October 24, 2014, 05:29:28 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 - Shawn L

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 7
1
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 1D X Product Advisory
« on: July 22, 2013, 12:02:57 PM »
Thanks, Random Orbits.

Shawn L.

2
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 1D X Product Advisory
« on: July 20, 2013, 11:49:48 PM »
Okay, this may be a stupid question, but when sending your camera in for service, do you include the battery?

Thanks.

Shawn L.

3
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 1D X Product Advisory
« on: July 01, 2013, 12:51:01 PM »
I have been using the original box, body packed as orignally sent and I put in bubble wrap to fill the empty space...

Thanks, StoneySnapper =)

Shawn L.

4
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 1D X Product Advisory
« on: July 01, 2013, 10:41:58 AM »
Forgive my ignorance if this is obvious to others, when you send in your camera how do you pack it? Original box? Other? Bubble wrap? UPS? Etc...

Just curious as the hold up for me on sending mine in is knowing exactly how to ship it safely.

Cheers =)

Shawn L.

5
Hi Shawn. I did a RAW test and found something interesting. Read my last post.
Thanx
P

That does seem to nix the whole conversion process idea.

Other ideas:
  • Do you have either "Auto Lighting Optimizer" (3rd from bottom on second red menu) or "Highlight tone priority" (bottom item on second red menu) on?
  • What about "Spot Metering linked to AF pt" (2nd to last item on the first C.Fn1 page)?
  • Or "safety shift" (last item on the first C.FN1 page)?

I listed the above because they can affect exposure and/or how the images are processed.

Other than that, I'm tapped out.

Lots of luck, either way :)

Shawn L.

6
Quote
Skin tones always look like crap on RAW. Its hard to make them look natural. I like what I see on the jpg version and can't get even close even tweaking for minutes on a RAW file.

Some "off the top of my head thoughts" that might help -- though I make no promises =)

  • RAW files are 14 bit, JPG are 8 bit; that means some form of conversion is done when the JPG files are written out in the camera from the RAW data on the sensor
  • since you like the skin tones in JPG, but not in RAW, that conversion is clearly baking a white balance setting into the images for you
  • but JPGs are lossy and the color space transforms they do are a function of the image content
  • it's possible (and here I'm speculating) that slight differences in image content (more red background, more exposed hardwood floor), etc are causing the JPG file you get out of the camera to have subtle shifts in white balance
  • do you know if you see the same issue if you shoot RAW; if you do, that would seem more indicative of a sensor issue;
  • here, you're looking converted data, and the conversion process in question is known to be lossy and to be a function of image content; so, it might actually make sense that you're not always getting exactly the same results
  • also note, ambient light due to electric lights is going to fluctuate at 60 Hz; it's possible that two successive pictures would actually get a different amount (and potentially a different quality) of light hitting the sensor

Shawn L.

7
Lenses / Re: Tele for backpacking
« on: June 03, 2013, 12:11:39 PM »
Another thought would be the 28-300 L. I've rented that for a couple of trips and been pretty satisfied:

http://www.lensrentals.com/rent/canon/lenses/telephoto/canon-28-300mm-f3.5-5.6l-is

Shawn L.

8
Landscape / Re: Beautiful sunsets
« on: January 11, 2013, 02:17:23 PM »
Here's a panorama made from several 70 mm shots (70-200 mm II L, 1/200 sec, ISO-125, f/2.8)

Shawn L.

9
Canon General / Re: Single point auto focus
« on: January 04, 2013, 11:09:41 AM »
Personally, I move the AF point around as needed.  I have the default points set off center, and I use orientation-linked AF point to speed things up.  The only time I use an automatic selection mode is in AI Servo for face tracking, where I've already manually selected the starting AF point.

+1

Shawn L.

10
Animal Kingdom / Re: Zoo Pics 2
« on: December 31, 2012, 12:51:23 PM »
Here's one taken yesterday (12/30) at the Oakland zoo, (200 mm, f/3.2, 1/250 sec, 100 ISO):


11
I think you are complaining to the wrong source. I would send a complaint to the editorial department of the magazine. Then they will say something to him, he won't be able to give them the same lame excuses. If they get enough complaints, then he won't have the opportunity to screw up the review like this anymore.

+1

Happy Holidays!

Shawn L.

12
What I end up doing is based on what's in the photos. For instance, I process files from a trip to the zoo different than photos from an ice show. Anyhow...

If I don't like the overall color or tone of the image, I'll play with WB and/or camera calibration. I'll note that "adobe standard" really blows out saturated reds. I find "camera standard" much better for that. For pictures with crowds, "portrait" calibration brings out flesh tones (though sometimes too much). The "landscape" setting makes greens and blues pop. By trying each of these, you can get some nice results for images you weren't initially fond of.

Then, I work my way from the top of the settings downward.

For the 1DX, I find that Shadows at +50 to 75 -- especially for bright outdoor scenes -- helps bring out detail.

I'll drop vibrance back a bit for high ISO, low light images. Otherwise, colors tend to feel muddy.

In order to "fill the histogram" (when that's appropriate to do),  I've found that "exposure" often blows things out too much for my taste (ruining the darks). So I often use "white" and "highlights." When those don't work, I'll open the tone curve and drag the upper right edge of the curve toward the left until the histogram is filled. This often produces much nicer results while preserving overall tonality.

Your mileage may vary :).

Shawn L.

13
Software & Accessories / