October 24, 2014, 04:40:50 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 ... 29 30 [31] 32 33 ... 172
451
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: DXO uh-oh?
« on: August 12, 2014, 11:50:06 AM »
One of the nicest FW upgrades Canon did to the 1Ds MkIII enabled the joystick to adjust AF point without pressing any other button first, I really like that feature.

452
Canon General / Re: Another Canon Medium Format Mention
« on: August 11, 2014, 11:19:35 PM »
Just out of interest, what flashes are you using at 1/1600 sync?

453
Business of Photography/Videography / Re: Who owns the photo?
« on: August 11, 2014, 04:52:46 PM »
My understanding is if the photographer instigated the scenario then he owns the copyright regardless who takes it.

As an assistant i have shot many frames that were used for commercial purposes.. and I was happy to. I was only getting paid assistant rates not getting any of the bigger creative usage fees. Sometimes it was as simple as pressing the shutter for a still life which the photographer had directed and I set up, this was fairly common practice in the 80s and 90s when using 5x4 & 10x8 cameras. The Assistant basically did everything while the photographer directed everything and talked to the art directors and sometimes models while I shot the frames.
On some occasions I have shot more 'freeform' using my framing / timing  and judgement when the photographer is busy consulting with AD's or feels its in his interests to be taking care of something else on the shoot wind machine etc.

Plus there are many photographers that often don't shoot the actual shot themselves - Many fashion photographers, car photographers are as I mentioned busy doing other tasks that bring the shoot together more than pressing the shutter.
Terry Richardson, often gets his assistants to shoot as he directs and engages with the models (this is a mild way of putting it if you know his work!!!!) Plus the models often have shot kinda selfies of themselves with Terry .

Thesedays on still life shoots I often get assistants to shoot for me while I move lights and reflectors around, as its quicker and better me doing this than taking time to describe to assistant exactly what to do.

Wedding photographers often employ assistants / interns and get them to run around shooting 2nd cam reportage work. This is normally all part of the industry and great experience and learning to the assistants.

Now .. did the monkey happily gain from this experience ? In some sense I would think it was at least stimulating to it - did he understand the situation that anything he shot would be used and creative credit taken by the photographer .. of course not!

But I firmly believe that the photographer had sufficient input and insight to let the monkey take the camera and see what happens which is a creative decision to me.

Many artists don't produce certain aspects of their work, many sculptors and fine artists employ arttist assistants and technicians to actually craft certain or all parts of their artworks.
Do architects build the building.. ?
Many more examples

Your understanding is wrong. Every one of your scenarios, where you are a second shooter, where your assistants shoot for you, artists assistants etc all sign away any rights they might be granted under the law when they work under contract to the employer.

So take these scenarios, your camera is stolen but it is found a month later, some funny guy took it on holiday with him and took photos of a garden ornament all over the world, do you own the copyright? Of course not.

You leave your camera as a remote camera in the woods with a trigger, somebody moves it and takes a different shot to the one you had set up, do you own the copyright? No, you do not.

You leave your camera in the woods by accident, a branch falls on it and just presses the shutter button, do you own the copyright? No, you do not.

You leave your camera in the woods with the intention of wireless remote shooting, a child comes along and moves your camera and in the process pushes the shutter button, do you own the copyright? No you do not.

Take the last scenario and exchange a child for a monkey, you still don't own the copyright, you did not frame or take the photo.

Somebody does not have to own the copyright, an image can be copyright free, that is what Wikipedia are asserting, the image does not have copyright on it so they are free to reproduce it without restrictions.

454
Business of Photography/Videography / Re: Who owns the photo?
« on: August 11, 2014, 03:27:42 PM »
Hi, in Germany the situation would be quite clear. When a human take a picture, he/she owns the copyright. A copyright cannot be sold or resigned. Only user rights can be sold. But a monkey is no human and according to German law an animal is just a thing. So this monkey or his owner do not have the copyright because a thing cannot have a copyright.

Robert, you are missing Wikipedia's point. They are not saying the monkey owns the copyright, and they never have, they are also not claiming the "owner" of the monkey owns the copyright. What they are asserting is that the owner of the camera did not take the photo so he does not own copyright.

