November 23, 2014, 01:07:57 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 ... 29 30 [31] 32 33 ... 184
451
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II Specifications Confirmed
« on: September 12, 2014, 11:33:36 PM »
jrista,

You might be able to type 100wpm, but I wish you would learn the difference between you're and your, you're always typing your when you mean you're.

LOL + 100000000

That also goes for everyone who does the same.

Yeah, I know I have that problem. Bad habit I formed nearly two decades ago. Try breaking a habit that old, especially when you type like the wind. You don't actually think about the words your typing...the majority of them are automatically placed onto the screen by your hands through procedural memory. :P

Hmm... Explains a lot.   ;D

Has the thread officially degraded in to a grammar thread. If so I need to start running my posts through spell and grammar check in word.  ::)

Not really, but when miscommunication, misunderstandings, and hyper over analysis is all mixed in with the emotions people show here it helps if those that do actually have English as a first language and wish to be understood were a bit better at basic communication. I have my faults too, as well as many spelling and punctuation errors, and I am often misunderstood because of it. If we all try a little harder to write what we actually mean in a way that is grammatically correct and less prone to misinterpretation the temperature might lower somewhat, which I think would be a good thing.

I agree. Honestly, when I'm not whipping out 5000 words per post, I do try to pay attention to my old bad habits. It's not like I'm intentionally trying to be confusing.

Yes, in this day and age there is still a reasonable correlation between quantity and quality, but emotions and enthusiasm tend to run away with us, they inflate the quantity thus lowering the quality.

The funny thing is so much of this repeated antagonism could be so easily "proven" one way or another. I am a results guy, I am not overly interested in the tech of the gear though it can be interesting as a diversion, I am interested in the physics of photography, perspective and how that interacts with focal length and format size, I am also interested in system capabilities, like the RT flash system and what it can do with what camera etc as well as AF customization, for instance, but most importantly I want images, I am a sight driven animal and most photographers are.

Were I a mod I'd lay down the law, I'd ban (as an example) "DR" posts from Jrista and Dave Taylor until they posted their own comparison RAW files for everybody to see. If Dave wants us to believe there is little difference via his step wedge then post them, if Jon thinks there is >2 stops of DR then post the RAW files and prove it. If Dave wants to point out that is not "DR" but "editing latitude" then let him post the post processing steps he took to those linked RAW files, easy!

I have posted hundreds of images and several videos here, almost all of them have been illustrative images that reinforce my point. We can, and will, argue forever but it will never illustrate our belief like a couple of RAW files will.

In brief, we could cut through 95% of the bullsh!t here if we had a three post and prove it moratorium, you can say what you like for three posts, after that prove it with RAW images illustrative images and any post steps.


452
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II Specifications Confirmed
« on: September 12, 2014, 11:04:59 PM »
jrista,

You might be able to type 100wpm, but I wish you would learn the difference between you're and your, you're always typing your when you mean you're.

LOL + 100000000

That also goes for everyone who does the same.

Yeah, I know I have that problem. Bad habit I formed nearly two decades ago. Try breaking a habit that old, especially when you type like the wind. You don't actually think about the words your typing...the majority of them are automatically placed onto the screen by your hands through procedural memory. :P

Hmm... Explains a lot.   ;D

Has the thread officially degraded in to a grammar thread. If so I need to start running my posts through spell and grammar check in word.  ::)

Not really, but when miscommunication, misunderstandings, and hyper over analysis is all mixed in with the emotions people show here it helps if those that do actually have English as a first language and wish to be understood were a bit better at basic communication. I have my faults too, as well as many spelling and punctuation errors, and I am often misunderstood because of it. If we all try a little harder to write what we actually mean in a way that is grammatically correct and less prone to misinterpretation the temperature might lower somewhat, which I think would be a good thing.

P.S. I think that should be "into"!

453
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II Specifications Confirmed
« on: September 12, 2014, 10:49:24 PM »
jrista,

You might be able to type 100wpm, but I wish you would learn the difference between you're and your, you're always typing your when you mean you're.

LOL + 100000000

That also goes for everyone who does the same.

Yeah, I know I have that problem. Bad habit I formed nearly two decades ago. Try breaking a habit that old, especially when you type like the wind. You don't actually think about the words your typing...the majority of them are automatically placed onto the screen by your hands through procedural memory. :P

Hmm... Explains a lot.   ;D

454
Lenses / Re: What New Lens are You Most Excited About?
« on: September 12, 2014, 10:45:06 PM »
The Otus 85 to go with my other Zeiss Lenses, then hopefully an Otus 35f/1.4.

Just don't see Canon anytime soon developing lenses that stand next to the Zeiss Lenses (15/21/55/135 & soon 85), would love Canon to develop a 14-24f/2.8 as good as the Nikon, but that also seems Pie in the Sky.

My wait for a +/- 40MP Body from Canon also seems to be part of the Pie mentioned above, love my 1 Dx, the 5DMK III is Ok, but a 36 to 45 MP Sensor that works as well as the Sony 50MP in the Pentax 645z, that's a worthwhile wait, starting to look like that old movie, "A Bridge to Far".

Yeah, from the images I've seen, the Otus lenses are amazing. I'm not sure the non-Otus lenses are that far above Canon's, but the Otus definitely seem to be.

Regarding the higher MP body...have you considered the A7r with EF adapter? Since the Zeiss lenses are all manual, it's not like AF is going to be an issue. You would get that nice high resolution, high DR, which would go GREAT with the Otus lenses.

Tiniest point, and I hope I am not labeled a pedant, but that should be "A Bridge Too Far", it is an amazing film of an even more amazing Operation, back in my youth I made a "pilgrimage" drive along XXX Corps route through Nijmegen, Eindhoven and on to Arnhem.

Highly recommend the film to anybody with the slightest interest in pretty much anything but romance, there are so many microcosms in it it is impossible to list, the cast is one of the greatest ensemble casts ever and many of the most unbelievable scenes are from the mouths of the films advisers, who were on set, and were the actual people being portrayed.

In our darkest moments the bravest light the way.

455
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II Specifications Confirmed
« on: September 12, 2014, 06:35:45 PM »
jrista,

You might be able to type 100wpm, but I wish you would learn the difference between you're and your, you're always typing your when you mean you're.

456
Lenses / Re: DXOMark Reviews Zeiss Otus 85mm f/1.4
« on: September 12, 2014, 11:19:32 AM »
DXO can score this however they want, but when they say things like this: "The new Otus 85mm is without question the most desirable and best performing 85mm portrait lens available" I have no desire to continue reading what they are selling.

What are they smoking?  I still haven't figured out what use case there is for this lens.  You can't hand hold this lens for closer portraits wide open.  You can't.  Not while focusing manually. 

I will guarantee that I could take sharper photos with my Canon 85mm 1.8 when doing portraits within 10 ft of the subject.  I have a pretty steady  hand, but there is always enough movement with a standing subject to sway forward and back a few inches.  With the Otus, you would have some very sharp ears and the tip of people's noses.  That isn't really what I am interested in. 

maybe some still life shots would work well on a tripod?

What am I missing?  Why is this the Most Desirable and Best performing 85mm?

You are missing the fact that a long throw manual focus lens is specifically designed to manual focus, it is a quantum leap from trying to manual focus any AF lens, they are built completely differently.

Ask anybody that has used the Canon FD 85 f1.2 and then tried to MF an EF 85 f1.2. With a good focusing screen and a lens designed to MF it isn't as hard as you think, do it day after day and it becomes second nature.

457
Lenses / Re: The New Canon EF 400mm f/4 DO IS II
« on: September 12, 2014, 06:42:12 AM »
That depends on your definitions of "problem" and "bokeh".

I think the 400 MkI does have bokeh problems, I used one for a day and got it to do stuff like this, I am sorry but for >$6,000 I want much better than that. Now I will admit that I personally shot over water like this regularly, so for me it was an unsurmountable issue, and I can well understand others happy and extensive use that never induces such low quality, but for me the 300 f2.8 IS MkI and 1.4TC was a much better, and cheaper, buy and in my opinion DO sucks, yes the 400 DO sucks less than the 70-300 DO (which really sucks) but they both suck.

Hmm, are you sure that's the lens? With the 600/4 II, a stellar lens that is capable of producing phenomenal boke, I have seen much the same effect as that. I was worried when I first saw it...then I started noticing that on the days my images had that kind of boke, there was a lot of evaporating water in the air. I tend to get low for my bird shots whenever I can. During the early part of last summer, when we had a few REALLY hot days here in Colorado, I noticed that my boke was really crappy like that...and that you could clearly see the water vapor evaporating off the mud flats between me, my subject, and my subject and the background. Here is an example of crappy water-vapor warped boke with my 600/4 II:



And here is an example of better boke:



This second image is still shot over water (I don't usually keep photos with OOF boke blur circles in the background, so I don't have many examples), so it still isn't perfect. But it's a lot better, as this was taken on a much cooler day, and there wasn't any visible mirage-type warping of the air due to an overload of evaporating water.

