September 16, 2014, 01:46:47 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 ... 156
301
Lenses / Re: Something with 50mm L lens that make it different
« on: July 22, 2014, 01:19:35 AM »
To answer the question more seriously: I've owned all 3 of the current Canon 50mm lenses. The f/1.8 was great for the price. I liked the f/1.4 quite a bit more than the nifty fifty. The f/1.2 produced the pictures I liked the best. So, that's the one I kept.

I sincerely hope that meets with everyone's approval... I'd hate to be judged harshly for spending my money in such a foolish manner.  ;)

My approval means nothing, even if you wanted it which you clearly don't, and I doubt if you are a fool :-)

The 1.2L does several things better than any other 50, my only grip is with people who profess a "unique look" but can't actually identify it.


302
Lenses / Re: Something with 50mm L lens that make it different
« on: July 22, 2014, 01:12:51 AM »
Two words: weather sealing:P

A very good and patently justifiable reason to get the 1.2L

303
Lenses / Re: Something with 50mm L lens that make it different
« on: July 22, 2014, 01:10:48 AM »
On the computer monitor you only know what you are being shown if you use an external meter (and that is subjective)

Are you saying there is reason to doubt the colour calibration tools commonly available? Otherwise I've already covered the topics you describe.

Yes and no, different calibration tools will return different absolute values, but the point is not as esoteric as that. If the flower was in sunlight it was being illuminated by anything between 2,500K-8,000K, if it was strobe lit it will be around 5,500K, most people calibrate their screens to 6,500K, the screen will have a different colour to the flower under both flash and most times of the day.

304
Lenses / Re: Something with 50mm L lens that make it different
« on: July 22, 2014, 01:02:52 AM »
Your insistence, that because we can't tell what lens made each photo, we don't really need the 50L, is what is hard to understand.

Tom, I have never said that, I have repeatedly said there are several good reasons to buy the 1.2 over any other 50, what I have stuck to is the fact that not one person has correctly picked a 50 f1.2 image out of a gallery of 50mm images, I think that speaks very loudly by itself.

By definition how could it give a unique look if not one person can correctly distinguish it?

305
Lenses / Re: Something with 50mm L lens that make it different
« on: July 22, 2014, 01:00:06 AM »
I'll have a stab at PBD's challenge seeing as no one else will, but only two. I think the picture of the girl has a Sigma signature, and the picture of the dog is a blurry mess so I presume it is meant to look as if it was shot at f1.2. In truth I cannot tell the difference between the EF 50 1.2 and the 1.4 unless you shot the same subject at f1.4 - 1.6 and then compared the central image sharpness.

Hey there Sporgon, thanks for trying. Both wrong.

306
Lighting / Re: large softboxes for speedlights - what are you using
« on: July 21, 2014, 11:44:53 PM »
For big the 50" Westcott Apollo is difficult to beat and at $169 isn't too expensive considering its quality and size. In this thread I gave some test shots of the output:- http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=20523.msg388422#msg388422

307
Lenses / Re: Something with 50mm L lens that make it different
« on: July 21, 2014, 04:46:33 PM »
.... but the man behind the camera can tell.

What does any of that, and your disdain for my illustrative images have to do with the point? You can be as insulting as you like, I will not get drawn into it.

However as for the part of your comment that you keep saying, why then do you keep failing to actually do it?

Your answer to the question I ask you, show me you can discern the "unique look" of the 50L is not met by guesses, it is met with insults.

I hope I never attain your level of professionalism.

308
Lenses / Re: Something with 50mm L lens that make it different
« on: July 21, 2014, 03:30:38 PM »
PBD,
So what is the point of your comments, and those in the other thread?  Should we all be saving money and not renting/buying/shooting the L lens?  The only way you will convince me of this is by showing me the same scene shot with the different lenses in question, wide open and with no post processing.  If it is a complex scene with some depth and some small points of light in it.  I guarantee I could tell the difference. 

Anyone have multiple 50mms to do a test?

Tom
Don't expect too much from PBD experience wise. He after all doesn't use the gear to the extent to know and see the differences. From. From experience, if you take the 1.4 and 1.2 out to shoot, you'll like the 50L every time if that's the look your going for. Something that PBD won't ever be able to understand.

