April 23, 2014, 11:19:13 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 ... 19 20 [21] 22 23 ... 109
301
Software & Accessories / Re: Large Prints from RAW files
« on: March 06, 2014, 08:55:48 AM »

302
Camera Body Gallery / Re: Anything shot with Sony A7R
« on: March 06, 2014, 01:13:58 AM »
A7R + Sony 10-18mm f4 OSS
Hi Dylan ... what focal length and settings did you use?

Here is JPEG, straight out from camera. Look at the left hand side - color???. This is f11
.

303
Software & Accessories / Re: Large Prints from RAW files
« on: March 05, 2014, 08:11:37 PM »
Does anyone have a good workflow from RAW files to large prints (i.e. 16x20, 20x30, 24x36, etc...)?  I'm shooting from a Canon 6D and am using Lightroom 5/Photoshop CC to do post processing.  I am using a 2009 iMac.  Are colorimeters really necessary (I don't really want to spend ~$100 just to calibrate my screen)?

Yes you do need to get a screen profiler. With the cost if big prints it is a necessity.

But as has been said, without a lot more detail specific help is impossible. For instance are you using your own printer?

304
Software & Accessories / Re: Large Prints from RAW files
« on: March 05, 2014, 08:10:06 PM »
Calibrate your monitor.
Profile your printer with the specific paper and inks you'll be using.
Soft proof in Lightroom.
Your prints will match what you see on screen.

That has to be one of the most naive replies ever. Where will your prints match your screen? Do the print illumination and screen have the same WB? Do they have the same white point? etc etc.

Prints never match the screen unless you put the same amount and colour of light onto them as the screen puts out, if you want to get really anal then you need to start looking at the CRI index and spectral characteristics of your print illumination bulbs too......


305
EOS Bodies / Re: Full Frame Vs Crop Sensor
« on: March 05, 2014, 07:35:35 PM »
It is just magnification and aperture, once you accept that, however convoluted the route to getting there, then it is easier on the mind.

Start to think magnification and aperture and all the inconsistencies and complications fall away.

PBD....you're right, i had always thought of the three.... focal length, distance to subject, aperture....but when i read what you wrote, "start to think magnification and aperture" only....you're right, it's easier to think of it that way.

thanks,
north

Glad it helped, t least one person.  ;)

306
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 6D or 5Dm3?
« on: March 05, 2014, 01:15:17 AM »
I am sorry but that is bunkum.

Yes we made fine images when we shot manual focus, but keeper rates were dramatically lower, even for top end pros. When I shot sports in the '80's I was happy with 3 critically sharp images per 36 roll, an 8% critical keeper rate and I was average at the time and in the best of health and eyesight, nowadays keeper rates are in the order of 90-95% critically sharp.

AF is huge, that is why after a comparatively short introductory period they achieved universal acceptance, way quicker than practically any other major feature of SLR's. Universal acceptance of TTL metering and Auto exposure modes both took much longer.

307
Photography Technique / Re: Tips for Shooting Equestrian Events?
« on: March 04, 2014, 11:03:11 PM »
Go to the local Barnes and Noble and look through all the equestrian magazines, it will give you examples of optimal angles.

Watch for distracting backgrounds, especially in the showjumping (stadium). Keep a low viewpoint, the jumps look much bigger the lower you are.

Dressage is all about the horses composure and gait, don't crop off its hooves.

Walk the cross country course against the riders direction, that way you are always facing the oncoming riders. Water obstacles are almost always the most photogenic.

Access is normally easy, even at very high level events, so a 70-200 is king, I'd happily do a three day event with just a 70-200 f2.8, but a 24-70 will be good for closeups and prize giving etc.

308
Lenses / Re: 24-70 f/2.8 L II front coating peeling off?
« on: March 04, 2014, 10:19:41 PM »
There is no way the doubters are going to eat any of that humble pie, it is way easier slinging mud without basis........

309
EOS Bodies / Re: New EOS-1D X, 4x5 Flipbook Now Available
« on: March 04, 2014, 10:17:50 PM »


310
Lenses / Re: 24-70 f/2.8 L II front coating peeling off?
« on: March 04, 2014, 09:48:06 PM »
Sweet.

311
EOS Bodies / Re: Full Frame Vs Crop Sensor
« on: March 04, 2014, 02:56:44 PM »
So the only important bit is to educate people on the apparently simple concept of magnification.