It looks like the photo you shared is shot over some kind of body of water. I'd suspect there is a lot of water vapor in the air, which is probably totally warping the boke blur circles.

Well I have thousands of shots from the 300 f2.8 IS MkI and it is never as bad as the image I posted, not just for the harshness but for the magenta, so I believe the 400 DO MkI does have a propensity for badness in those circumstances. Now as I said many may never shoot in those situations, but I did very regularly, three to four times per week, so for me it was a complete nonstarter.

458
Lenses / Re: The New Canon EF 400mm f/4 DO IS II
« on: September 11, 2014, 11:02:21 PM »
If they solved their bokeh problems, perhaps the lens would have more appeal, but I think that bokeh is a problem inherent in the DO design?

The 400 didn't have a bokeh problem.  The 70-300 DO was the lens with the sometimes weird bokeh. The internet seems to have lumped both lenses together as if they were one and the same.  Spec highlights on the 400 could have a bit of a bullseye effect but that was about it. The OOF areas aren't as nice as the 300 2.8 or 400 2.8  in my opinion, but they aren't really problematic either.

I think the 400 f4 DO II would be pretty amazing if it were about 2/3rd or 1/2 the cost of a 300 2.8 IS II but that's really unlikely.


That depends on your definitions of "problem" and "bokeh".

I think the 400 MkI does have bokeh problems, I used one for a day and got it to do stuff like this, I am sorry but for >$6,000 I want much better than that. Now I will admit that I personally shot over water like this regularly, so for me it was an unsurmountable issue, and I can well understand others happy and extensive use that never induces such low quality, but for me the 300 f2.8 IS MkI and 1.4TC was a much better, and cheaper, buy and in my opinion DO sucks, yes the 400 DO sucks less than the 70-300 DO (which really sucks) but they both suck.

459
Photography Technique / Re: Cropping
« on: September 10, 2014, 08:46:07 PM »
So here is a problem. Attached is a image I took. Now I want to print in a 8 by 10. When I use that aspect ratio I can't get the image I want. I want the water below the tower and some sky above. Unless I keep the aspect ratio of the original I just can't get the composition I desire. :o

I'll write a detailed method later, but I am between airports at the moment. here is your image to 8x10 as a teaser.

460
Photography Technique / Re: Is RAW worth it?
« on: September 10, 2014, 04:31:30 PM »
There are very good reasons to shoot jpeg, but pretentious "perfect exposure" nonsense isn't one of them.
Well said and I get tired of hearing this one and the correlating one of "I don't need to 'fix' my photos in Photoshop."

It is a true that if you have a properly exposed picture you will not have to drag the exposure bar left or right in LR. That is the main reason I shoot JPEG and am better than everyone else, I don't drag the exposure bar back and forth. If I get it right in the camera I never have to fix it.

It is true that I can underexpose by a stop, over expose, take pictures at night that have massive amounts of noise. This is why I shoot RAW, I can have screwed up pic's and fix them as RAW files and at some point in the future when I have the actual skills I need I can improve on the RAW files I have saved on my three 3tb hard drives I use for storage. These are the reasons I shoot RAW, and that is why I am better than everyone else.

I am very sure my way is the right way and someday I will figure out what that is.

The only scenes you can possibly "properly expose" in a jpeg are scenes that contain less than 8 stops of DR, if you are shooting anything with a greater range than that, and very often with less range than that, it is impossible to fine tune a jpeg to your interpretation of the scene. This might, or might not, be important to you.

I printed an image for a photographer last week for an exhibition, it was a rusty old truck with a heavy post processing vibe to it, on a normal overly bright screen it had a lot of shadow detail below the front bumper that would have been Zones I and II, had I printed it like that the entire lower quarter of the print would have been black, but I lifted those and only those Zones to give me deep shadow detail in the print, sure I compressed other Zones but that didn't matter, I had the ability to move individual Zones to where I needed them to be to get a print that matched the screen image.

It isn't about right or wrong, it is about understanding the inherent positives and negatives of your chosen route. I had a lady ask me the other day if she should shoot RAW, she is a keen home printer and everybody was telling her she had to shoot RAW, when I asked her what she did in post processing to her current jpeg files she said she did nothing she just prints them, I told her to stick with jpeg, she is happy, she gets prints she loves and doesn't get involved with processing she isn't interested in.

Again, no right or wrong, just do what you do for informed reasons...........

461
Lenses / Re: DXOMark Reviews Zeiss Otus 85mm f/1.4
« on: September 10, 2014, 01:09:43 PM »
Has anyone noticed that the 'true' max apertures as indicate by the Tstop is nowhere near the manufacturers claim? The Zeis is closer to a f1.8 lens than f1.4 and the rest fare no better....

