October 20, 2014, 09:34:06 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 ... 24 25 [26] 27 28 ... 171
376
Software & Accessories / Re: Jpeg image sizes?
« on: August 26, 2014, 09:47:39 AM »
DPI does not affect jpeg file size. Number of pixels does, as does content (more detail bigger files), noise, iso (because of the noise), quality setting etc.
Makes sense, I have no excuse for my senility ;)

But I can understand the notion because pixel processing software like LR seems to make makes a large fuss about dpi settings, but it only matters for import into desktop publishing and is irrelevant for other print/screen purposes.

I don't think LR makes a large fuss over dpi, it is just a tag. But it is what gives you your print size unless you deliberately specify something different, and if you still have a version of PS that has the "Print View" option in the zoom settings and you have set your monitor up correctly then it gives you a pretty accurate WYSIWYG idea of your print. I use Print View all the time and that 100% is driven by dpi.

377
EOS Bodies / Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« on: August 26, 2014, 12:28:31 AM »
I'd love the most verbose people to actually take the time to photograph a step wedge, it should take about 15 seconds, and post their results.
I had one back in the good old days of the B+W darkroom.... I kind of wish I had one now because this has gotten me very curious as to how my various cameras compare... I might have to order one :) (any recommendations?)

Please correct me if I am wrong, but I always thought of "stops" as an analog/perception scale and that it did not necessarily match up with a digital scale... perhaps part of the confusion here is that people are talking about two different things yet using the same terminology.

Whilst the Stouffer versions are the standard I know of, there is no reason decent results couldn't be got with a home printed version. With careful lighting and exposure I would think you could do very well.

Well I wouldn't get into a semantics argument here, it seems many have far more time than I do and that is all it takes to "win", but I think stops translates just as well to digital as analog, it is just much easier to read the values of the output now and they are finite, unlike the infinite variability of analog density. When we needed to know the density of negatives it was much more involved than moving a cursor over the relevant pixel  :)

Just out of curiosity, how did you determine the density of negatives? How accurate were the measurements?

I was cool (a lazy little S___) and held them up to the light and guessed! We had a densitometer but I resisted using it unless pushed to. It was primarily to gauge development times for emulsions (and subsequent paper grades for printing) and I always worked around negative density with paper grades, I horrified the purists when the variable contrast papers came out and I hogged the colour enlarger for my B&W printing. But the readings were very accurate (well consistent) and only took a few seconds to make. Saved a lot on test prints of the wrong grade paper when you did use it too.

Wow I'd forgotten all that!

378
Software & Accessories / Re: Jpeg image sizes?
« on: August 25, 2014, 11:52:37 PM »
And neither do I  ;)

379
EOS Bodies / Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« on: August 25, 2014, 11:32:56 PM »
...I started seeing this fundamentally mocking behavior.

Yep, it's just popping up all over the place!

I wish that all parties would try to be more civil and resist the urge to sink to the bottom. This forum is what we make of it....

and some advice from mom.... "Just because Timmy is an a**hole, that doesn't give you the right to be one". Keep it clean and respectful please....

Don, when people show no respect and just shout and argue over everybody, it becomes impossibly difficult to show them any respect in return.

I'd love the most verbose people to actually take the time to photograph a step wedge, it should take about 15 seconds, and post their results. One obviously naive and inexperienced HDR image that inexplicably garners some wows does not a complete understanding of wide range processing make.

But what do I know, I only earn my living shooting wide DR images with Canon gear.

380
Post Processing / Re: Noise, shadows, etc.
« on: August 25, 2014, 11:05:20 PM »
I shoot massive DR subjects on an almost daily basis and it is my living.

I have no time for all the hullabaloo here on this subject but I will offer my techniques.

I expose to the right, generally drop the exposure in post and very occasionally I move the noise slider off zero.

If I bracket I will blend in PS to 32bit files and then use those in ACR or Lightroom. If I get strong blue colour casts in the shadows I might open as a layer the best image for the area, desaturate it or open as a smart object and adjust temp and tint and then mask the shadows in.

My most complicated issues with huge DR are colour shifts from the different light sources which most HDR shooters entirely ignore because everything they shoot is a crazy orange due to them wanting to see detail on the surface of the sun, I deal with these colour differences in a variety of ways that have become ever more convoluted, but I have gotten much quicker at them. For me and the massive DR images I shoot colour shifts are a much bigger problem than low iso noise and banding.

