April 23, 2014, 05:20:19 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 - jebrady03

Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10] 11 12 ... 14
136
EOS Bodies / Re: 21mp Sensor in the 7D Mark II? [CR1]
« on: April 19, 2013, 10:17:07 AM »
And why didn't they bring the 70D already, since it is overdue after 2 1/2 years, when Canon has all the stuff they need (including sensor) ready. It looks to me (and I hope so), that they are delaying the 70D so they can introduce it with the new sensor.

Who said it was overdue and/or that they're delaying the 70D?  Internet expectations?  Or Canon?  Perhaps Canon believes they're ahead of schedule.  Because other than some not-so-vague comments from Canon employees who were put on the spot, I don't recall reading/hearing anything about the 70D or the 7D2 especially in regards to an impending announcement or due date.

So again, are these YOUR expectations from reading a RUMORS site, or are these missed deadlines that Canon has self-imposed?  Obviously a rhetorical question...

Talk on this website has REALLY gone from "rumors" to "if _____ doesn't fit my personal expectations then it's ______ (fill in the blank with negative thoughts)."

137
EOS Bodies / Re: 21mp Sensor in the 7D Mark II? [CR1]
« on: April 18, 2013, 10:18:34 PM »
So lets see if I understand this... The 7D2 MIGHT be 21 megapixels, or it MIGHT be 24, or it could possibly be 18. And the 70D MIGHT have one of those sensors.... or it could be something else.....

Yeah, I know... sounds like a company that knows what it is doing, doesn't it?

I love it when this site gets interpreted as if the url is canonfacts.com

ALL OF THIS STUFF IS SPECULATION PEOPLE.  HEAR SAY.  ANECDOTAL EVIDENCE.  A DUMPING GROUND FOR PROTOTYPE SPECS THAT WILL NEVER SEE THE LIGHT OF DAY.  THIS SITE IS FOR YOUR ENTERTAINMENT - THAT'S IT.  STOP BASING YOUR HAPPINESS OFF OF WHAT YOU READ HERE.

138
Software & Accessories / Re: PP for realistic look - is DPP the best?
« on: April 17, 2013, 03:02:13 PM »
I think y'all might have hit the nail on the head... I completely forgot that LR doesn't automatically apply the scene mode so it's an unprocessed RAW file whereas DPP shows it processed, even when using "faithful". I'll have another look and see what I can see :)
THANKS!!

139
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Confusion about Macro Photography
« on: April 17, 2013, 10:18:01 AM »
That's a fantastic shot of Andromeda for a handheld 10 sec exposure, what was the lens?!

Disagreed!  The noise in that image is RIDICULOUS!  Just look at it!

;)  kidding

Agreed, great pic!

140
Software & Accessories / PP for realistic look - is DPP the best?
« on: April 17, 2013, 09:46:36 AM »
I've been using DPP to process images for the last 4 years or so.  I find that OOC RAW files usually just need to have lens aberrations corrected and then be sharpened for a realistic look (I shoot in the "Faithful" scene mode).  For instance - this thread is what's spurring this post: http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=14101

However, when I import into LR, I find that MUCH MUCH MUCH more work has to be done to get the image to look normal/realistic.  In fact, when I open an image in LR, it looks absolutely terrible and is BEGGING for PP'ing.

So I guess what I'm wondering is, why do so many use LR?  Am I alone in either A) Wanting images that look like reality or B) Am I doing something wrong to cause images in LR to look terrible upon opening them or C) Something else?

In DPP, I pretty much always go through each picture with the quick preview option, rate the keepers, go back and crop them if necessary, then open the first picture in the series, correct aberrations, possibly use NR if I shot above 800 ISO, then sharpen, then close, copy recipe, and paste it to all other images.  My work flow for 100 pictures takes just a few minutes and with very few exceptions, they need almost no adjustments for white balance, contrast, saturation, etc., and a little more often, for brightness.  Then I batch process the keepers.

So again, what am I missing?  Is this just a case where this work flow works well for me and not many others?

Thanks for any insight, recommendations, feedback, etc.

141
I love the shot and don't think you need to do anything to the colors.
...what about a little contrast?


A few suggestions for what they are worth.

1. Composition- I'd just really work with the angles and framing here to come up with more dynamic shots. Look at the entire right 1/3 side of your image, All I look at is that little weed popping up in the foreground. Now if that weed was the snake's food, that's a different story. Then the snake head is just kinda floating in the middle, with no more significance than the rest of the image. My eyes don't know where to look.

I want there to be something in the foreground in the bottom left of the image to balance with the flow of the head.

An even lower angle would also give a more unique perspective. I don't want to get that close to snakes, but it looks like you are fine with it, so you have the ability to show people something new.

I made a quick crop of your image to show a different visual flow. I wouldn't necessarily have cropped this shot square, but from the image you provided, it was the best I could come up with.

2. Focus- I'd make sure you nail focus on the snake's head to make it pop out at you. The top of his head looks like it is behind the plane of focus.