Or to put it more clearly in your terms, a human did not take the photo, so how can a human claim copyright? It is a bit more nuanced than that, but that is the core of the assertion.

455
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Sony A77II
« on: August 11, 2014, 10:52:05 AM »

So, I'm sorry, but the reviewer in this video is full of crap when he says this kind of AF system has never been done before. MASSIVE LOAD OF BULL SH*T!!

The reviewer! It is Mr Gary, I'll say anything to sell my $60 $2 piece of plastic that can be done just as well with a milk carton (Google it), Fong.

Clearly he needs a reality check, so much of what he says is factually wrong it is painful.

Or to put it like jrista, WHAT A LOAD OF BULL SH*T!!

456
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Sony A77II
« on: August 11, 2014, 10:32:15 AM »
For those interested in how innovative the "new" Sony AF system is, here is a copy of my Canon 1V manual, it is a film camera that came out in 2000, 14 years ago.

I have been taking auto changing AF tracking points for granted since I got my 1V's in 2003.

457
I have used another guys Spider holster set a couple of times. Highly recommend it. The main drawback is you lose the ability to use your custom AS plates, but in standard wedding shooting I don't find that too much of a loss. You can get the holster casting that just goes on your own belt too.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=&sku=808803&gclid=CNHRkfmpisACFUVo7AodylkAAQ&Q=&is=REG&A=details

458
Reviews / Re: DxO reviews Sony A7s: king of low light photography?
« on: August 09, 2014, 11:55:44 AM »
Well I don't find dealing with clouds or waves onerous, I shoot a lot of blowing foliage too, I click the "Remove Ghosts" option and pick a key frame, and done.

Good for you. "Remove Ghosts" has never particularly worked well for me.

Quote
You need to get out and shoot (and post process) more.

And you need lessons in manners.

Well you need to learn more post processing skills, what else can I say?

As for manners, maybe I do, but not as far as my comments to you so far. Telling somebody they need to learn something when they clearly don't know it is not, by any definition of the word, an insult. But like most Exmor evangelists, you don't actually want to address your or your equipments shortcomings, just rage against the Canon sensors and anybody who raises other relevant criteria.

Like I said, you contrive situations to make Canon sensors look bad, there is no need to, Canon sensors do have limitations that others don't, but I listed several 100% legitimate reasons why however good a sensor Sony produce SoNikon will never be a suitable replacement (unless they address their system limitations), my needs for other system wide features far outstrip the limitations in DR.

But that is just me, I 100% accept that for other users the balance of features is very different.

And you need lessons in manners.
[/quote]

459
Reviews / Re: DxO reviews Sony A7s: king of low light photography?
« on: August 09, 2014, 11:45:58 AM »
...
If you look at any studio shots you will notice that there are dark sections as well as bright sections. In those darker areas it is desirable for them to both be dark and have detail. Sony's sensor makes it easier to work with detail in those darker areas as well as in the highlights.

Er, you can do that effortlessly with a Canon by ETTR and dropping the shadows in post, Sporgon is right, studio shooters have 100% control of DR and have no excuses for needing to lift anything.

Ah, so what you're saying is that if I'm in a studio using Canon and light a scene such that it is in the top 8 stops then I can shift it back down in post to get shadow detail? Whereas with Exmor based sensors, I don't need to do that ETTR to get shadow detail plus I'm not limited to 8 stops, I've got 14.

No, what I am saying is if you are a studio shooter and very subtle dark tones are your look, you can achieve equally good results from either Canon or Nikon if you know what you are doing. Just like I said, take a look at Joel Grimes' work, virtually all the subject images are shot with a 5D MkIII and he has masses of dark detail.

You contrive artificial situations to "prove" Nikon is vastly superior, Exmor sensors have more dynamic range than Canon sensors, on that we all agree, but that doesn't stop countless pros shooting every day with Canon cameras, why?

460
Reviews / Re: DxO reviews Sony A7s: king of low light photography?
« on: August 09, 2014, 09:27:29 AM »
...
So, the thing you might be missing...is that HDR isn't difficult these days. If you need more DR, take an extra frame or two (or 14). That works in every camera, regardless of it's sensor capabilities.
...

HDR is only useful where you can use a shutter speed of > 1 second because otherwise the inter-frame changes make it look crap. Think wind blowing in trees, moving water, etc.

That assumes landscapes. There are plenty of still-life use cases...such as PBD's interior design scene, or my description of the WWII plane interior. You could expose for as long as you wanted with such a scene, as there are no trees, or flowing water, etc. Most of the 15-frame HDR images I've seen were still scenes, usually interiors of something or some kind.

Talking of landscape, I find it really really strange that the antagonist in this thread is clearly a studio photographer where you have full control over DR, in fact for a studio photographer DR is the last of your worries, assuming that is, that you are competent in studio set up. So I just don't see why this guy was banging on and on about DR.

If you look at any studio shots you will notice that there are dark sections as well as bright sections. In those darker areas it is desirable for them to both be dark and have detail. Sony's sensor makes it easier to work with detail in those darker areas as well as in the highlights.

Er, you can do that effortlessly with a Canon by ETTR and dropping the shadows in post, Sporgon is right, studio shooters have 100% control of DR and have no excuses for needing to lift anything.

P.S. Go look at Joel Grimes work, very gritty, lots of deep dark shadows and he is a stickler for sharpness and detail, and he uses a 5D MkIII. He shoots for very high profile companies and campaigns too.

461
Reviews / Re: DxO reviews Sony A7s: king of low light photography?
« on: August 09, 2014, 08:54:22 AM »
...
So, the thing you might be missing...is that HDR isn't difficult these days. If you need more DR, take an extra frame or two (or 14). That works in every camera, regardless of it's sensor capabilities.
...

HDR is only useful where you can use a shutter speed of > 1 second because otherwise the inter-frame changes make it look crap. Think wind blowing in trees, moving water, etc.

That assumes landscapes. There are plenty of still-life use cases...such as PBD's interior design scene, or my description of the WWII plane interior. You could expose for as long as you wanted with such a scene, as there are no trees, or flowing water, etc. Most of the 15-frame HDR images I've seen were still scenes, usually interiors of something or some kind.

This statement "HDR is only useful where you can use a shutter speed of > 1 second" does not assume landscape. It applies universally - even in the case of your plane interior because you mention:

...
They don't really look like HDR...but they have fine nuances of excellent, crisp detail in areas that you simply can't get with 14 stops, or even 16 stops (like the interior of an old WWII plane full of ultra deep shadows, and a bright sunlit sky with puffy clouds outside.)
...

wind moves puffy clouds. If it is windy then you'll have motion to deal with in the windows when HDR'ing.

All that I can say is for you to write such comments then you're looking at what's shown on the web and not doing it yourself (or in challenging conditions.)

HDR is not a universal solution for the problem of lack of wide DR from a sensor. It works in a select few situations but in many others it does not. Dealing with HDR is not the same as your astrophotography. HDR is a last resort mechanism not a primary tool. You can't use HDR to shoot kids running around inside.

Well I don't find dealing with clouds or waves onerous, I shoot a lot of blowing foliage too, I click the "Remove Ghosts" option and pick a key frame, and done. You need to get out and shoot (and post process) more.

P.S. You might notice the wispy clouds in the second image I posted, that is a seven image HDR and they are sharp.

462
Reviews / Re: DxO reviews Sony A7s: king of low light photography?
« on: August 09, 2014, 01:03:36 AM »

I like the second photo. (I just wish it wasn't a microscopic little thumbnail...so sad, that...)

Just click on it and it goes to the 750px version, you can do it to them all at the same time too.

As for the disappearing Dean, I suspect either his mum came home and sent him to bed, or he was so shocked that somebody would dare to show him ten images (that is all one post allows) that were taken with a Canon that could not be taken with the same IQ with a Nikon his tears killed his computer (or he threw it at the wall).

They aren't even particularly good examples, just ones I had on my laptop. The fourth image is one i like a lot from a technical standpoint, it is a single exposure but the shadow detail to the right of the door is very good, it printed big extremely well.

I refer you to the fact that my account was deleted by the admin.

It's a shame you felt the need to go to a place where you say my mum came home and sent me to bed  ;D

I was hoping to learn about your 17 mm tilt shift actually, I've never used one.

But as you seem to be a sarcastic p**** like Neuro, maybe it's for the best.

Where the f*** are good manners round here?

So your mum did come home and send you to bed, you are now on your tablet under the sheets with a flashlight :-)

It was a joke, a lighthearted one from one Brit to another, don't walk around with such a chip on your shoulder, you are the one that came out fighting, twice, I wasn't shooting I was just playing, can't you tell the difference anymore?

There are many threads here on CR about tilt shift lenses, as well as thousands out there on Luminous Landscapes, Northlight Images, Cambridge In Color, You Tube etc etc.

But the Canon 17TS-E is unique in the images it can make, maybe not very visible on in thread images, but if you look at the LL article I linked to you will see the dramatic difference on closer inspection or big prints. Canon do make other unmatched lenses (like the 65MP-E) and whilst these may only appeal or be relevant to small niche groups, don't think for one second a D810 can do anything a 5D MkIII can (actually I am still on 1Ds MkIII's), it can't. I have very specific reasons to accept the lesser DR capabilities of my camera for several other system wide advantages, for instance have you used the RT flash system in earnest? It truthfully does make the CLS system look like the prehistoric joke optical triggering is.

Now don't let your mum catch you or she will take the tablet and ground you  ;D

P.S. The mod probably killed you for doing things like calling people a sarcastic prick, just a thought.

463
Reviews / Re: DxO reviews Sony A7s: king of low light photography?
« on: August 09, 2014, 12:39:43 AM »

I like the second photo. (I just wish it wasn't a microscopic little thumbnail...so sad, that...)

Just click on it and it goes to the 750px version, you can do it to them all at the same time too.

As for the disappearing Dean, I suspect either his mum came home and sent him to bed, or he was so shocked that somebody would dare to show him ten images (that is all one post allows) that were taken with a Canon that could not be taken with the same IQ with a Nikon his tears killed his computer (or he threw it at the wall).

They aren't even particularly good examples, just ones I had on my laptop. The fourth image is one i like a lot from a technical standpoint, it is a single exposure but the shadow detail to the right of the door is very good, it printed big extremely well.

464
Reviews / Re: DxO reviews Sony A7s: king of low light photography?
« on: August 09, 2014, 12:27:00 AM »


Why can't you have Nikon prints stand up to close scrutiny? What are you basing that on?

What is the 5D Mk3doing here that a Nikon can't do exactly?

I'm happy to be told what I'm missing here.

The 17TS-E is a tilt and shift lens, it is unequaled by any other lens for the 135 and smaller formats, there are one or two very expensive options in bigger formats. Nobody but Canon makes a lens that can do what I did in those images in 135, nobody. It is all about the fov and the control of the plane of dof, Nikon do not make a lens that comes close to the Canon 17TS-E in IQ or focal length, in fact all the Nikon PC-E's are pretty much so outclassed by the Canon versions as to negate pretty much any sensor advantage in this specific application.

You could emulate some of the shots that I only used shift on with the Nikon 14 or 14-24, but you would have to do severe cropping to end up with the same framing, thus negating your pixel numbers. DR is an easy workaround when I am limited, and that is not often, and blending is automatic so blending two, as opposed to three shots  (or five instead of seven) makes no difference. You cannot emulate tilt, in close scrutiny or big prints the Nikon would lose focus and detail, the Canon gives me complete control over where and what is critically sharp. Look at the section "Another Example" here http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/nikon_24_pc.shtml

That is what you are missing here.

465
Reviews / Re: DxO reviews Sony A7s: king of low light photography?
« on: August 08, 2014, 11:56:03 PM »
What can a 5D Mk3 do that a D800/810 can’t do better?

For me, personally, this.

All taken with a 17 TS-E, a lens I use very heavily, and all with some degree of tilt and or shift applied. Oh and many of my images contain vastly more DR than any current sensor, even the mighty Exmor, can record in a single shot. For much of my paid work another 2-3 stops of DR would make not one iota of difference, I'd still have to bracket the heck out of the scene.

You cannot take any of these images, and have them stand up to as close scrutiny or large prints with a Nikon.

Pages: 1 ... 29 30 [31] 32 33 ... 172