline when you try to push it to a full four stops of hand-holdability unless you have wicked-stable hands.)

I, and everybody else that sees it know for a fact IS would have helped that image, it is only stubbornness that is preventing you from accepting that. It doesn't matter if I want to use the stops gained by IS on iso, aperture or shutterspeed, at least I would have them to choose what best to do with them. I don't understand why that is so hard to accept.

To me the thought of the mega money you'd spend on an astro mount is insanity, I just don't see the need for it, but when I see the images you link to that demonstrate its use I understand where you are coming from, would it be any use to me and my imaging? No, but that isn't the point, I well understand people saying they, personally, have no need or desire for IS in a lens of any length, just look at the continued sale of the 70-200 f2.8, but to try and argue there isn't a point, albeit with a pixel size proviso! for anybody to need it in a specified focal length even when shown images that demonstrate the opposite, is all the heavy handed wording I have previously used.

8
Canon General / Re: Helen Oster
« on: April 18, 2014, 12:26:35 AM »
Happy Birthday Helen.

9
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: How to Annoy a Photography Snob
« on: April 18, 2014, 12:09:48 AM »
Until you show me full size versions of those images you shared, which appear to be quite sharp to me, that prove they are soft and needed IS (vs. say better focus), I'm sorry but I have to disagree tat it is "completely, patently, and demonstrably ridiculous." I've shot enough with a 50/1.4 to know that my shutter speed is most often well above the 1/focalLength and even above the 1/focalLength*2 baselines to produce shake-free shots except in more extreme circumstances (such as your second photo, however that would usually be where you jack up the ISO to compensate.)

If we were talking about an 85mm f/4 or even f/2.8 lens, I would completely agree with you...but 85mm lenses are f/1.8 or faster, 50mm lenses are usually f/1.4, and most frequently used at their faster apertures. Additionally, with wider fields, it takes more camera movement to result in meaningful motion of image detail at the pixel level, so blur from camera shake becomes less and less likely the shorter the lens.

And what's with the hostility? Wrong side of the bed day today or something?

First off, no hostility at all, just a very strong disagreement with your untenable point of view. Calling something sh!t that is sh!t is not hostile. I'm just doing an Arthur Morris on you.

Second, you are now putting limits on aperture and iso for focal lengths, you can't do that. What if I want/need f8 and 1/4 at iso 400? Then IS would be good to have. Just because a prime lens might be between f1.2 and f2.8 doesn't mean that aperture is appropriate for the image to be taken, as per my second image example. Same with iso, I used 800 for the second image and ETTR'd because I didn't want to lose DR between the candle flame and the very dark wall detail, if I'd had IS I could have got more DR, and shadow detail, by going to 100iso.

Third, the size of the pixel and the arc of blur are completely unrelated, assuming you have enough resolution to resolve the arc of blur, as my two images with 2003 sized pixels clearly do, having more resolution would not make the blur better or worse, only reproduction size would. Same as diffraction limits and airy discs, more resolution is not worse, but it doesn't increase or decrease the diffraction.

Fourth, do you honestly think I would post an illustrative example that doesn't illustrate my point? I have posted hundreds of them!

Anyway, here are the 100% crops with zero sharpening or noise reduction on the best point of focus. They are both focused within this 700 x 700px square, the sharpness falls off as you go further away. They both show camera movement as can be evidenced by the shadow/ghost around the front of the monks face in image one, and the fact that the second image crop is the sharpest section of the frame, the point of focus and I were completely static (I was braced against a wall) and my camera is set to not take a picture without achieving focus.

10
Lighting / Re: Cobra flash (edit:speedlite) softboxes for portraits
« on: April 17, 2014, 10:26:19 PM »
@PBD, do you have any luck optically triggering flashes inside an Apollo-type softbox?

Indoors yes with both the ST-E2 and a Master flash, but consistency is not perfect and the flash is better than the ST-E2. Until my 600's I was using 550EX's and an ST-E2, but I also made a 50' (yes foot) ETTL cable with a Cat 6 cable and an off camera cord that I ran into the box and used as the "on camera" Master and controlled it via the camera flash menu, this works very well as the softbox flash with it's accompanying spread becomes the optical controller.

Outside, no luck at all!

11
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: How to Annoy a Photography Snob
« on: April 17, 2014, 10:08:44 PM »
The notion that IS is unnecessary for focal lengths below 85mm was true.

What a load of pretentious, unmitigated, hypothetical sh!t.

Um, dude, seriously...you did see that I used the word "WAS", right?

WAS true. Not IS true. WAS true.

Chill. Sheesh.

Well I am using a camera with the same pixel pitch as a 10D, so if it is true today with my camera it was true back in Feb 2003 when the 10D came out. Your comment is completely, patently, and demonstrably ridiculous.

12
Lighting / Re: How to tell when Eneloops are running dry in 600EXs?
« on: April 17, 2014, 10:05:07 PM »
I am using the same as you and I just go on the first missfire, though I find the ST-E3 kills its two AA's before the 600's kill their four.

The only reason I have had a missfire from the 600's (apart from with the Youngnuo YN-E3-RT) has been down to battery level, a change of battery has sorted it out.

13
Lighting / Re: Cobra flash (edit:speedlite) softboxes for portraits
« on: April 17, 2014, 10:01:37 PM »
Neuro and I seem to be the only ones who reply to threads like this  :)

I have both styles of speedlite softbox, the Apollo (umbrella) style where the flash points into the box, and the Lastolite (traditional) style where there is a hole in the back of the box and the flash fires forwards. There is no doubt in my mind that the Apollo style is much more efficient for speedlite use, not least because it is much easier to fit multiple lights inside almost any box, but also I find the evenness and diffusion much smoother with the Apollo style.

14
Lighting / Re: Cobra flash (edit:speedlite) softboxes for portraits
« on: April 17, 2014, 09:55:05 PM »
It depends on how realistic you are with regards iso and aperture.

Here is one 600-EX-RT in a 50" Westcott Apollo at full power, the room shot is f2.8 and iso 200, 1/160 and clearly overexposed at around 7 feet to the wall, the shot of the box illumination, which is remarkably even (the flash was zoomed to 20mm) is f10 at iso 200 and 1/160.

The 50" Apollo is a true 50" x 50" and can easily cover several full length subjects, it has a front screen but the beauty of its evenness is that it fires the flash into the box, not out of the box. I normally use it with three flashes on a triple clamp.

15
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: How to Annoy a Photography Snob
« on: April 17, 2014, 08:54:05 PM »
The notion that IS is unnecessary for focal lengths below 85mm was true.

What a load of pretentious, unmitigated, hypothetical sh!t.

Here are some perfect examples of why I don't give a damn that the 24-70 f2.8 MkII is sharper than the MkI, and why when they come out with an IS version I am in. They were both shot on a camera with 6.4┬Ám pixels.

First image: 24-70 f 2.8 MkI, 60mm f2.8 1/10 sec. If I had had IS this shot would have been considerably sharper.

Second image: 24-70 f2.8 MkI, 24mm f3.2 1/2 sec. If I had had IS this shot would have had better dof control.

Give me IS on a 16-35 now and I'll buy it.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 107