You are so sweet, I probably sold my last (owned) 50 1.2L before you knew what a camera was, but that is fine, stick to the personal insults rather than try and guess which images have, in your words, a "unique look", because lets be honest, you are far better at insulting people than proving your point.

As far as we know, you haven't shot the inside of a paper bag but if others like to take your opinions with weight based on zero actual photography made, that's none of my business. However, my opinions are based on my work and how the lens works for me. If you disagree, that's cool but don't attempt to justify yourself with zero actual photography.

I don't, I have posted hundreds of images here, I just choose not to link to my websites or try for YouTube and blog hits. But I am not the one proclaiming a "unique look" and then failing, 100%, to actually be able to pick it out.

As 3kramd5 says "But the common assertion is that there is a specific unique look to the 50L. If that assertion is true, and if the viewer knows what that specific unique look is, he need not have a side by side comparison, he only need look at a single photograph to determine whether or not that specific unique look is present. Right?"

Why can't you, or any other self proclaimed aficionado, answer that question?

309
Lenses / Re: Something with 50mm L lens that make it different
« on: July 21, 2014, 03:21:43 PM »
Remind me an instance. I am sure the color of petals is near to orange but she insist its near to red.
thus the argument. I can not give up because its really near to orange than red. but she insist sees otherwise.
maybe we are both correct, its how we see it.

That was a missed opportunity. In this day and age there should be no room for arguments over what colour is.

Colour is a wavelength of light, it's not subjective in any way. Going a step further, when you're looking at it on your monitor most editing programs have a string of numbers that tell you the exact colour of any given pixel. In this case it's hard to say if the colour being produced is just like the one that was captured, but at least you can say quite precisely what colour is being displayed.
The last step to ensure accuracy is to have a calibrated monitor, but even if you don't it's probably not going to be that far off.

At the danger of opening another front, that is a vast oversimplification.

The flower is reflecting light, the colour of the light being shone on it will affect the colour it appears to be. A similar problem happens with prints, metamerism is an issue that has largely been overcome with modern digital ink sets, but not entirely.

On the computer monitor you only know what you are being shown if you use an external meter (and that is subjective), an internal colour picker is not telling you what you are seeing, it is telling what that pixel should be before your screen profile, and every screen has a profile. Do this, open PS and put the colour picker on a pixel, now adjust your screens brightness, the pickers value doesn't change but the actual pixel does, same thing if you change the WB, the colour of the pixel you see changes, but the pickers values don't.

Colour is a huge can of worms that most of the time is best left alone!

310
Lenses / Re: Something with 50mm L lens that make it different
« on: July 21, 2014, 02:57:10 PM »
PBD,
So what is the point of your comments, and those in the other thread?  Should we all be saving money and not renting/buying/shooting the L lens?  The only way you will convince me of this is by showing me the same scene shot with the different lenses in question, wide open and with no post processing.  If it is a complex scene with some depth and some small points of light in it.  I guarantee I could tell the difference. 

Anyone have multiple 50mms to do a test?

Tom
Don't expect too much from PBD experience wise. He after all doesn't use the gear to the extent to know and see the differences. From. From experience, if you take the 1.4 and 1.2 out to shoot, you'll like the 50L every time if that's the look your going for. Something that PBD won't ever be able to understand.

You are so sweet, I probably sold my last (owned) 50 1.2L before you knew what a camera was, but that is fine, stick to the personal insults rather than try and guess which images have, in your words, a "unique look", because lets be honest, you are far better at insulting people than proving your point.

311
Lenses / Re: Something with 50mm L lens that make it different
« on: July 21, 2014, 02:33:45 PM »
PBD,
So what is the point of your comments, and those in the other thread?  Should we all be saving money and not renting/buying/shooting the L lens?  The only way you will convince me of this is by showing me the same scene shot with the different lenses in question, wide open and with no post processing.  If it is a complex scene with some depth and some small points of light in it.  I guarantee I could tell the difference. 

Anyone have multiple 50mms to do a test?

Tom

My point was photography, by definition, is a visual medium. A lot of people talk a lot of bull that they just can't back up, I like to try to cut through some of that by demonstrating that these aficionados can't actually tell the difference between a good photo taken with a 50mm f1.8 and a 50mm f1.2L. And they can't, they have demonstrated that time and time again.