3. Contrast- It is pretty flat. Even the histogram I pulled looked like it was missing the whole right side.

The macro is cool, but again, it's a standard straight on shot. Play with angles and composition!


Thanks for the suggestions!

As for contrast - it's actually interesting.  This is what a normal boa constrictor looks like (random image pulled off of a google search...



This animal has lots of contrast, obviously.

The animal in my pictures has actually been selectively bred for several different traits.  The first is what's known in the hobby as "pastel" - it's basically just a reduction of black that gives a washed out look.  The reason this is so popular is because as they age, most boa constrictors darken and the little black specks increase in number.  This trait is an attempt to minimize that to allow the color underneath to remain move vibrant and appealing as an adult.  "Pastel" is a polygenic trait in boas (like skin color in people).

The animal in my pictures is also exhibiting another trait known as "hypomelanism".  For those without a background in science, "hypo" means under, low, less, beneath, etc. (think hypodermic needle - a needle for injecting under the dermis, or hypoglycemia - low blood sugar).  Melanism refers to black pigment.  So, this animal has less than normal black pigment.  That sounds like the above trait, but it's very different.  The above trait just kind of washes the dark pigment away, the hypomelanistic trait actually removes it to a large degree.  It's especially noticeable in the latter half of the body - for instance, look at the first picture and at the lower left corner - those orange blotches (known as saddles) are generally surrounded by black but in a hypo, the black has been mostly removed and the color underneath shows through.  Hypomelanism is an incomplete dominant trait meaning when a "hypo" is bred to a normal animal - 50% of the babies will receive the hypo gene.

So, this boa is a pastel hypomelanistic boa.  It's kind of a double shot of black (contrast) reduction - so it should appear to be absent of contrast.

This animal is also hiding a trait.  What I mean by that is that it also has a recessive trait - albinism.  Albinism is simple recessive meaning BOTH parents need to contribute the gene to the offspring for the offspring to express the trait.  In this case, the mother was an albino and the father was a pastel hypo.  So, this animal received the pastel and hypo trait from dad (low odds of happening in one animal) and one copy of the albino gene from mom.  So, when this boy is bred in the future, if bred to an animal with one or two copies of the albino gene (either non-visual or "heterozygous" like my male or a visual albino aka "homozygous") he could produce pastel hypo albinos which are GLOWING pink/orange animals like this:



Again, the above image was just pulled from a google search.

So, adding contrast to the photo (I did play with it based on your suggestions) actually end up misrepresenting the animal and actually, in a negative way.  People want the washed out coloration and pay more money for it as it results in more beautiful hypo albinos (known as sunglows in the hobby).

142
EOS Bodies / Re: *UPDATE* A Bit of EOS 70D Info [CR1-CR2]
« on: April 16, 2013, 10:04:56 AM »
I found this interesting... http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/sr4-also-the-a78-summer-launch-has-been-withdrawn/

To sum it up, here's a quote from the article (with some extraneous info redacted for the sake of brevity) - emphasis is mine and is bolded:

Quote
Months ago I told you how the A-mount roadmap has been dramatically changed after the new Sony CEO started the company restructuring program. ... And now according to brand new rumors we got from trusted sources also the planed A77 successor (the A78) that should have been announced this summer has been take off the roadmap!

The reason for it is that the A78 had too little improvements over the current A77. And it is Sony’s new policy to release a camera only if it brings considerably major advancements in features and image quality. ... Sony is developing new A-mount cameras that can outperform the competition. The status quo between Nikon-Sony-Canon is over. Sony wants to become “serious” and start a real war in the camera market. The A78 simply was good but not really a game changer camera.


That's the kind of approach I wish all camera makers would adopt.  Obviously, investors in Canon are happy with extreme utilization of technologies long ago paid for, but the USERS of that equipment who are currently invested and are looking for a substantial upgrade are left out in the cold.

If Sony can put out glass as good as Canon's and produce image quality on par as well - I see no reason not to go with the innovative company.  Especially when in-body IS is baked right in to the experience and EVERY lens gets IS.  And that's why I won't buy a refreshed 60D - no "game changing" features.

143
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: "I am boycotting Nikon" campaign
« on: April 15, 2013, 12:45:50 PM »
Agreed about hogs.  They are the number one most destructive non-native animal species out there.  What's number two you ask?  Burmese Pythons?  NOPE!  Feral cats.

All three species pale in comparison to H. sapiens sapiens.

Similarly, the destruction from hogs, pythons, and cats again pales in comparison to the destruction from corn, wheat, cattle, poultry, cotton....

Cheers,

b&

100% completely agree.  Human interference has had the largest impact on the Everglades.  I'd venture to guess that the human impact would be larger than all animals and plants combined (even if you exclude the fact that humans are the cause of all the plants and animals being there).  Pollution and drainage have ravaged the Everglades (it's 50% smaller just because of drainage).

