September 02, 2014, 03:20:47 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 ... 19 20 [21] 22 23 ... 152
301
Lenses / Re: 16-35 F/2.8 vs F/4 for weddings
« on: July 07, 2014, 02:43:01 PM »
If you limit yourself to available light, a very dying breed nowadays, and you anticipate very low light levels where iso 5000 with a 5D MkIII won't cut it (macguyver's example was only at 2500 and f2.8) which is basically three stops over the best we used with film, then the f2.8 is your choice.

But those situations are few and far between for most of us. The truth is there are way more options open for us now with wireless flashes and superb high iso performance than there ever was with fast film, if I was buying new today I'd do what macguyver just did and sell his 16-35 f2.8 and get the f4 IS. Sure there might be situations where that one stop won't work, but we now have options, if you get enough function work where f4 limits you get a 24 f1.4 or a 600-EX-RT and ST-E3-RT to augment it.
Some good points, private, though I still think there's something unique (and better) about available light for event shooting, though I'd probably use lights for a wedding to avoid risking things.  The new lens is definitely an improvement over the 2.8 II, but it doesn't make the 2.8 II a lousy lens and if f/2.8 were more important than sharper corners and lower CA, I'd go for the 2.8 II.  For people who rarely shoot events, the f/4 IS is cheaper and better for everything else, and as you say, you can always add light :)

 :D I am a poor photographer, am still running the 16-35 f2.8 MkI, because we needed that with 800iso film!

I recently shot a wedding with a very dim reception, mood lighting was the term I think, dungeon would be more accurate, plus it was small with nowhere to put stands. I gelled a couple of 600-EX-RT's and put them on the tables and bounced off the ceiling, I also had one on camera, this made the weak DJ lights look much more effective and gave me enough fake ambient to work with my 1Ds MkIII's with their 1600iso limit (but I never go over 800 with them either).

I agree some shooters will always need more speed, but I'd advise any natural light specialists to go for 1.2-1.8 primes over 2.8-4 zooms anyway. I just get the feeling that there is a touch too much generalisation here from some people sometimes, we used to shoot 2.8 800iso images all the time, now many can easily shoot 5,000iso and that more than makes up for the one stop loss in lens speed for the same shutter speed value.

I really like your function examples, and you make the 2.8 point very well, but you could, if you had needed to, gone up one stop of iso, 2,000 to 4,000, and/or had a remote 600 popped into the canopy that would have blended well but not been obvious.

302
I have rolls of Epson Luster paper 8 inches wide, which makes 8 X 10 quite nicely, and its heavy paper.
 
They were made for commercial photo printers, and are 50 meter rolls.(Metric and English Mixed??)  A guy bought a whole warehouse full which he sells on ebay.  I bought mine a few years back from him.  I used to cut them for odd sizes, but now I have a roll cut printer which works well with them.  However, its easy to have the paper misaligned just a little, so a finished 8 X 10 size from 8 X 10 paper can have a lot of wasted sheets.
http://www.ebay.com/itm/EPSON-Luster-260-photopaper-8-wide-roll-164-roll-/271005587749?pt=US_Printer_Photo_Paper&hash=item3f19311925

My Epson Premium Lustre rolls are 16", which bugs the hell out of me because I can't print two 8"x12" prints next to each other without 0.25" borders. Got zero time for 8"x10"s.

And borders and matting make huge differences to frame sizes. If you have an 8"x10" print and put a 1.5" mat on it you get an 11"x13" frame. If you have an 8"x10" frame then a 5"x7" print with an even 1.5" mat fits perfectly. 20"x30" frames are close to useless for us 3:2 shooters, any mat is going to completely mess up your aspect ratio and whilst a frame-less mounted 20"x30" print looks good without a mat, put it in a frame and it really needs a mat.

I do printing for a venue that needs a standard frame and mat size (40cmx50cm and 29cmx39cm) but has many photographers work shown, I have to juggle each image as best I can to make it fit the aspect ratio, this involves all kinds of tricks, cropping, stretching etc to make it work.

303
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Nikon's D800E 30% sharper than D800
« on: July 07, 2014, 10:18:04 AM »
That is laughable for several obvious reasons, first, they are saying the Ziess lens is perfect and causes zero resolution loss, that is impossible, it is either breaking the laws of physics, or their measurements are suspect yet again. And, just read any Nikon forum where people own both, and there are a surprising amount, they will tell you that is simply not true, yes the E does resolve slightly more, but 30% more, no.

Not exactly perfect.  just able to use the full resolution of the sensor.

If they sensor was 8 MP and a lens resolved 8, would you call that perfect?  Just pushes the limit of the sensor.

No that isn't how it works, there is a complex relationship between each individual elements efficiency and a systems efficiency. Pretty much all lenses can actually resolve way more than any sensor, just look at the difference between a lens optical bench tested lens and one that relies on a camera sensor, huge difference.