T value is not aperture value, an f1.4 lens is a "true" f1.4 if the apparent aperture diameter is focal length divided by 1.4. The T value relates to actual light transmission and is pretty much irrelevant with TTL metering stills cameras.

Aperture value is always lower than T (transmission) value because however good the glass is you always lose some.

462
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Nikon D750 to be Canon 5D3 competitor?
« on: September 09, 2014, 06:24:59 PM »
Why are we getting sidetracked by a dodgy analogy?

Because someone keeps trying to say that Canon is better because they sell more.

Would you prefer a car analogy? :D

Actually nobody has said that, as you well know, qv:

While you may be correctly parroting the way others misinterpret my argument, to be perfectly clear, I am not saying that selling the most dSLRs means Canon is 'the best' camera company, nor am I saying that selling the most dSLRs means Canon makes 'the best' dSLRs.

It hasn't been said explicitly but the "Canon sells more" response has been delivered multiple times when the topic of who's cameras are better, thereby suggesting that someone is attempting to imply (be it directly or indirectly) that Canon's cameras are better because more are sold (or that they're more profitable.)

That isn't the implication I have drawn from those comments, the implication I always hear is "SoNikon are one-two-three generations/stops of DR ahead of Canon who make crap cameras and sensors that I can't understand how anybody could or would want to use" to which the reply is, "but they keep selling, so maybe the metric by which you measure a cameras functionality isn't how the majority of purchasers measure a cameras functionality".

463
Photography Technique / Re: Cropping
« on: September 09, 2014, 03:47:03 PM »
Since I am learning Photoshop I want to keep it simple if possible.

"Photoshop" implicitly contradicts "simple". If you are ok with the tool ACR provides, you could probably have a look at Lightroom - it's much more streamlined for a digitial photography workflow and the answer to question such as yours might be more obvious.

How do I make my cropping non destructive?

Could you elaborate what "non destructive" means here? Until pdb wrote the opposite I though if you crop traditional pixel image and then save, the cropped area is gone, but I'm not familiar with the newest PS versions. In any case that's again where Lightroom and the ACR tools in Photoshop excel - they're always non-destructive and you can quickly make several virtual copies with different settings and croppings.

 :D
I agree that PS and simplicity do not go together.
What I have done a bit is play with the sliders in ACR and then ported the image to PS. I like the global sliders in ACR. I also saw some videos which made an average image into an awesome one using PS. I am not sure I want to do that but that is a separate discussion.   It does amaze me how capable PS is.
Before I jump for another software which is million miles ahead of my capability what does Lightroom offer that PS does not? Or is it just easier for a novice like me to use?
Your next question has been answered by PVD.
Thanks,
Ray

Cropping in ACR is totally non destructive.

Lightroom is a better buy for most photographers than PS. LR is an asset management program that has the complete ACR module under the Develop tab, everything you can do in ACR you can do in LR, and a lot more besides. LR is more like an integrated version of Bridge, ACR and PS, though it can't handle all the file types Bridge can and it can't do many of the complicated stuff PS can. It is a very good program and I recommend it as the best $125 a keen photographer can spend, just being able to manage all your files is worth the money but it does so much more too.

Everything you do in Lightroom is non destructive, you have to try really hard for it to actually ever touch your original image file.

464
Photography Technique / Re: Cropping
« on: September 09, 2014, 12:57:22 PM »

How do I make my cropping non destructive?

Could you elaborate what "non destructive" means here? Until pdb wrote the opposite I though if you crop traditional pixel image and then save, the cropped area is gone, but I'm not familiar with the newest PS versions. In any case that's again where Lightroom and the ACR tools in Photoshop excel - they're always non-destructive and you can quickly make several virtual copies with different settings and croppings.

I forget if it came in CS5 or CS6, but in the crop tool you get this box to check, or not. If you leave it unchecked you can always recrop, uncrop, return to the original, even if you save and close.

465
Photography Technique / Re: Cropping
« on: September 09, 2014, 10:15:19 AM »
So lets say you don't have a final size in mind for a print(or have no plans for a print) and are just editing the image. Do you crop to a specific aspect ratio? Or do you edit but not crop? Thanks

Personally I do all the edit, and any minor crop to straighten horizon or building edges etc and then leave it. If I have to crop later for layout considerations I will do it non destructively on a per output basis.

One of the coolest things about more recent PS versions, at least CS6 and on but maybe CS5 as well, is the  option to not delete cropped pixels.

Pages: 1 ... 29 30 [31] 32 33 ... 184