July 23, 2014, 08:16:31 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 ... 137
376
The subject, as you say, will be the same size in the different images.

The perspective will be different in the images, that is the apparent shape of an object will appear more rounded with a shorter focal length and flatter with a longer focal length. This effect of perspective is vastly reduced in macro shooting.

At the same aperture value the different images, if framed the same, will have the same dof.

The most apparent difference between the images will be the background, the longer the focal length the more blurred it will appear, though that is an optical illusion, things in the background will be much bigger and less "busy".

377
Surapon,

Your original image is not optimally exposed for post processing, it looks like you used a polarizer and under exposed a fair bit. For B&W base shots I'd suggest a more even starting point, it is easy to get the drama in post but impossible to salvage the shadows from such an underexposed image.

378
I would venture to say the 5D MkIII with WFT would be much more robust than the 6D and EOS Remote.

Certainly I use an early WFT and the results are good, and the connection, when it drops out, automatically reconnects in some modes.

As for USB's, Tether Tools do very long active USB cables that go well over 15'. Here is a 65' model http://www.rakuten.com/prod/tether-tools-tetherpro-65-usb-2-0-active-extension-cable-high/246956005.html?listingId=264463729&scid=pla_google_AdoramaCamera&adid=18163&gclid=CIS_i-_7iL4CFRIV7AodeggArA

379
+1 or +3 or wherever we are on the standard Eneloops.  They've treated me well.  I’ve been slowly using older ones to put in remotes and clocks and whatnot around the house.  They last forever in low power applications.

I couldn't find the link, but somewhere out in the internets some guy wrote up a pretty good page comparing major brands for flash use.  I don't remember the details but I remember being surprised that the high capacity batteries didn't (Eneloop and PowerEx) didn't really pack all that many more shots in over the standard Eneloops.  I wish I could find the page to confirm, but I remember thinking that the price hike on the high capacity version just wasn't worth the cost.


Probably this link ... http://www.slrlounge.com/the-best-aa-battery-for-flash-the-ultimate-practical-review-of-aa-batteries-for-photography

Hope this helps!


Nope, but still a good read, thanks.  The one I read was very methodical.  Using different test methods (flash settings) and recording the number of pops in addition to recycle time.  He even updated a few times with Eneloop performance after 6 and 12 months, IIRC.  Anyway, it's no matter, just thought it was a good read.


Syl Arena did it in his book Speedliter's Handbook.

380
Photography Technique / Re: How do I get the whole picture sharp?
« on: April 30, 2014, 11:48:11 AM »

Well am I wrong?

About their philosophy?  No, but my point was, it's their magazine.  People with power tend to have things their way.  Why don't you start a magazine?  I wonder if that is even possible now.  They all lose money.  But I do prefer to look at one that is printed well, rather than a screen.  Call me old fashioned, but there it is.

My point wasn't about their philosophy, or ownership, I just stated that your editors opinion is incomplete, it is like saying the answer is 42, well yes as we all know it is. But what is the question that arrives at the answer?

Stating diffraction at f14 as a limit displays a fundamental lack of understanding of what diffraction is and how aperture interacts with it, without knowing the sensor size/crop/reproduction ratio, f14 is a meaningless number. If they said f14 on a 135 format camera we wpould know that for consistency we could submit f8 images from an APS-C and f96 images from an 8"x10".

381
I prefer the second, but post the original in colour and we can all have a play :-)

382
Sir, am I correct in jumping to the conclusion, that...based on your assertion, I should not buy a woman flowers if she shouts louder than I do?  It almost makes sense... :D

Carl,

It is fairly clear nobody will stop you jumping to conclusions, and all power to you for your enthusiasm and gusto. As for your choice in women, it has been my experience that only relatively inexperienced men think they are the ones that actually make the choice.

383
Lighting / Re: FlashPipe flash diffuser - your thoughts?
« on: April 30, 2014, 01:50:24 AM »
Not much, it is very limited, you have no control on direction, the Gary Fong comparison looks "much better" if that is the look of light you want, it stands up too high, a Stofen will cost less than half as much and not get knocked off.

Look into the Rouge Flashbender kits, they have a great range, and the control you have over the light makes it the current strobist darling. There is some real high quality output comming out of some Rouge shooters.

