October 24, 2014, 11:49:34 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 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 17
61
Portrait / Re: Girl and Horse
« on: December 22, 2013, 04:00:19 PM »


Original source: blog.erikhammar.se

I like it. I think it works because it appears more candid them some of the other post pictures.  Although technically, it may not be as sound, it conveys the mood very well. In the end, that is what matters. :)

If I may make a slight suggestion, if she kisses the horse closer to the front of the mouth, then there will be less shadow on her face, and you can see her lips better.

I agree!  Every other image in this post looks posed and not in the least bit natural - despite the attempt by using natural settings.  The original image appears as a serendipitous capture of a moment we were all lucky enough to witness.  For that reason, I find it to be superior to every other image in this thread - even if it's not technically "flawless" by others' definition.  I think it's pretty close to perfect myself.

I'd rather see a true "moment" in the most artificial setting than a completely artificial moment in natural setting.

Regarding the horse in the original image, sure a greater depth of field capturing the horses eyes in perfect clarity would have been great, but as-is works as well as with the horse's eyes closed because it really draws attention to the kiss which is where the actual focus point seems to be which draws even more attention there.  Again - a GREAT capture of a beautiful moment.

62
Portrait / Re: Bikini on the beach
« on: December 22, 2013, 07:20:05 AM »
.... but, I've been told repeatedly that when someone KNOWS what they're doing with flash, you can't really tell they used it.  I've yet to see an example of that myself, but I've had my eyes open for it.  Until then, I prefer natural lighting.

So, window light, studio light, off camera Speedlite or on camera Speedlite?

I guess I should have been more specific, using flash outdoors bothers me.
For this image, I'm guessing something other than ambient window light.  Although it's obvious that IF something other than window light was used, it was dialed back in intensity. 

Interesting opinion. I'm sure you know that if I didn't light her with anything and metered on her, then everything else would be completely blown.

Of course.  I'd just wait for better light.  Perhaps a less strong lighting would have been less obvious.

This isn't a knock against you but, I've been told repeatedly that when someone KNOWS what they're doing with flash, you can't really tell they used it.  I've yet to see an example of that myself, but I've had my eyes open for it.  Until then, I prefer natural lighting.

Yep, true. This shot was certain time of day, so either couldn't shoot down towards the water or use flash.

As you have said the time of the day and the angle of the sun you had to make the choice of taking the shot and use flash or do not get the shot at all. I shall always go for getting the shot.

Just one thing, the "obviousness" of the flash is basicaly due to couple of areas on the skin (and the rim of the glasses) with localized highlights/reflections which would not be there if flash is not used, and a bit of extra (cannot say overexposure) exposure on the entire body. It is upto your taste and liking - but you may want to thing about reducing that over exposure slightly and eliminating those highlights. My guess is that will give a more "natural look". Of course depending on your liking you may disagree.

I agree that dialing in some flash exposure compensation would have been ideal here.

63
Portrait / Re: Bikini on the beach
« on: December 22, 2013, 12:46:47 AM »
Interesting opinion. I'm sure you know that if I didn't light her with anything and metered on her, then everything else would be completely blown.

Of course.  I'd just wait for better light.  Perhaps a less strong lighting would have been less obvious.

This isn't a knock against you but, I've been told repeatedly that when someone KNOWS what they're doing with flash, you can't really tell they used it.  I've yet to see an example of that myself, but I've had my eyes open for it.  Until then, I prefer natural lighting.

64
Portrait / Re: Girl and Horse
« on: December 21, 2013, 08:14:33 PM »
Harsh shadow over her face... but maybe others disagree.

Based on the position of the sun, I would find it EXTREMELY odd if there were no shadow on her face.

65
Portrait / Re: Bikini on the beach
« on: December 21, 2013, 08:13:23 PM »


This is an example where I think using flash (or a reflector, or whatever) has made the image look worse.  It's obvious based on the shadow on the ground that this is a back-lit scene, yet there's no shadow on her body indicating this.  It screws with my head and just ruins the image for me.  My brain tells me that there SHOULD be shadows and it WANTS to see shadows, but there are none.

66
Lenses / Re: Another strike against UV filters
« on: December 17, 2013, 06:21:49 PM »
Isn't it a fairly short list of lenses which require a filter of some sort (doesn't have to be a UV filter) to complete the weather sealing?

67
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 10D, 100D or 700D?
« on: December 13, 2013, 12:22:42 PM »
Again, it's pretty obvious you haven't used it

68
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 10D, 100D or 700D?
« on: December 13, 2013, 11:23:21 AM »
M (and M2 probably as well) AF performance not sufficient for intended primary shooting situation - social pics, mainly indoors (=usually low to very low light, people typically moving)
I'm guessing you've either never used the M and are drastically underestimating it's AF abilities or you've never hung around married women in a social situation and are overestimating their level of activity.