So if the sensor was a 20MP sensor and the lens and sensor were both perfect then you'd expect to get 20MP of resolution, this is what DXO are claiming for the D800E and Zeiss 135 combo. However if we ignore all other factors and the lens is only 99% perfect it can only possibly resolve 99% of a perfect sensors resolution, and no sensor/camera is perfect. So the perfect sensor and 99% perfect lens could equate to 19.8MP in a simplified form.

For the full equations look here under "System Resolution": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_resolution

304
Photography Technique / Re: crop factor and light
« on: July 07, 2014, 09:43:25 AM »

305
Photography Technique / Re: crop factor and light
« on: July 07, 2014, 09:34:20 AM »
Oh everything helps, I have posted these three images many times here http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=21071.msg401008#msg401008

306
Photography Technique / Re: crop factor and light
« on: July 07, 2014, 08:52:50 AM »
Equivalence is a concept I have been banging on about for a long time and I have posted equivalent images on many occasions, the fact that aperture and iso also have a "crop factor" is so often misunderstood or completely ignored.

But I feel the article is s touch simplistic as I didn't see mention of the key aspect to equivalence, reproduction size. I will still push people towards the grandfather of equivalence articles here:  http://www.josephjamesphotography.com/equivalence/

And the Wikipedia page here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depth_of_field simply lays out the three scenarios where where a crop camera can be shown to have more, less, or identical dof to a ff sensor depending on how you are comparing or using it under the section "Relationship of DOF to format size".

307
Canon EF Prime Lenses / Re: Canon EF 50mm f/1.2L USM
« on: July 06, 2014, 06:18:31 PM »
Interesting, but not surprising, over 600 views of 24 example images and not one person even ventures to make a guess on one single one of them, even though we had people saying stuff like "Post processing or not i think u can always see the character of a lens still." and "shot nicely and processed beautifully to compliment the 50L's creamy quality wide open and take these way beyond what 'any 50 at any aperture' would do."

Kinda funny really..........

308
My local club uses Zenfolio.

There is one login and password that all current members are told, it changes each year when the membership fees are due, $25 for a full annual adult member.

Each member gets a folder with as many galleries/sub folders as they want, they can make them private or public, they can link or copy images to club event/competition galleries etc etc.

It is very cheap for the club.

For a club setup it is very good, easy for those that need easy but can be used to good effect and customised by those that want a bit more.

309
Speedlites, Printers, Accessories / Re: to 600rt + st-e3 or not....
« on: July 06, 2014, 09:02:12 AM »
Would you guys advice against getting the yongnuo st e3 to save a few bucks? Also, is there a reason why you cant get an st e3 receiver/transceiver?

I have both, the saving on money is small compared to your camera and flashes (and lenses) the ONLY reason to consider the YN-E3-RT is if you have pre 2012 bodies, otherwise forget it completely. If you do have pre 2012 bodies get both for when you really want to play with Group mode.

In my experience the YN-E3-RT is not a substitute for the ST-E3-RT, just a compliment for pre 2012 bodies.

310
Canon EF Prime Lenses / Re: Canon EF 50mm f/1.2L USM
« on: July 06, 2014, 08:17:14 AM »
With all due respect, this discussion is rubbish. Looking at (over)processed, low resolution images, no exif and no objective comparative information ... It´s like sitting in the next room trying to guess what amplifier your neighbor is using in his hifi setup.

The only reasonable way to compare lenses is to have them side by side, shooting the same subjects, in the same lighting conditions, with the same settings, camera and post processing. I have seen what experts can do in post processing and they are certainly able to fool me.
Eldar, that was my point.

311
Canon EF Prime Lenses / Re: Canon EF 50mm f/1.2L USM
« on: July 06, 2014, 08:15:54 AM »

That's not fair ! There's no reference point, such as 'EF 50L gallery" or 'anything shot on a mki 50 1.8'. How are we supposed to appreciate the subtleties of a favourite lens if we don't know which one we are looking at ?

 ;)

312
Canon EF Prime Lenses / Re: Canon EF 50mm f/1.2L USM
« on: July 06, 2014, 02:36:43 AM »
I do not know why so many people hate this lens... I love it! I don't care what Sigma or what ever present, that 1.2L Glas is so damn lovely! <3
Shot on a 5D Lr + Ps for Skin. (all at 1.2, except the last one at 1.4)


The problem with "examples" like that is they are post process driven, I could give an image shot taken with any 50mm lens at any aperture (at the same shoot) to a decent post processor and get them to look very similar.

Disagree completely, what plant are you living on?!!
These are a brilliant wee set, shot nicely and processed beautifully to compliment the 50L's creamy quality wide open and take these way beyond what 'any 50 at any aperture' would do.
If you have a personal dislike for processed shots then just say they're not to your taste. but to say any 50 at any aperture with processing would get similar results is nuts!
There's a lot more consideration and skill gone into these than you may think than just processing.
Location, time of day, quality of light, shooting/model position and styling, and then finally processing to complete the shot's mood and style.
If you're sick of too many style centric processed shots everywhere you see then thats a different story, as most of us prob dislike average or crap shots over processed just to look cool or cover up bad shooting technique. But these are made with certain style and subtlety that actually works for the shot. Well done Imaxmax!