At the very essence of all this is:

1. How big is the object as you now see it in relation to how big it is in real life.
2. How big was the aperture opening.

The first allows for everything involved in the reproduction; focal length, distance to object, coc, sensor size, crop, print or screen size, and viewing distance. Each of those affects the magnification. Plugging these values into a dof calculator just allows it to calculate the magnification taking the print or screen size and viewing distance as standards for a set CoC, some calculators actually allow you to change the CoC and magically your DOF changes,  even though the image is already taken.

The second dictates the amount of blur in relation to the magnification.

Hyperfocal is a side issue with no merit, stuff falling within the hyperfocal is still not as sharp as the plane of focus. magnify it the same and it is just as blurred (try it with the images on the LL link, I did for a thread a long time ago). Indeed lenses marked hyperfocal scales are historically at least one stop wider than accepted norm CoC figures because they used a different value to calculate them. But the important bit is that hyperfocal is just another manifestation of magnification, it isn't sharp, it is just small enough to give the illusion of sharp.

312
EOS Bodies / Re: Full Frame Vs Crop Sensor
« on: March 04, 2014, 11:51:31 AM »
It is just magnification and aperture, once you accept that, however convoluted the route to getting there, then it is easier on the mind.

Start to think magnification and aperture and all the inconsistencies and complications fall away.

313
Lenses / Re: removing the tripod collar on the 70-200 f 2.8 II IS lens
« on: March 04, 2014, 11:08:22 AM »
Though with anything like a good tripod, head, and clamp arrangement, is totally unnecessary. The only good thing about it is the ability to very easily shift from portrait to landscape without altering anything else.

Well, there's also that the tripod collar mounts the lens much closer to its center of gravity, which will improve stability no matter how good your tripod/head/clamp rig is, in addition to relieving excessive stress on the camera tripod mount. Oh, and it also allows the lens to pivot much closer to the nodal point if you happen to be doing any kind of pano work.

Now the 300 f2.8 tripod mount is completely different, I do take that with me and use it about 50% of the time.

Only 50%?  That will go up to 100% if you upgrade to the IS Mk II, from which Canon wisely omitted the removable tripod collar.

You can do whatever you want with yours, and I know all the reasoning for other techniques. I am just pointing out, from a heavy user, that I don't use it.

I have never seen a difference in an image from using the tripod collar to using the body plate, I can tell the difference between my three tripods when viewed at the pixel level (not something I actually care much about) but there is no stability difference in actual images when I don't use the tripod ring. There is no doubt the theory supports your points, but the difference, from my actual observations, is not visible so I question its value.

As for Canon "wisely" omitting the option, well you can still take it off, but only the foot. I often use the 300 with a monopod so am ambivalent regards it being removable or not. I never use the 70-200 on a monopod, just occasionally a tripod.

But I was just providing a counterpoint, like I said, do whatever you want with yours, but don't spout theoretical irrelevancies as justification to others, it is your personal choice. I don't care if you always leave yours on because it makes you "look like a pro" or " I can tuck it in my jeans pocket" or because "it gives me a rest to balance on the palm of my hand" or any other reason, real or imagined. If I shot landscapes with it on a tripod, ever, and many people do, keeping the tripod ring on would make a lot of sense, stand in a powerboat for 6 hours shooting racing sailboats and leaving it on makes zero sense.

314
Lenses / Re: removing the tripod collar on the 70-200 f 2.8 II IS lens
« on: March 04, 2014, 09:56:23 AM »
AND it makes a handy mount for a tripod, I kid you not.

Though with anything like a good tripod, head, and clamp arrangement, is totally unnecessary. The only good thing about it is the ability to very easily shift from portrait to landscape without altering anything else, that is functionality I have lived without for the past 8+ years. I do use it very occasionally, but never take it "out" as I, personally, found the disadvantages far outweighed the advantages.

Now the 300 f2.8 tripod mount is completely different, I do take that with me and use it about 50% of the time.

315
Lenses / Re: removing the tripod collar on the 70-200 f 2.8 II IS lens
« on: March 04, 2014, 07:45:24 AM »
Why remove it? It's a great grip.

Agree 100%.

I owned this lens for years before I even knew the collar was removable. It's so useful that I seriously can't understand why so many people can't seem to wait to take it off.

It fits in bags much easier without it. It adds weight and bulk. If you are not going to use it then  why take it. Just a few of the reasons I took it off and left it off.

Pages: 1 ... 19 20 [21] 22 23 ... 109