381
Software & Accessories / Re: Jpeg image sizes?
« on: August 25, 2014, 06:25:47 PM »
With Lightroom, you set the DPI of the jpeg image, so its another variable.  I sold the D800, at high ISO, those 50MB nef files uncompressed to over 150MB and took a long time to post process.  I used a huge amount of NR, and then any resolution advantage was lost.  Since I tend to use mostly high iISO like 12800, the camera was not the right choice.  My Nikon 24-70 2.8G had a ton of CA.  I thought it was defective until I read the fine print in the reviews.  I was using it at 24mm to take group photos, but the edges had so much CA that Lightroom could not correct it.  There is more to a camera system than a sensor.

DPI does not affect jpeg file size. Number of pixels does, as does content (more detail bigger files), noise, iso (because of the noise), quality setting etc.

382
Lenses / Re: Would you buy the 35L now, or wait?
« on: August 25, 2014, 04:44:05 PM »
If I wanted one I'd get it now.

If a MkII comes out then it will be much more than you can get the MkI for so you have a different set of factors contributing to your purchasing decision.

Would you buy a MkII now for $2,200? Because even if they were available they wouldn't be selling for less than list, and wouldn't be for some time after release. Look after your MkI, keep the box and bag, receipt, warranty and paperwork and even if you want to upgrade in the future you won't lose that much.

Besides, lenses are for taking photos and imagine the images you will miss in the mean time.

If I wasn't in a rush I'd see what the rebates brought, but if you are not in a rush do you need it...............

Normally I'd agree but I wouldn't be shocked if the new 35mm 1.4 isn't sold at that big a premium due to the Sigma.

I think Canon have demonstrated on pretty much every occasion that they don't care about Sigma. Sigma are not pushing them to do anything, if they were we would have seen a 50 f1.4 replacement a long time ago.

I believe the bigger picture is Canon think the relevance of fast primes has waned and they don't carry the "system" clout they used to. Killer specialty lenses like the 24 TS-E and 17TS-E, and zooms with the IQ of the 70-200 IS f2.8 MkII and 24-70 f2.8 MkII are not only expensive but they are good sellers with much broader appeal. I well understand the fast prime "look" that can't be replicated with f2.8 zooms, but it seems to me Canon don't really care too much and have moved on faster than some of us, lets be honest the most compelling reason for fast wide primes was not dof control (though I am not denying it's importance sometimes) but it was to compensate for awful film iso speeds and that has very much been put to rest with even current camera iso capabilities, I suspect Canon consider medium speed primes with IS that are small have much more appeal and earning potential, the new lenses are often video orientated and that is what Canon thinks is more important to them.


383
Lighting / Re: Yongnuo vs. Pixel?
« on: August 25, 2014, 03:09:18 PM »
http://flashhavoc.com/pixel-x-650-ettl-flash-now-available/

I also have used some YN products without issue for years, but others are not so good.

Also, the GN of 60 or 65 is a misnomer, they produce no more actual light output than a 550EX, 580EX or any multitude of 5-- series flashes that everybody makes that doesn't zoom to 200mm.

384
Lenses / Re: Would you buy the 35L now, or wait?
« on: August 25, 2014, 02:56:53 PM »
If I wanted one I'd get it now.

If a MkII comes out then it will be much more than you can get the MkI for so you have a different set of factors contributing to your purchasing decision.

Would you buy a MkII now for $2,200? Because even if they were available they wouldn't be selling for less than list, and wouldn't be for some time after release. Look after your MkI, keep the box and bag, receipt, warranty and paperwork and even if you want to upgrade in the future you won't lose that much.

Besides, lenses are for taking photos and imagine the images you will miss in the mean time.

If I wasn't in a rush I'd see what the rebates brought, but if you are not in a rush do you need it...............

385
Lighting / Re: Yongnuo vs. Pixel?
« on: August 25, 2014, 02:50:42 PM »
I'd say it really depends on what you want from your flashes.

If you want cheap fully functional Speedlites then get a 550EX for around $100, they will work on every EOS ever, they are the cheapest way to get complete Canon functionality and reliability and if you then move to third party radio triggers they will work on them all.

If you don't want, and will never want ETTL etc then any manual third party flash that is readily available and cheap enough to throw away if it ever gets an issue. But as the YN-622C is an ETTL capable trigger and costs much more than basic dumb triggers I can't see any sensible reason for going with issue riddled on compatible flashes.

I kept going with my many 550EX's and third party triggers without issue for years in a pro environment until I moved to the 600-EX-RT and the RT system.

386
Technical Support / Re: Question regarding sensor size and image quality
« on: August 22, 2014, 11:57:36 PM »

When shooting similar types of boring, gray products, to my eyes medium format trumps a FF 35mm sensor in the tonality department by a huge margin as well.

Your results may vary ;D

Medium format file bit depths are generally much bigger than 135 format RAW files so they are much better at subtle tonality, they can literally accurately record thousands more tones of grey, also they don't have AA filters so detailed gradation is rendered much more accurately.

Indeed it could well be the AA filter that people are seeing on the crop cameras that is killing some of the subtle tonality of the image. Generally crop cameras have more severe AA filters than 135 format cameras and as their bit depth is the same it is the only substantive difference.

V8, you should borrow a D810 to see how you like the tonality of that, it should be the closest to the medium format in 135 format, though still not as good.

387
Technical Support / Re: Question regarding sensor size and image quality
« on: August 22, 2014, 04:24:37 PM »
To the original question/
We should think also to the light ray in lens and sensor. bigger sensor, bigger lens, the light rays have more different angle (wide left, wide right).
I think that play a role in the perspective-impression.. or "3d" effect... or "Real" photo/subject.

FullFrame:
  /  \
/      \
-------

APSC will be more like this:
||
--

or
 /\
 --

Perspective has got nothing to do with focal length, or light ray angle. Perspective is defined by your position, alone.

388
Post Processing / Re: Merging Multiple Exposures
« on: August 22, 2014, 02:05:31 PM »
One thing the original image shows up is the way shadows adopt a very cold colour, I have taken to desaturating the blue out of the shadows and then lifting them with a masked colour filter layer.

I really like the Wonderpana for my 17TS-E, but the truth is with so much bracketing I really only use it for reflection controls with the CPL, everything from swimming pool water, to granite kitchen surfaces and wooden floors all often benefit from the use of the CPL.

389
Technical Support / Re: Question regarding sensor size and image quality
« on: August 22, 2014, 12:29:43 PM »

Even though the FOV and DOF may be the same, the images will never be "equal".  Why is that? For the same reason that a 4X5 image will look "better" than 35 mm--field compression.  Let me explain.

Let's take two cameras a 35 mm and 4 x 5.  A 50 mm lens on a 35 mm camera and a 210 mm lens on a 4 x 5 camera give the same field of view.  However, the images do not look the same because of the apparent difference in distance between the foreground and background.  Even through the field of view is the same, the background will appear much closer to the foreground with the longer lens--this is called field compression.  These images "look better" and have a more 3D feel.  This is why the old master's like Ansel Adams, Ed Weston used large format cameras.  Ansel Adams once quipped when asked what kind of camera he used his response was "The heaviest one I can carry".

The same this is going on with an APC sized sensor compared to FF.  The equivalent field of view for a 50 mm lens on a full frame sensor is about 35 mm on an APC sensor.  The apparent distance between background and foreground for given a field of view is greater in an APC sensor than in a full frame sensor.  Hence, the images do not look as good and lack the 3D feel.

Your instructor should know this stuff.  Maybe he/she should read Ansel Adam's excellent book "The Camera".  In fact, all of us should read the entire Adam's series: "The Camera", "The Negative", and "The Print".  There is still much to learn from the old masters even in the digital age.

Don Barar

Don,

With the greatest respect, something I am often accused of lacking, that is a complete load of rubbish.

Perspective is perspective, "compression" is a completely erroneous concept that photographers that don't know what they are talking about use to describe perspective.

Perspective is derived from your position. That is it, nothing else, focal length is a red herring. Shoot the same scene from the same place with a 17mm lens or a 200mm lens and crop the 17mm image to the same framing as the 200mm image and the perspective ("compression") is identical, and that is what you are doing when you use smaller sensors.

390
I am mostly one shot AF, but when I use Servo I have "Back Button OFF" for AF not back button ON, I find I get better results and my thumb doesn't work a fraction as hard.

Pages: 1 ... 24 25 [26] 27 28 ... 171