December 22, 2014, 06:50:40 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 4 ... 191
16
Lenses / Re: Canon 35mm F2 IS image quality
« on: December 17, 2014, 07:07:58 AM »
That is just wrong. For a start there is no such thing as 'background compression you get with a zoom' there is just perspective, secondly, perspective is not related to focal length but position, and lastly, at 35 and f2.8 they have identical imaging characteristics.

Call it what you will, you are probably right, but on a tightly zoomed image on a ZOOM lens you get a look that you don't get as easily on a fixed lens. In that particular reference I was not comparing 35mm to 35mm, but aiming more towards a fairly wide general statement.... I gave up my 35 prime because i liked how my zoomed images looked in tight spaces compared to the images from a  fixed lens in same space, Gave up sharpness in the trade.

If the 35 is worse than the 24-70 at f2.8 there is something wrong with it, There isn't a huge difference between the two, but the prime should be slightly better.

The 35 is better at 2.8 midframe and the 24 70 II is better in the corners, center is basically identical... Using your chart link...

Focal length does affect perspective :).


No it doesn't. I don't know f the cheesy emoticon means you are being ironic or something, but focal length does not affect perspective.

17
Lenses / Re: Canon 35mm F2 IS image quality
« on: December 17, 2014, 07:06:27 AM »
Interesting observation. Shallow dof 'pop' can be induced by the contrast between very sharp in focus areas and the remaining blurr, or 'bokeh'. So some lenses have really good bokeh; the EF 50/1.4 for instance, but it doesn't display very well against the sharpness and contrast of that 50 mil lens at f1.4. So my initial reaction is that you are not getting proper focus when wide open, either due to the need for AFMA, or a bad copy of the lens.

However what prompted me to reply is the fact that the 24-70/2.8 uses ground glass aspherical elements ( very expensive to produce) and the 35/2 IS uses moulded ( cheapish).  Now I have often thought that these moulded elements are getting better and better; the 35/s IS is definitely very good, but some of the lenses that I have, or have had, with the much more expensive to produce elements in them do seem to give, for want of a better description, a 'liquid, 'glassy' quality. I'm not saying that I could pull the difference out in a blind test all the time but I see it in some of my pictures taken with those lenses.

The moulded aspheric lenses in phones are remarkable, they vastly outperform our EF lenses for resolution.

18
Lenses / Re: Canon 35mm F2 IS image quality
« on: December 16, 2014, 02:37:37 PM »
If I had to guess I would say you are missing the background compression that you get with a zoom. Given the quality of the 24 70 II that could be significant.

Its a fine lens.

at 35mm f4 - f8 the 35 2.0 IS is sharper than your 24 70 most noticeable in the corners. Enough that you can see it on the image quality charts on DP. probably not enough to notice in real world past f4.

That is just wrong. For a start there is no such thing as 'background compression you get with a zoom' there is just perspective, secondly, perspective is not related to focal length but position, and lastly, at 35 and f2.8 they have identical imaging characteristics.

If the 35 is worse than the 24-70 at f2.8 there is something wrong with it, There isn't a huge difference between the two, but the prime should be slightly better.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=824&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=2&LensComp=787&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

19
I'm sure this is a joke, but if you really don't know what to do with them, I'll buy one of them from you (sans the Sto-Fen).

Yep, I'm being a bit silly.  I'm honestly looking for ways to best optimize them.  There's the conventional wisdom and then there's little tidbits learned from experience.  You know, after you've purchased half the store you look at the whole pile and figure you only use 30% of it most of the time.  I'm looking for what folks have learned and that 30% they use more than everything else.   :D

This: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/45189-REG/Rosco_950SBLUX0103_Roscolux_Swatchbook.html

And this: http://neilvn.com/tangents/about/black-foamie-thing/ from here http://www.michaels.com/creatology-foam-sheet-12x18/M10597609.html

And this: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/812180-REG/General_Brand_001UPCG155MBLA_Gereral_Brands_Pro_Gaffer_s.html

And this: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?N=10349147&InitialSearch=yes&sts=pi

An this: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/707213-REG/ExpoImaging_ROGUERELG_Rogue_FlashBender_Large_Positionable.html

And this:

I would buy them all again tomorrow.