As I have always said, there are very good reasons to buy a 1.2 over a 1.8, but if you can't tell me which one was used to make an image don't try and tell me one of them has a "unique look", because if you can't tell, again by definition, it doesn't. Use any of the multiple other very good reasons to argue the case, not least of which is pride and confidence, two very important factors in lens use that are never considered by most.

Sure I get trolled and make myself unpopular, people don't like to be called out, but that doesn't alter the fact that if something has a "unique look" then those professing that should be able to pick it out of individual images, but they never can, am I the only one interested in why they can't?

312
Since I have the time and good equipment I thought I might try this myself?

Actually, before scanner were available, the only way to reproduce slides and negs was photographing them. There were special films as well for reproduction. Canon had a repro adapter to be mounted on its bellows, coupled with a macro lens, it also allowed for "cropping" a slide. I still have the bellows, I guess I should look for an EF-FD macro adapter and the repro accessory :) IMHO with a good setup you can obtain results far superior than most scanners, although it's a slower technique.

Beware of some low/medium range scanner offering "slide/negs adapters", they may return so-so results.

For lightning any good, homogeneous, stable source will be enough - once there were even enlarger "color heads" used to correct casts on images, but now you can easily correct whatever in post-production.

Also ensure the neg/slide is flat when you take images of it - often they are not.

Yes it did, here is mine.

FD 50mm Macro reverse mounted in FD auto bellows with the slide copier attachment on it, for years that was the only way of "backing up" your work. Now I just need to get an FD-EOS adapter and a body that clears the rail at 1:1, my 1 series digitals don't!

313
Lenses / Re: Something with 50mm L lens that make it different
« on: July 20, 2014, 11:40:03 PM »


Awww that's cute PBD because I remember almost everyone shutting you down on the 135L vs 100L. Both Factually and Artistically on how the 135L is the superior portrait lens.

Its not trolling if its true.  :o

And it is true that you couldn't tell which was which from the same shoot.

314
Lenses / Re: Something with 50mm L lens that make it different
« on: July 20, 2014, 11:26:04 PM »
This was my basis for starting this thread:

Few months ago i rented 50 1.2 L.

Recently, I have invested lens average lens, 35mm f2 IS, 40mm and 85mm 1.8,
I also have tried 24-105, 16-35 f2.8 and 24-70 2.8. I used to have 28 1.8.

looking at the pictures taken from these lenses. I always go back to the pictures taken by 50 1.2 L. Even at smaller apertures, the 50 1.2 L produces the wow effect (not all pictures, but most of them).

To be honest, i have not personally tried ef 50 1.4. only look at pictures on line.

Thus I post this thread and see how people like the 50 1.2 L.

I don't rate it and didn't like it, but if you do then all power to you, get it and love the images.

315
Lenses / Re: Something with 50mm L lens that make it different
« on: July 20, 2014, 11:24:43 PM »
Some can see the Unqiue look in lenses, others can't. (Lomo Petzval Lens is a good example.) I like the 50L's unique look to the other canon 50mm's and It matters more to the photographer than client. Most clients can't tell the difference between a 550D and 1Dx in print but it's the photographers job know the difference for them.

So far none of you photographers has managed to pick out that "unique look", which illustrates my point perfectly and the extent of your credibility.

I can understand the 50% more light than a 1.4, I can understand the "I only use 'the best'" mentality, I can understand the satisfaction of arriving and working with top of the range gear and I can understand people aspiring to own that gear and enjoying using it for what it is. I cannot understand this constant "unique look" bull that nobody can actually identify, sure people give esoteric descriptions of subtleties mere mortals just can't see, bless us and our poor blind deluded selves, but I hate the fact that when challenged by somebody with a bit of experience and confidence every single one of you aficionados baulks, then fails to identify images shot with that "unique look".
If I'm shooting both the 1.4 and 1.2, I will know what images were with the 1.2. I will see the difference and that translates to a look I want.

However, I don't expect someone like yourself who hasn't shown any images of artistic merit of your own to understand this viewpoint. Perhaps you can attempt to map that on a test chart somewhere to add some credibility to your portfolio. :)

Of course you could.... No wait, if we go back to the last time we did this you couldn't tell the difference between the 135 f2 and the 100 f2.8 when used for the same shoot, so why should we believe you now?

As for the rest of your comment, it is a cheap shot at trolling, not gonna play.

Pages: 1 ... 19 20 [21] 22 23 ... 156