Most women get by just fine with a P&S or camera phone in this situation, the AF on the M is superior to either of those, even with the 22/2 which is great for low-light indoor pics (I should know, I use it for my 16 month old daughter).

69
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 10D, 100D or 700D?
« on: December 13, 2013, 01:39:22 AM »
Main use will be shooting at parties

I already have a number of spare Canon lenses and was thinking of donating my 24-105L to her and thus limiting the financial outlay to 'body only'. It would also have better IQ than any of the 100D/700D kit lenses.

Yes, the 24-105L would have better IQ wide open than the 18-55, although not as much better as you might be thinking.  Not sure if 100D + 18-135mm STM kits are available where you are (they aren't in the USA but since you call it the 100D and refer to IXUS P&S, I infer that you're not in the USA) - that kit lens actually delivers better IQ at the long end than the 24-105L, even giving the 24-105L the benefit of stopping down to f/5.6 (TDP comparison).

The real issue with the 24-105L is that on APS-C it gives a FF equivalent of 38mm.  Not sure which IXUS she has, but most of the recent ones start at 28mm or even 24mm FFeq…I'm not sure she'd be happy giving up the wide angle, particularly since you mention indoor use. 

So, my vote goes to a 100D body (for the small size) and either the 18-135mm STM lens, the 18-55mm STM lens for cost savings, or if you want to splurge and one-up the Joneses, the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS which gives better low light performance and IMO is the best general purpose zoom for APS-C.

I was thinking almost exactly what neuro said except I didn't consider the 17-55 upgrade.  I also agree with K13X5C.  Get her something new that is hers and let her show it off and get a real thrill out of using it.  And help her with it often so you can be her resident expert.  Compliment her on her work.

Another +1 for Neuro's suggestion.  I'd also like to second the "EOS M" suggestion as it was the very first thing that popped in my head.  Buying the "full kit" of the EOS M + 22/2 (for low light) + 18-55 + 90EX flash sounds PERFECT for her uses, IMO.  And if you're in the US can be had for $400.  That's a LOT of bang for the buck as the IQ from both of those lenses is OUTSTANDING, the kit is compact and the entire package is quite versatile.  If the 40mm f/2.8 STM is desired, it can be added along with the adapter for less than $250.

70
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS M2 Not Coming to North America
« on: December 03, 2013, 08:21:23 PM »
Well I'm glad I picked up a Fuji XE-2 with kit lens and the 23 f/1.4   That kit puts the EOS M2 to shame and I chose the Fuji over the A7r, because I don't want giant lenses on my mirror less body.  I'll save my giant lenses for the 1DX.

And you only spent $1900 more for it too!  Or, almost 6x as much!  Depending on your preference

71
I was going to purchase EF-M 11-22 IS STM soon, but if the Canon don't want to make more lenses and leave the system with small enhancements just for Asian market I'm not quite sure...
Maybe it's time to look for another mirrorless system before I got too deep in hopeless system.

Don't cut your nose off to spite your face. You'll not find a better UWA zoom than the 11-22, especially given the price. In fact, for most, the lens plus camera is cheaper than competing lenses alone.

72
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS M2 Not Coming to North America
« on: December 03, 2013, 04:10:25 PM »
What I'm getting at is, would these people even know? Realistically, no one knew anything truly specific about the launch of the M2 until yesterday?

73
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS M2 Not Coming to North America
« on: December 03, 2013, 04:03:09 PM »
if they were going to announce it, say for instance after the new year, do you think they would tell you right now?

74
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS M2 Gets Official
« on: December 03, 2013, 07:15:50 AM »
One thing that was initially supposed to be on the M but was removed prior to release was zooming during movie recording.  Found this in the specs:

Quote
Digital zoom - You can set about 3-10 times zoom

Pretty cool.

75
EOS-M / Re: The Next EOS M [CR2]
« on: December 02, 2013, 01:26:43 PM »
I love the M, but wish it had the articulating a flip out LCD display, a headphone jack, audio meters on all the time, larger battery, side door for battery and SD card, not the current bottom door. HD 1080p60. Use the full frame capture for HD 1080p without line skipping. Eliminate aliasing and moire. Better low light/available light performance without digital noise. Option to record ProRes 10bit 4.2.2  Built in ND filters. Zoom lens with constant f/2.8. A smooth rocker switch in an easy location for motorized zooming like their high end lenses for video cameras usually have. EF lens mount instead of the EFM. Just make the body a little bit bigger for this EF mount and larger battery with a side door. Continuous non stop recording for video to fill the whole SD card no matter what size card we use.

Probably higher costs for all of this, but I would pay extra for all those features if they compete with BMPCC and the GH3 around $1000 or less. I got my M with 22mm lens for $300 and the 18-55mmm EFM lens for $135. Extra batteries with chargers were also very low cost. A lot of quality there for a very low price, IMO.

Gary

LOL

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 17