20

Actually, I have to reshoot those pics, as I've added a MAnfrotto Combi Boom (which is a great stand that converst to a boom), .......

 ;)

21
EOS Bodies / Re: Using full frame lens on crop body cameras ?
« on: December 15, 2014, 11:48:52 PM »
Quote
Are you using DOF (depth of field) to refer to something other than what I understand it to be - How much of the scene in front and behind the point focussed on is acceptably in focus?

No, we are referring to the same thing.

Quote
The four factors I list and you highlighted in red certainly do affect depth of field (just checked with Wikipedia to make sure I hadn't drifted into a parallel universe...)

They are just factors to define the two core elements, aperture size and magnification, that is it, those are the only two numbers you need to work out DOF after you define a size for your CoC. All those other number you plug in to dof calculators are simply working out the subject magnification, the aperture size and coming out with a number for a pre defined CoC. You cannot work out DOF if you do not know those two numbers, if you know the aperture number but not the focal length you cannot work out DOF, if you know the size of the aperture opening you can.

Quote
It is true that what is 'acceptably in focus' will change with enlargement of the final image and the viewing distance but that is a subjective matter.

DOF is entirely subjective. That is why in the definition of DOF the word "acceptably" precedes sharp; acceptable to what?

Quote
There are figures for 'acceptable' circle of confusion for various formats

Yes but what does that refer to? As a file on a HDD an image has no DoF, am image does not have an intrinsic DoF value until it is given an output size and viewing distance, these have become normalised but they are the defining factors. The aperture size creates the DoF, the output magnification defines it. The CoC figure is generally an 8"x10" print viewed at 12", which corresponds to any other print viewed at the distance of its diagonal. People with better acuity will always find 'standard' DoF wanting.

Quote
Interestingly, and touched on by the Wikipedia article, the difference in the amount of enlargement involved in producing a given image from a crop sensor rather than a full frame and the effect on the acceptable circle of confusion size should mean you get LESS depth of field from a crop camera.

That is exactly what I wrote in my scenario number 2, "The DOF for the crop camera is less than the ff camera." if a comparison is made of that shooting scenario.

Quote
As Wikipedia puts it:"The comparative DOFs of two different format sizes depend on the conditions of the comparison. The DOF for the smaller format can be either more than or less than that for the larger format. "

I know, that is why I gave examples of how that can be illustrated, along with the third option, scenario 1, where the DoF can be the same from both formats. As I said, "There are three situations for comparison and you have to decide which method you use because the outcome is different."

So the question can be boiled down to a core element, why does a shorter focal length result in deeper dof? The answer is a shorter focal length results in smaller subject magnification, subject magnification is a core element of DoF, and, for the same exposure value a shorter lens has a smaller physical aperture for the same numerical aperture value, and aperture size is the other core element of DoF.


22
EOS Bodies / Re: Using full frame lens on crop body cameras ?
« on: December 15, 2014, 08:34:43 AM »
I agree with you about the 24-70 2.8 on a crop sensor. You won't be able to get as shallow depth of field with a crop señor as with a ff. I think that's the point he's tying to make that you geting more like a f4 depth of field compared to a 2.8 on ff. But yes you still get the light of a 2.8 lens on a crop sensor

Depends on how you look at it.  I'd argue that with the exception of the f-stop's effect on autofocus, you really don't get the light of an f/2.8 lens on a crop sensor.  I mean ostensibly yes, if you have two sensors with the same pixel size and you look at a pixel-sized crop, you would see the same amount of light, but that's not the way people use cameras in practice.

People typically use cameras by framing a shot, and then viewing it at screen size or printing it at a desired print size.  So the only truly interesting metric is the amount of light that makes up each square inch of output at a given size.  Using that metric, because a crop sensor sees light from only about 39% of the lens, per square inch of output, a crop body gives you an image produced with only about 39% of the light that you'd get shooting the same shot with a full-frame body (ignoring any differences in light caused by moving closer to the subject, which if included, would make the crop body look even worse by comparison).