144
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: "I am boycotting Nikon" campaign
« on: April 15, 2013, 07:40:04 AM »
Those are hogs, and hogs are numerous, and rather a nussance as well, but worse still often a threat to local endangered and threatened populations. I am totally against poaching of threatened species, and totally against wanton destruction. But, some animals NEED to be hunted by man, often especially because we displaced their predators through habitat destruction. Here in Florida, hogs are a severe nuisance, and the laws are actually pretty easy-going about the taking o' hogs. The poster says "Bring home the bacon", so the thought is not some Great White Hunter racking up tons of kills for trophies, but a productive use, potentially, anyway. THere is no reason to be so sensitive about this...

Quite so. I live in S Florida and we are overrun with harmful exotics. We have beautiful  lionfish ravaging our reefs, and all sorts of pythons taking over the Everglades. Both species are pretty much on the "kill on sight" list. Can I put a Nikon scope on a speargun? The diffraction of the water might compensate for the crappy optics...

Agreed about hogs.  They are the number one most destructive non-native animal species out there.  What's number two you ask?  Burmese Pythons?  NOPE!  Feral cats.  Feral cats are less destructive than hogs because they don't destroy habitat like hogs do - but they do kill for fun - daily.  Where are pythons on the "most destructive" list of invasives?  If you believe the media hype - then hundreds of thousands of them are a half a step slither away from killing everything in the US including the human population.  Or, if you're more informed about the issue, have spent any actual time hunting them, and/or know anything about their natural environment and their requirements to survive, then you realize there's only a few thousand of them (max) and they are a very localized problem in South Florida with no ability to spread anywhere else.  They also don't eat or kill much (like cats) and they definitely don't destroy habitat (like hogs).

Need some proof?  How about the month-long FFW SPONSORED Burmese python challenged that happened just recently.  Something like 1600 people had 30 days to capture as many as they could.  How many did they get?  68!!!  If you gave 1600 people 30 days to kill as many hogs or cats as they could, they'd get hundreds and probably more like THOUSANDS!

Don't get me wrong, I'm vehemently opposed to the survival of any non-native species, but we should really inform the general populace that Senator Bill Nelson has fooled them all by making the Burmese Python the "poster child" for non-natives.  The Brazilian Pepper plant, hogs, and yes - even fluffy the cat are FARRRRRR more dangerous to the Everglades (and the rest of the US) than Burmese Pythons.

/end rant

145
Pricewatch Deals / Re: Adorama sale
« on: April 13, 2013, 01:01:05 PM »
You enter the coupon code as part of the checkout process - it's in the "payment" field.

At $142 for the 40mm STM, I couldn't pass up this lens any longer - had to give it a try!  Looking forward to arrival day.

146
How do you prevent buttons from being accidently changed on Canon 1DX?

Stop accidentally pressing them!  ;)

But seriously, a camera holster makes the most sense to me.  Or several, depending on what types you like.

147
Animal Kingdom / Boa Constrictor - up close and personal - C&C please
« on: April 09, 2013, 10:21:50 PM »
I got into photography via my love of reptiles.  This is a little male Boa Constrictor that I produced, sold, and finally shipped out today.  I snapped a few pics before packaging him up and I liked a couple of them and I thought I'd share them and request a little C&C on the first.

FYI, proper color representation is ABSOLUTELY PARAMOUNT in the boa market so altering the colors into something that is not consistent with the look of the animal is absolutely NOT an option.  So, I'm looking more for C&C related to composition or any PP'ing that would fall within very strict ethical boundaries.



These last two are just more for fun than anything else.

Macro shot


100% crop of the image above...


Thanks!

148
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon Announcements on April 23, 2013? [CR2]
« on: April 07, 2013, 01:50:00 PM »
If this rumor is true, Canon just killed any possibility I'll be replacing my 60D with the 70D.  I was hoping for better IQ and dynamic range (happy with what I have for what I paid - but I'd like something better and have the money to spend).  Now the question becomes, do I go with a 6D and sell the 60D or just stick with what I've got?

149
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: New sensor doubles brightness
« on: March 31, 2013, 09:36:03 AM »
I simply find it very encouraging that companies are continuing to develop new processes to capture light.  It's funny, so many people say things along the lines of "this will be the last camera I'll buy" (I saw that in reference to the 5d3 and 1Dx a LOT) because they're so impressed with the camera.  But as always... "you don't know what you don't know" and if this technology, or even something more impressive, is available in 5 years, who wouldn't WANT to upgrade to it if it works as expected?  I know I would - regardless of how happy I was with my current camera.

Imagine this in a camera without an anti-aliasing filter (because software corrects it) along with eye-control focus, etc. and everything else on people's wish list!!!  SUPER BRIGHT, SUPER SHARP, CORRECTLY FOCUSED pics!  Of course, DxO would kill all the enthusiasm because they'd say it was the worst sensor since the original Rebel... ;)

150
Third Party Manufacturers / New sensor doubles brightness
« on: March 31, 2013, 02:14:42 AM »
Apologies if this has been posted already.  Thoughts?  http://www.diginfo.tv/v/13-0021-r-en.php

Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10] 11 12 ... 14