Get off your high horse and read what I actually wrote. And, I don't live on a plant [sic].

I cast no judgement and expressed no opinion of the images other than to point out that with that much post processing any lens characteristics are heavily masked. That is not a contentious comment, it is a factual statement.

Hey PD, I'll get of my high horse then.. but would you like to discuss factually how ' an image shot taken with any 50mm lens at any aperture (at the same shoot) to a decent post processor and get them to look very similar.'

To me thats a really generalising statement and technically untrue I believe, and especially invalid in the 50L discussion thread. Maybe could be seen to be 'similar' by joe public for the general processing colour look. But should we not be discussing the 50Ls merits / qualities here and with a very keen eye?
What I see is the 50Ls lovely smooth rendering of the OOF areas and to my eyes that has been brilliantly retained within the processing. I can tell when too much contrast, highlights / shadows pulled in, clarity, sharpening begin to affect the natural look of a lens and the 50L especially. If you process harder sharper it pushes it more towards the 50 1.4 look and feel but at 1.2 and 1.4 you'd never achieve as beautiful lens rendering with any other lens maybe aside from the Otis.

There's a few other examples on this page that I however see some slight heavy handed sharpening on shots not taken as wide open that start to make it harder to me to discern as that '50L Look' This isn't go at anyone else but just technical observations.
Sparda79's fighfighters shots are nicely made ,but to me these don't show the natural 50L qualities that makes the 50L really shine compared to when shot wide openish of a closer portrait. There's a touch too much sharpening on these that hardens the bokeh rings much like the 501.4 does. To me these set of shots would be much harder to say that the 50L was used. And might have been a more valid discussion than Imaxmax's set.

All I'm saying here PD is we should be discussing the lens attributes and be doing it discerningly, and this page is chance to see some great work produced by the lens, and see the differences different subject matters, apertures, light and backgrounds are rendered by this len. For people who already use it and those who are thinking about owning it. It's a special lens and can be difficult to work with so when good results are made is great to see.
But there is a sweat spot it shines at, and that is wideish open but does also rely on the light in scene, the background, subject matter and of course... processing :)

Quote

Get off your high horse and read what I actually wrote. And, I don't live on a plant [sic].

I cast no judgement and expressed no opinion of the images other than to point out that with that much post processing any lens characteristics are heavily masked. That is not a contentious comment, it is a factual statement.

Post processing or not i think u can always see the character of a lens still. PP makes the shot better but not the feel. Something like that. Personally i think the more crappy a lens the more easy it is to notice the PP.

Well if you two guys want to demonstrate your observational skills you will have no problems telling us which of these images was shot with the 50 f1.2. Of course if you can't get them all right I might just have made a valid point.

P.S. For some bonus points tell us which other lenses were used.


314
Software & Accessories / Re: Post Processing help please.
« on: July 05, 2014, 10:03:09 PM »

Technically speaking, the quality of the JPEG compression affects the final pixel count as does the final desired size of the picture. 

It isn't correct. Pixels are pixels, compression is completely separate.


The OOC jpeg has compression applied, that is all there is to it. In DPP use the "Image quality" slider to lower the file size, use the "Resize setting" to change pixel numbers to an appropriate number for that specific use, 700px for forum uploads, etc.

Lots of things impact file size, iso and noise are two major ones, as is detail in the image, for example a leafy landscape will make a much bigger file than a plain background still life.

Sharpening is not only image specific, but output specific too, a file for print can take more sharpening than a screen, there are no magic numbers just adjust sliders until you are happy at the size it will be output.

As for software, Lightroom is the best $100 pretty much any photographer can spend on their photography, you need a very good reason to avoid it, it does 95% of what DXO and way more additional things, it also does around 300% of what DPP can.

315
Speedlites, Printers, Accessories / Re: to 600rt + st-e3 or not....
« on: July 05, 2014, 08:33:38 PM »
The only issue... and this is minor at best... with the 600's and the st-e3 is knowing which flash is a and which is b... I know I can just look... but I get lazy and I say screw it... I just want a 2:1 ratio and I'm good enough.  But I'd like to be able to say... set off A alone... and I probably can do it... but how doesn't come to mind.

Put labels on the flashes, and/or have a system.  A is key, B is fill, C is hair/rim, D is background, etc.  You can disable groups from the master (I use the camera menus) – that's great for setting up, so you can optimize the power for each flash (e.g., the amount of fill) in isolation for each light, all without stepping away from the camera.

I usually put my a's to my left and in the alphabetical order going from left to right... but I was lazy yesterday and didn't feel like getting up from my kneeling position. 

Press "test" button" on ste-e3 and the 600s will fire in sequence according to the groups they are assigned to.

Easy way to find out which group is which

Only in Group Mode, and they fire pretty close together, but it is a nice feature.

Pages: 1 ... 19 20 [21] 22 23 ... 152