Check out Lou Freeman, she used to shoot for Playboy Magazine and now does a lot of shoots with 600-EX-RT's and Rouge gear as well as Westcott strips and an octobox.

384
2) Shoot regular mode to get the good color Photos, and Use Photoshop  change from Color to Black and White  ( Mode ---to-- Gray Scale) as  the attached photos below.

Surapon,

Shoot regular mode but don't use Photoshop, use Adobe Camera Raw to do the grey scale conversion, then you have all the colour sliders to adjust, it completely changes the look of the image and effectively mimics using different filters at shooting time. Much more powerful than Mode-Grey Scale in PS.

385
Photography Technique / Re: How do I get the whole picture sharp?
« on: April 29, 2014, 09:47:43 PM »
For example, magazines such as "Nature Photographer", rarely even include landscape images that were shot at wider than f/14 aperture (whether that is always the right philosophy, might be up for debate...but the editor certainly voices their opinion in favor of it, and very often includes it in the text with the image).  In those cases focus distance is not only not in the macro realm, but is usually more than 10 feet from the camera, and on a wider angle lens to boot.  Yet at f/14, the lens is yielding noticeable softening at the pixel level, due to diffraction.  But the 8.5 x 11 full page (or sometimes smaller) prints in the magazine, do not appear soft.  And in most cases, there was no focus stacking.

As photographers, it's our judgment call, based on our experience and our willingness to commit time...as to which technique we use.

Clearly the editor doesn't know what they are talking about, had the same problem when they all insisted we had to have 360dpi for magazines. F14 on what format size?

A 135 format f14 gives the same diffraction as f8.75 on an APS-C and f96 on an 8"x10".
 

I suggest you write the magazine a notarized letter of complaint.  I'm sure the editor will realize they are wrong and you are right, and will issue a front page apology in the next issue, for the error in judgment over the years.  This should fix the problem.  If not perhaps organize a protest rally around their headquarters, that will teach them a lesson they will never forget!  Those always work exactly as intended...and are never a waste of time.   :)     

Well am I wrong?

386
Lenses / Re: Canon's f/1.2's: What is really going on?
« on: April 29, 2014, 09:42:04 PM »
Wait a second, did someone just compare camera lenses to car pistons?!?!

Yep, that is the kind of "reasoning" we have to try to dispel sometimes.

Not the best analogy maybe, but if you try to read what I said rather than trying to take one sentence out of context, you might understand.  THERE IS METAL TO METAL CONTACT.  Your reasoning is, there is not enough metal to metal contact to cause any "appreciable" wear.  I say, there is certainly metal to metal contact that causes wear, when people rush to change lenses...as if they are changing wheels on an F1 racecar.  Oops, there's another car analogy!  My whole point was, the mount is far from indestructible, and care should be taken when changing lenses.  If you are just wanting to argue, go ahead, but you have to admit, I have a point.

Hold on, let me post under another name to egg this on...oh wait, I'm above that.   ;D

And you are speculating that opinion from your own fantastical mind. I am saying I, personally, have had at least half a dozen cameras that have had thousands and thousands of lens changes and neither the lenses nor mounts showed any wear. You are now changing the point from "fast lens changes cause wear" to a more subtle and easier to "prove" "metal to metal contact causes wear".

I have noticed this happens a lot on this forum, more so than others, people theorise about something, somebody with actual experience comes along and says your comments might be theoretically sound but your conclusions are off by a factor of, a lot. The theorist then goes on and on posting, giving meaningless comparisons, ever longer lists of calculations and percentages to "prove" their point, meanwhile the poster with actual experienced gets completely pissed off and either leaves the thread or annoys any readers by trying to defend their position which actually answered the point.

Take it or leave it Carl I am not your enemy, but on this point you are talking rubbish.

387
Lenses / Re: Canon's f/1.2's: What is really going on?
« on: April 29, 2014, 09:13:40 PM »
Wait a second, did someone just compare camera lenses to car pistons?!?!

Yep, that is the kind of "reasoning" we have to try to dispel sometimes.