When it comes to the actual image projected on the sensor, there's no meaningful difference between using a crop body and using a teleconverter on a full-frame camera—just a little bit of IQ loss caused by the quality of the TC's glass, and maybe a tiny bit of light loss from the glass itself.  And we say that using a 1.4X teleconverter makes a lens act like it is a stop slower.  By that same standard, using a glorified 1.6X teleconverter (a crop body) makes a lens act like it is 1.35 stops slower.  The only real exceptions to that rule are when either A. you'd be cropping the image on a full-frame to match the crop body (the reach-limited case) or B. you're talking about how the autofocus behaves.  But in the more general case, you really don't get the benefits of an f/2.8 lens.

You may very well be right I don't know. I've always thought a 2.8 lens is a 2.8 lens whether it's on a ff or crop. Other than I know I'll get shallower depth of field with a ff and more depth of field with a crop at the same apertures.
An f/2.8 lens is an f/2.8 lens. f/2.8 is a formula, referring to the focal length of the lens divided by the effective maximum aperture of the lens (usually more-or-less the diameter of the outer element on a prime lens). Thus a telephoto lens needs bigger elements than a wide angle lens for the same f/2.8 (or whatever) aperture.
It's a red herring to introduce arguments about teleconverters into this discussion. A 1.4x converter doesn't 'make a lens act as though it's a stop slower', it really is a stop slower. The 1.4x converter changes the focal length of the lens combination but it doesn't change the size of the elements so the aperture formula changes. A 50mm lens with an effective diameter of 25mm has a maximum of aperture of 50/2 or f/2. Add a 2x converter and the lens combination now has a focal length of 100mm and the same 25mm diameter gives an aperture of 100/4 or f/4. It's maths. Nothing to do with the sensor.

The central paragraph of dgatwood's post is hard to follow but the physics works like this: the aperture of a lens defines how bright the image circle on the sensor is. Whether you use most of the image circle on a full frame sensor or less of the image circle (ff lens on crop body) the brightness of the image is the same - you're just using all or part of it. There will be no impact on image quality unless the individual pixels are of different sizes - and the pixels on a ff body are usually a lot bigger than the pixels on a crop body which has both benefits and disadvantages as discussed elsewhere on this thread and others. Some people including, I think, Tony Northrup, are confusing image brightness with 'total light capture' implying that unless you can use all the light that's coming through the lens you're losing quality which is plainly not so - we don't use, nor do we want to use, the edges of the image circle because the sharpness drops off and other distortions show up more.

The topic of depth of field - shallower depth of field on a ff and deeper dof on a crop body - is another subject and an interesting one. Make an image using a ff sensor of a particular scene and observe the depth of field - how much of the scene in front of and behind the point of focus is in acceptable focus. Now crop your image in software to the equivalent size of a crop sensor (in Canon terms, that's reducing the linear dimensions by 1.6) and look at the scene that is left. The depth of field hasn't changed, of course, it's the same image - you just have less of it. Now use the same lens at the same aperture from the same taking position on a crop body and take the same picture. You will get the same image you got after cropping the ff image. And the depth of field will be the same too because you used the same lens from the same taking position. Those are the elements that affect depth of field - taking position, focus distance, focal length of the lens and lens aperture. Sensor size does not of itself affect depth of field. HOWEVER - if you switch from ff to crop and change either the focal length of the lens or the taking position so that you get the same field of view as you had for the ff image UNCROPPED then you will get more depth of field. That's not because you're using a crop sensor, it's because you're using a shorter focal length lens or you're taking the picture from further away to get the same field of view as you got with the ff sensor. Since that's how we generally use our cameras, that's how we perceive it - we get more depth of field when we use a crop camera, because we're using shorter focal length lenses to get the same pictures.

I agree that this is generally a nice explanation, particularly about light intensity. However regarding the highlighted section and on, it is wrong.

DOF relies on two factors only, physical aperture (not numerical value) and subject magnification. Aperture seems easy for most of us to understand, though we must also understand the difference between apparent physical aperture and the numerical aperture; where so many slip up is subject magnification. The print or screen size, and viewing distance, both impact DOF.

There are three situations for comparison and you have to decide which method you use because the outcome is different.

1/ Two people stand next to each other, one has a ff the other a crop camera, both have the 400 f5.6 and are shooting a nesting eagle a long way away. Both have to crop their images to get the framing they want. Obviously the ff image is cropped more but that is irrelevant, the eagle is projected on to both sensors the same size and both images are cropped to the same framing and reproduced the same size (on screen the same size) so the DOF is identical, indeed both images are identical. DOF is the same.

Same reproduction size, same physical aperture = same DOF.


2/ Both photographers decide they want to show a scene setting image and change their lenses to the widest they have, both have a 35mm f2 IS and use that to take a shot, obviously the framing is different. Both show the resulting image full screen on the same sized monitor, the crop image shows each element of the scene larger because it has less fov (framing). The DOF for the crop camera is less than the ff camera. Why is this? Because the reproduction ratio of the crop camera is higher and reproduction ratio is key to DOF. DOF is less with the crop camera.

Different reproduction size, same physical aperture = different DOF.


3/ The crop camera photographer remembers in the bottom of his bag he has an 11-22, they both stand next to each other and use the same settings, with different focal lengths to take 'the same' image. When viewed on a screen the same size the crop camera has more DOF even though it is enlarged more, why is this? Well the actual subject size on screen is the same for both images, but the aperture, although the same number, is physically smaller for the crop camera. The FF camera has a 35mm @ f10, or a 3.5mm aperture opening; the crop camera has a 35mm/1.6= 21mm @ f10, or a 2.1mm aperture opening. The smaller the apparent aperture the more dof. DOF is greater on the crop camera.

Same reproduction size, different physical aperture = different DOF.


So, as can be seen, sensor size in and of itself does not impact dof, how you choose to display that resulting capture does. You cannot disassociate end reproduction size from the dof calculation, you can make any comparison you like but you need to understand the impact of those different choices.


The DOF is not greater on crop cameras in the most common comparison because we use a shorter focal length, it is greater because we use a smaller physical aperture to achieve the same exposure settings.

23
Lighting / Re: Speedlites - How many are enough?
« on: December 14, 2014, 11:04:48 PM »
Hyper sync - long duration flash over the entire curtain movement
True high sync speeds - standard sync method but @ above 1/250th. (Which is still the best and most efficient but expensive.)
HSS - pulsed flash over the duration of the curtain movement.

I think you misread my comment, all of these methods are ways of syncing at High speeds, hence HSS but the most true form is the traditional method and the others are a workaround.



There is nothing 'true' or 'high sync speed' when syncing above 1/250th or 1/180th or even 1/60th.  HSS is syncing multiple bursts over a curtain movement - where the sync is with the slit being exposed is perfectly timed with the speedlites.  Syncing with a Leaf shutter doesn't involve multiple bursts.

Syncing with a 'slow' strobe or speedlight where your shutter speed is faster than the lights t.1 time is just that, dealing with slow lights.  The issue is that you're not going to get even exposure over the frame, let alone between shots.

Now, with all that said, with the faster studio lights, like Einsteins in the fast mode, or the Bron Move2 packs that'll do a 1/10,000 flash duration, you can 'sync' at 1/125th or even slower, and 'freeze' your subject with light.  Then, all syncing at a faster speed does is allow you to kill the ambient light.

Which for most of my purposes is exactly what I'm setting out to do, such as with a portrait in full daylight, or balancing a portrait subject in open shade against full daylight, or a portrait in full daylight that will benefit from being shot wide-open. With my Einsteins fired with ODS adjusted Odins I get consistent, even exposures at shutter speeds all the way to 1/8000, though usually don't need to go past 1/2000. The Godox Witstro is also clean, even and consistent.

Freezing action with flash is another technique skill-set altogether; both are entirely valid and useful.

Whether it's correctly called HyperSync, High Speed Sync or HSS or Crazy-Fast-Speedy-Sync is immaterial to me. When you understand the characteristics or shortcomings of your chosen method, it simply becomes another tool to expand your creative scope, limited only by your imagination.

-pw

+1
Freezing action is the most crucial and beneficial aspect of any of the "HyperSync, High Speed Sync or HSS" or whatever goofy acronym a company wants to utilize as a promotional tool. Yet no DSLR company has successfully addressed this to date with a camera that syncs at minimum of a 1/1000th of a second with any existing portable flash systems that actually has good light spread, powerful output (above 200w/s), and 1/2000+ t1 durations. And it seems like no other company has figured out a triggering system that works around that correctly and consistently to date. When a DSLR cam company produces a body capable of producing what I mentioned above, the holy grail of camera/ flash system compatibility will have been achieved for EVERYONE. One can only hope, though I'm not holding my breath... :-)
Broncolor Scoro Packs + x100/Phase1 LS lenses. It's just really really really expensive.

