February 28, 2015, 11:58:45 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 ... 223
451
Technical Support / Re: Lighting & Flash tutorials
« on: January 06, 2015, 11:18:49 AM »
If you are a video person then there is so much great information out there that nothing is worth your money!

I really like Mark Wallace, who has done many free videos, all on YouTube, for himself, his old studio Snap Factory, Adorama, and Creative Live.

Indeed if you insisted on paying for anything then his course on Creative Live has to be the one, here is a taster of the three days. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eoi5uxZq7z8

Books, well as you are a Canon shooter the book is here http://www.amazon.com/Speedliters-Handbook-Learning-Craft-Speedlites/dp/0134007913/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1420561013&sr=8-2&keywords=speedliter%27s+handbook The first edition was great, the second edition is even more relevant as it includes the RT series flashes, which you might well not buy but the Yongnuo clones are very good value for money.

452
EOS Bodies / Re: Expect Higher End Products at CP+ in February
« on: January 06, 2015, 09:39:18 AM »
The 11-24 f4 doesn't make much sense to me bearing in mind the 16-35 f4 L IS, sure there is a big difference between 11 and 16, but it gets ever more difficult to use effectively. If it does get announced the 11-24 is still only f4, it doesn't have IS, it won't take filters easily and any filter solution will be expensive, and the lens will cost considerably more than the very well rated 16-35 f4.

I predict, if it does get released, it will be bought by a very few who will initially marvel at the fov, it will get glowing reviews too, but it will not get the overall sales numbers because the advantages don't overcome the disadvantages for the vast majority of ultra wide shooters, and those that do own it will not use it regulraly. However a 12/14-24/30 f2.8 would have been a killer lens, give it IS and it would have had the potential to be a system enhancer that genuinely could have won new purchasers to the Canon family.

Oh Canon! Another missed opportunity.

453
but I retain copyright of the image and can use them for myself, I wouldn't hawk them to image libraries or anything though as I don't get releases, the company takes all responsibility for their employee usage in the contract.

So you've got a general contract with the company stating you can use the shots of their employees for "yourself" - like for promotional shots on your website, or what's that exactly?

I'm asking because I recently asked about this, and at least over here (Germany) you have to have a written release and a copy of the passport/id alongside it to prove the actual person was signing it. Btw under agers (like 17y and 364 days) are a complete no-go unless you're asking for trouble. For adults, another written form like an email might or might suffice, but you definitely have to specify exactly what the intended use is - a general "use for myself" clause is nullified instantly.

Interesting to hear about  the privacy laws from Germany or Europe in regards to this situ.

This would never fly here in California... especially with the bigger companies, it has a very amateur feel. If they pay they get the rights by contract, I get the credit. I actually have adopted this for most of my clients too (family and weddings). I have never felt good about using photos from a shoot for self promotion, unless it is completely agreed upon. That is a very rare circumstance and I usually cut a substantial deal with the client if we go that route.

In the beginning it was difficult to build a good portfolio but with clients asking for family photos or child portraits it turned into an advantage. By word of mouth my list built on a reputation of keeping client privacy.

They get usage rights by contract, they do not get copyright. I work for some pretty high profile companies and I have no contractual issues.

454
but I retain copyright of the image and can use them for myself, I wouldn't hawk them to image libraries or anything though as I don't get releases, the company takes all responsibility for their employee usage in the contract.

So you've got a general contract with the company stating you can use the shots of their employees for "yourself" - like for promotional shots on your website, or what's that exactly?

I'm asking because I recently asked about this, and at least over here (Germany) you have to have a written release and a copy of the passport/id alongside it to prove the actual person was signing it. Btw under agers (like 17y and 364 days) are a complete no-go unless you're asking for trouble. For adults, another written form like an email might or might suffice, but you definitely have to specify exactly what the intended use is - a general "use for myself" clause is nullified instantly.

Basically, yes. I sell usage rights so copyright is never in question, it is mine. It is my photo and I can do what I want with it, but like I say there is no real commercial value to the images past the original commission. If I did a headshot gallery on my site then I could post them there and I can use them to illustrate my services, the contract lays out their usage rights, it doesn't limit mine.

I don't know the extent of the employees contracts with my clients, but I have never had an issue and certainly nobody has ever asked what I might do with the images, indeed have business cards on hand because it is a great source of addition contacts and work. I have never dealt with head shot setups for under 17 yo's.

455
I do them for sales teams.

1/ I charge a 'setup fee' as often everybody can't be there the same day, plus a per shot charge. I upload a rough edit gallery (colour and crop) and each person chooses the image they want fully edited. My basic charge is $100 plus $70 per picture.

2/ I do include retouching, but with reasonable lighting you shouldn't have to fight it in post, many images, especially the guys, take virtually no post processing. I do it all myself, if you want to PM me I'll show you the kind of thing I do.

3/ My package includes web sized files and a full sized jpeg, they can do what they want with them, mine have been used at everything from tiny thumbnails on business cards to promotional posters, but I retain copyright of the image and can use them for myself, I wouldn't hawk them to image libraries or anything though as I don't get releases, the company takes all responsibility for their employee usage in the contract.


Hope this helps.

456
I had a very similar thing happen to me, but I didn't provoke it. I was walking through the jungle in Laos and I surprised this elephant, she was startled and charged me but I stood my ground and she calmed down.

Here is the resulting photo, not a classic by any means but as has been said, the story and experience adds far more to it for me personally.

P.S. It is with a 16-35 on a 1D.

457
Lenses / Re: Canon 35mm F2 IS image quality
« on: January 05, 2015, 12:37:06 PM »
Technically, it's this change in distance that changes the perspective.  But, it's the change in focal length that necessitates the change in distance to capture two images of the same subject that fills the frame.  Because filling the frame with your subject is typically understood as a given for such a comparison, then focal length does affect perspective.

Perspective depends on subject distance alone, technically and practically.
One might have numerous reasons for wanting to change the subject distance- in your example you are trying to frame the subject similarly with a lens of a different focal length. In another example, I might want to have the same amount of DoF with a different aperture (let’s say you want to take a photo with a 85mm lens and due to the low lighting conditions you need to use f/1.2. Instead of shooting from where you’re at, you step a few feet back to ensure that everything will be in focus. Would you say that the aperture changed the perspective in this case? You might say that in my example the framing is changed while in your case it stayed the same. The misconception about focal length affecting perspective might arise from the fact that one equates perspective with framing. While the focal length dictates framing (as it directly controls the angle of view and therefore controls the field of view at a given distance), focal length doesn’t affect perspective. It is merely one of the reasons that cause us to alter the subject distance.

OK, technically FL doesn't affect perspective directly (just like sensor size doesn't affect DoF), but FL dictates framing and distance, so the perspective will change anyway. What if the background is far away or even close to infinity (like moon)? Running around won't really change the perspective, but the FL will affect it.

How does changing focal length change the perspective of the moon? It doesn't! It affects your reproduction magnification, but that is not related to perspective.

Please understand, perspective is about where you are, that is it. If you don't move your perspective doesn't change, if you move it does.

458
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Yongnuo 35mm f/2 Canon Clone on the Way
« on: January 05, 2015, 01:20:37 AM »
It is fairly common practice in the auto industry for first world countries to sell the production line complete with tooling etc of an old car manufacturing plant to get a last few dollars out of an otherwise dead line, maybe Canon and Yongnuo have a similar thing going on. I doubt it, but anything is possible.

Besides, this particular lens cloning can actually help Canon too, they make their bread and butter money from Rebel sales, if Chinese customers are more likely to buy Canon starter cameras over Nikon etc because there are readily available affordable lenses, even if those lenses are from Yongnuo, then Canon are leveraging that outdated lens line very well, and hopefully breeding a new generation of Canon users who will end up insisting on genuine L lenses and higher end bodies, but the core business is shipping millions of Rebels.

I do see hints of some battles ahead, particularly for third party batteries and FW lockouts. But generally massive corporations are too slow on their feet to micro manage that type of thing effectively for very long, somebody always ends up sourcing the chip, or the code/protocol to make their third party item work.

The other aspect is first party feature protection. I did buy a Yongnuo YN-E3-RT for the sole reason that it gave me Group mode with my four genuine 600-EX-RT's on my pre 2012 bodies, whereas Canon locked me out. The YN did that upgraded feature fine 99% of the time so Canon were being annoying and petty at best, which I wouldn't mind but they haven't given me a 1Ds MkIII upgrade to buy yet so they really gave me no option other than to buy the clone to get the features out of my $2,000 worth of genuine Canon flashes on their $6,000+ Canon camera.

459
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Yongnuo 35mm f/2 Canon Clone on the Way
« on: January 05, 2015, 12:10:39 AM »
I would think these lens clones are a pretty smart thing for Yongnuo to do, for the home market. The Chinese DSLR market is vast, and growing, to learn lens manufacturing on some simple lenses at bargain prices that give home consumers value for money and affordable options seems very clever to me, I hadn't seen the wisdom of it previously as I was only looking at it from an exporting and foreign currency raising exercise, which is comical because the postage costs nearly as much as half Yongnuo's products!

As a first world resident I still don't see the point for export, but wow, to become China's leading lens manufacturer in the age of the economic cycle they are in, what an achievement! If they are successful I can see full clone bodies within five years and then we will have some real copyright and patent fights.