388
Photography Technique / Re: How do I get the whole picture sharp?
« on: April 29, 2014, 09:11:56 PM »
For example, magazines such as "Nature Photographer", rarely even include landscape images that were shot at wider than f/14 aperture (whether that is always the right philosophy, might be up for debate...but the editor certainly voices their opinion in favor of it, and very often includes it in the text with the image).  In those cases focus distance is not only not in the macro realm, but is usually more than 10 feet from the camera, and on a wider angle lens to boot.  Yet at f/14, the lens is yielding noticeable softening at the pixel level, due to diffraction.  But the 8.5 x 11 full page (or sometimes smaller) prints in the magazine, do not appear soft.  And in most cases, there was no focus stacking.

As photographers, it's our judgment call, based on our experience and our willingness to commit time...as to which technique we use.

Clearly the editor doesn't know what they are talking about, had the same problem when they all insisted we had to have 360dpi for magazines. F14 on what format size?

A 135 format f14 gives the same diffraction as f8.75 on an APS-C and f96 on an 8"x10".

389
Lenses / Re: Canon's f/1.2's: What is really going on?
« on: April 29, 2014, 08:53:54 PM »
I worry about you guys sometimes. I have lenses I must have changed thousands of times and there is no discernible wear.

+1

'Excessive wear on the mounts'??  Even the plastic bayonet mounts on (relatively) low cost lenses are pretty durable, although they'll wear eventually.  The metal bayonet mounts of bodies and most lenses will not wear appreciably even with many years of heavy use.

Oh really?  Ok, so lens mounts on Canon cameras and their lenses, are the only things in existence that do not wear when they come in contact with each other.  That's nice to know.  I'm glad people worry about me, I feel so loved.

Don't be so silly it has got nothing to do with loving, or not, you as a person, it is about erroneous information put out because of speculation, theory, irrationality, bad teaching etc.

 The lenses are designed to go on and off. Mechanical wear is brought on by friction and the heat that causes, there is no heat generated in a 60° rotation and the friction is supplied via a spring specifically put there to do that job. Of course there is a microscopic amount of wear, but it is so minimal the lenses I have mounted thousands, if not tens of thousands of times show none and that is an empirical observation.

I remember when Canon moved the FD mount to the FDn mount, everybody said twisting the lens was a terrible idea and we'd get wear in no time, turns out that wasn't true either, and I do have fd lenses I have mounted tens of thousands of times.

But you said you worried about me.  Sorry just taking you at your word, I'll try to remember to not do that in the future.

It's good to know you have observed no wear after changing lenses thousands of times on the same body.  I don't plan on doing that, myself, nor do I have the need to.  And it's good to know that I can't trust my lying eyes, after seeing the wear I saw on the 1D4 I mentioned, that I rented.  I feel more relaxed now, because I know that camera and lens mounts, are a good case where metal on metal contact, causes no wear.  If the automakers could only learn this, we could drive our cars with no oil in the engine.
"You can lead a horse to water......."
Whatever dude.

390
Lenses / Re: Canon's f/1.2's: What is really going on?
« on: April 29, 2014, 08:33:15 PM »
I worry about you guys sometimes. I have lenses I must have changed thousands of times and there is no discernible wear.

+1

'Excessive wear on the mounts'??  Even the plastic bayonet mounts on (relatively) low cost lenses are pretty durable, although they'll wear eventually.  The metal bayonet mounts of bodies and most lenses will not wear appreciably even with many years of heavy use.

Oh really?  Ok, so lens mounts on Canon cameras and their lenses, are the only things in existence that do not wear when they come in contact with each other.  That's nice to know.  I'm glad people worry about me, I feel so loved.

Don't be so silly it has got nothing to do with loving, or not, you as a person, it is about erroneous information put out because of speculation, theory, irrationality, bad teaching etc.

 The lenses are designed to go on and off. Mechanical wear is brought on by friction and the heat that causes, there is no heat generated in a 60° rotation and the friction is supplied via a spring specifically put there to do that job. Of course there is a microscopic amount of wear, but it is so minimal the lenses I have mounted thousands, if not tens of thousands of times show none and that is an empirical observation.

I remember when Canon moved the FD mount to the FDn mount, everybody said twisting the lens was a terrible idea and we'd get wear in no time, turns out that wasn't true either, and I do have fd lenses I have mounted tens of thousands of times.

Pages: 1 ... 24 25 [26] 27 28 ... 137