You keep posting that, the Scoro 3200 has a full power t1 time of 1/285 sec, the 1600 has a t1 time at full power of 1/535, indeed its lowest power setting, that won't overpower anything but the dimmest ambient, is only 1/10,000 sec and that doesn't make it any better than an Einstein at 1/13,000 sec at lowest power. The problem of fast high powered flash is as much flash discharge time as anything else.

The only way to achieve true high shutter speed sync and flash power is to use electronic shutters and multiple flash heads used at low power.
I don't think you read what I was responding to. You should really read before you post.

He mentioned a camera syncing @ 1/1000th and the flash putting out a 1/2000th duration at or above 200 w/s. Which is quite easily done with a scoro pack.

Not 'quite easily', in Optimal Mode the Scoro S will do 150Ws at 1/2,150 sec, but as Lawliet points out Speed and Min modes also do have colour control via ECTC, this can give you an extra stop, or 300Ws. However, a single PCB Einstein will do over 300Ws at less than 1/2,000 sec in Sport mode for 1/30 the price of just the Broncolor Pack, get two and you have temp consistency too.

There is no need to spend mega bucks to achieve that, but it is very very difficult to get much better flash performance than that for any money. Flash duration is the bigger problem here, very fast shutter sync would be comparatively easy for manufacturers to implement, heck Nikon did it very nicely for Strobists in the D70, you can true sync that via the PC socket at any speed, but, the illumination it gets is still limited by the flash duration times.

So, you could achieve "a camera syncing @ 1/1000th and the flash putting out a 1/2000th duration at or above 200 w/s" with a D70 and an Einstein, which would cost you less than the rental of a Broncolor kit for a shoot.

Leaf shutters are not the answer, they still have shutter petal travel times and at high speeds simply act as a second aperture, light gets through but it is vastly reduced, it is not the true shutter speed, and it determines your subject/flash illuminated dof.

24
Canon EF Zoom Lenses / Re: Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM
« on: December 14, 2014, 10:25:25 PM »
Nice! I would crop out the building in the foreground and it's masts.

+1

If you did that it would become a pretty picture, but it would say nothing. To have any impact it needs the bottom building, it is the contrast to the rest. Both versions make nice images but I believe as shown it has much more impact.

25
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon 5D mkIV
« on: December 14, 2014, 05:12:00 PM »
I'm guessing that the 5DIV will introduce an interchangeable viewfinder, similar to the ones used on the F-1 and F3 etc, except that one will be a normal high quality pentaprism, and the other an EVF.

With the pentaprism finder you could return to using interchaneable focusing screens on the 5 series by dropping the screen into the body when the prism is removed.

With the EVF, when fitted the mirror automatically locks up out of the way. A finder sliding in from the rear allows proper plug interface rather than contacts. DPAF on the sensor allows accurate focusing with the EVF in place. Primarily intended for video, but use it for stills if, as a child, you were done some serious injustice by a mirror, resulting in repeated accusations of 'flappy mirror' postings on CR.

I doubt if such a cool feature would ever be in anything but a 1 series, just like every other Canon camera with interchangable viewfinders has only been in the top of the line cameras.

That's true, but I come across 5 series being used for video more than 1 series, but you are most probably right about keeping this feature, should it materialise, in the 1 series.

I could easily see that kind of thing in a 1DC MkII, and therefore a 1DX MkII, the 1DC did surprisingly well, well much better than us stills shooters with $6,000 cameras would think, and has a very good reputation for its size capabilities and price.

26
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon 5D mkIV
« on: December 14, 2014, 04:39:07 PM »
I'm guessing that the 5DIV will introduce an interchangeable viewfinder, similar to the ones used on the F-1 and F3 etc, except that one will be a normal high quality pentaprism, and the other an EVF.

With the pentaprism finder you could return to using interchaneable focusing screens on the 5 series by dropping the screen into the body when the prism is removed.

With the EVF, when fitted the mirror automatically locks up out of the way. A finder sliding in from the rear allows proper plug interface rather than contacts. DPAF on the sensor allows accurate focusing with the EVF in place. Primarily intended for video, but use it for stills if, as a child, you were done some serious injustice by a mirror, resulting in repeated accusations of 'flappy mirror' postings on CR.

I doubt if such a cool feature would ever be in anything but a 1 series, just like every other Canon camera with interchangable viewfinders has only been in the top of the line cameras.

27
Technical Support / Re: Happy ending...
« on: December 14, 2014, 11:32:46 AM »
To make long story short, l had been using non-calibrated, non IPS, lower resolution(1920x1080 27") monitor as PP monitor.

"Lower" resolution"?! Don't tell that to my 1366x768 and 1280x1024 work monitors :-o

I'm glad to report that after spending nearly $3000 on new PC + higher resolution & pre-calibrated monitor + Canon Pro-100 printer(bought it new on CL for $100), I have completed the job before the due date.

When spending €50 on a calibration device, you don't need the very best monitor, they just provide more gammut and better viewing angles. But +1000 for calibrating your monitor (paying someone or diy), it's the most important thing next to buying a lens for your camera.

I never thought I would jump into higher resolution monitor world, until I see it in action  :)

There is no point for me to buy and use 2560x1440 monitor when my 3yrs old laptop can only support up to 1920x1080. So, it was a complete system upgrade for me. The new BEAST is so fast. I'm blazing through those RAW files in LR. Loving it.

I was trying to tell you that! :-)

It is good to see that you are growing in all the areas this wonderful endeavor photography takes us, having the best camera and lenses is a small part of the process, computers, monitors, printers (if you really get into the printing now you have the 100), software, education, etc. all have their place, a completely unbalanced 'system' where heavy investment in one area but letting that capability slip due to shortfalls in another area is a key point of frustration for so many.

28
Lighting / Re: Speedlites - How many are enough?
« on: December 14, 2014, 11:02:14 AM »
Hyper sync - long duration flash over the entire curtain movement
True high sync speeds - standard sync method but @ above 1/250th. (Which is still the best and most efficient but expensive.)
HSS - pulsed flash over the duration of the curtain movement.

I think you misread my comment, all of these methods are ways of syncing at High speeds, hence HSS but the most true form is the traditional method and the others are a workaround.



There is nothing 'true' or 'high sync speed' when syncing above 1/250th or 1/180th or even 1/60th.  HSS is syncing multiple bursts over a curtain movement - where the sync is with the slit being exposed is perfectly timed with the speedlites.  Syncing with a Leaf shutter doesn't involve multiple bursts.

Syncing with a 'slow' strobe or speedlight where your shutter speed is faster than the lights t.1 time is just that, dealing with slow lights.  The issue is that you're not going to get even exposure over the frame, let alone between shots.

Now, with all that said, with the faster studio lights, like Einsteins in the fast mode, or the Bron Move2 packs that'll do a 1/10,000 flash duration, you can 'sync' at 1/125th or even slower, and 'freeze' your subject with light.  Then, all syncing at a faster speed does is allow you to kill the ambient light.

Which for most of my purposes is exactly what I'm setting out to do, such as with a portrait in full daylight, or balancing a portrait subject in open shade against full daylight, or a portrait in full daylight that will benefit from being shot wide-open. With my Einsteins fired with ODS adjusted Odins I get consistent, even exposures at shutter speeds all the way to 1/8000, though usually don't need to go past 1/2000. The Godox Witstro is also clean, even and consistent.

Freezing action with flash is another technique skill-set altogether; both are entirely valid and useful.

Whether it's correctly called HyperSync, High Speed Sync or HSS or Crazy-Fast-Speedy-Sync is immaterial to me. When you understand the characteristics or shortcomings of your chosen method, it simply becomes another tool to expand your creative scope, limited only by your imagination.

-pw

+1
Freezing action is the most crucial and beneficial aspect of any of the "HyperSync, High Speed Sync or HSS" or whatever goofy acronym a company wants to utilize as a promotional tool. Yet no DSLR company has successfully addressed this to date with a camera that syncs at minimum of a 1/1000th of a second with any existing portable flash systems that actually has good light spread, powerful output (above 200w/s), and 1/2000+ t1 durations. And it seems like no other company has figured out a triggering system that works around that correctly and consistently to date. When a DSLR cam company produces a body capable of producing what I mentioned above, the holy grail of camera/ flash system compatibility will have been achieved for EVERYONE. One can only hope, though I'm not holding my breath... :-)
Broncolor Scoro Packs + x100/Phase1 LS lenses. It's just really really really expensive.

You keep posting that, the Scoro 3200 has a full power t1 time of 1/285 sec, the 1600 has a t1 time at full power of 1/535, indeed its lowest power setting, that won't overpower anything but the dimmest ambient, is only 1/10,000 sec and that doesn't make it any better than an Einstein at 1/13,000 sec at lowest power. The problem of fast high powered flash is as much flash discharge time as anything else.

The only way to achieve true high shutter speed sync and flash power is to use electronic shutters and multiple flash heads used at low power.

29
Canon General / Re: External Monitor for Photography
« on: December 14, 2014, 01:37:35 AM »
If you want wireless get a CamRanger and pretty much any device with a screen, phone, iPad, tablet, laptop, desktop, they are all supported as is the 5D MkIII.

30
Quote
To my mind the fact that it has been manipulated completely destroys the validity of the message....To my mind you cannot say "look at what it is now" if what you are showing isn't a totally honest representation of what it actually is.

well you may be missing the point then. a qoute from Gursky regarding the photograph:

Quote
He has described the genesis of this work, saying, ‘there is a particular place with a view over the Rhine which has somehow always fascinated me, but it didn’t suffice for a picture as it basically constituted only part of a picture. I carried this idea for a picture around with me for a year and a half and thought about whether I ought perhaps to change my viewpoint ... In the end I decided to digitalise the pictures and leave out the elements that bothered me’ (quoted in Annelie Lütgens, ‘Shrines and Ornaments: A Look into the Display Cabinet’, Andreas Gursky: Fotografien 1994-1998, p.xvi).

Gursky digitally erased buildings on the far side of the river from his picture. This manipulation enhances the image visually, giving it more formal coherence. Rather than the sense of a specific place, the picture conveys an almost Platonic ideal of a body of water traversing as landscape. Gursky talks about this image in terms of its contemporaneity, saying, ‘I wasn’t interested in an unusual, possibly picturesque view of the Rhine, but in the most contemporary possible view of it. Paradoxically, this view of the Rhine cannot be obtained in situ; a fictitious construction was required to provide an accurate image of a modern river’ (quoted in ‘... I generally let things develop slowly’, Andreas Gursky: Fotografien 1994-1998, p.ix).


There was never the intent to represent a factual place, rather an image that represented an idea based on Gursky's personal experience with a place. there was no other way to achieve the image Gursky had in his mind but to digitally manipulate it.

Quote
Very eloquent, but I completely disagree with the power of the image

that may be because you may not be the intended audience for this image. imagery is often created with a narrower target audience than the mass public. just because an image reaches a wider audience doesn't necessitate the artist to then extend its meaning beyond the original intent. from the interview, Gursky makes its clear what the image was to him and what he was trying to achieve. the photograph ended up resonating with someone to the tune of 4.3 million dollars. so be it....good for him!

i have never quite understood the tendency in photography for there to be such stringent and narrow rules applied to what is or isn't a valid photograph. in art, rules are a foolish notion at the outset. if there is one rule in art it is this....whatever rules that attempt to establish a standard are typically shredded to bits in time.

To suggest I am missing the point when I started my comment with "To my mind" is a weak response. Oh look a negative comment on some fine art, 'he doesn't understand it' is the easiest reply, but that is lazy and often wrong. I understand it, I just think he was also lazy, now we have PS everybody can take world class landscapes on their vacation, I don't just want strong creative ideas, I want skilled execution as well and if that means taking the time to find the right time and place or equipment selection, then do it, with no excuses.

Now I wasn't saying his opinion is invalid, just that in my opinion digitally altering the idea 'what it has become' is invalid. Why is it worth 4.3 million? Because that is what somebody paid for it, it was an investment, sure the buyer might like it, but it could just as easily live in a climate controlled storage facility until Gursky dies and it becomes worth more. Go to any Masters level art program and you will find more valid concepts and work, he just happens to have caught the eye of dealers, galleries, investors and possibly the occasional buyer. The high end art world has very little to do with the validity of the art.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 191