460
Lenses / Re: Canon 35mm F2 IS image quality
« on: January 03, 2015, 08:34:38 PM »
Perspective is typically understood as the relationship between your subject and its surroundings. 

No, perspective is correctly understood as the relationship between you, and your subject and the surroundings.



While technically true, it's wrong in practice.

Well I find the suggestion ridiculous. If it is true, it is true in practice; if it is wrong in practice, it is not true.

I am not overly interested in a semantics debate, I am interested in telling the truth, that the majority of ill informed photographers think it is so, does not make it so. That all those photographers look up to equally ill educated 'pros', reviewers, bloggers etc means they can't really be blamed for the mistake, but it is a mistake.

Perspective is derived from your position, alone. Focal length, sensor size etc etc are meaningless when talking about perspective, they are not meaningless when talking about fov, framing etc, but we weren't and they are quite different from perspective.

If nobody ever points out what is correct and what is incorrect how does anybody ever learn? I am not belittling anybody for not knowing the difference, especially, as I said, because of the sources of their misinformation, but the word perspective has a definitive meaning and it isn't related to focal length or sensor size.

To put this in a photographic context.

I see a scene, an environmental portrait, I want to show a person and their very strong connection to a building across a body of water. I move to get the perspective I want, that is, how large they are in relation to the building, then I select the focal length I need to get the framing I want for the sensor I have. Done. But the perspective is the over reaching first step, the focal length is just a factor along with the sensor size used to achieve the desired framing, not the perspective.

See below, perspective drives everything else in cognitively framed images whether we are aware of that or not, focal length comes a distant second and then only in conjunction with sensor size and desired framing.

461
I'm tempted to say the 24 TSE as well, but as the OP has said only one lens I'd be concerned with being stuck with that focal length,........

So was I, that is why I sneaked in the TC's  :)

I 100% agree with distant detail too, that is why any lens I had to use would have to have movements.

Here is a couple of shots with the 17TS-E, the first is at f4 with no tilt (I hate it when people say with an ultrawide everything is in focus!), the second a 100% crop. The third is the whole frame with a couple of degrees tilt, again at f4, the fourth a 100% crop.

For me that is a dramatic difference in resolution and detail.

462
24mm TS-E, on FF. Nothing comes close to camera movements for dof and prespective control and they are key landscape elements. The 24 can be shift stitched to make a super high quality double sized sensor with a 16mm fov, it can take regular filters and the 1.4 and 2 x TC's making it incredibly versatile.

463
I just bought a 16-35 f4 IS via CPW. It is from a Canon USA dealer with full USA warranty, so clearly I don't care.

But I don't understand this worry about returned goods. If you read B&H and Adorama's policies they reserve the right to sell you returns, and lets face it, with so many people being supercritical, and others ordering 2 or more copies to 'test' and expecting retailers to honour no quibble returns, what do you expect? My last lens purchase was a 1.4TC MkIII (from B&H but that is irrelevant), it was in the box and Styrofoam blocks sideways and had fingerprints on it, does that make it unsaleable? Not to me, I checked it for performance and am happy with it, it has more fingerprints on it now too!

How does somebody having opened the box degrade a lens? Where do you expect all those perfectly good lenses to go once the box is opened?

And, most importantly, who do you expect to pay for all those opened box returns? We all do!

464
OK. Now at $2297. That extra $3 should push some off the fence.

Sooner or later you get to a price you can't help but justify. [ :-) ] but I think there is $6 difference! [/ :-) ]

After selling my 16-35 f2.8 a while ago I decided to wait and see if the rumoured 11/14-24 would appear, but I got seduced yesterday by the 16-35 f4 IS for $999, full USA etc etc. Darn!

You won't be sorry. That is hands down the finest WAZ Canon has ever made and that's a killer price. I felt fortunate to snag it from Canon pre-ordered for $1074. It's worth full retail. Enjoy!

After seeing some example images from it I couldn't resist, especially after seeing the zoom compared to the Zeiss 15mm, and I like IS and do find a desire for it on shorter focal lengths, I liked the much smaller hood design too as I am a die hard no filter but always hood kind of guy, all horses for courses of course and others needs will be different. But the real killer was I got $900 for my MkI 16-35 f2.8, which wasn't really very usable at f2.8 anyway, so the change effectively cost me $99 and I get a new warranty and much higher performance etc. It is crazy, I only paid $1,250 for the 16-35 over ten years ago.

465
OK. Now at $2297. That extra $3 should push some off the fence.

Sooner or later you get to a price you can't help but justify. [ :-) ] but I think there is $6 difference! [/ :-) ]

After selling my 16-35 f2.8 a while ago I decided to wait and see if the rumoured 11/14-24 would appear, but I got seduced yesterday by the 16-35 f4 IS for $999, full USA etc etc. Darn!

Pages: 1 ... 29 30 [31] 32 33 ... 223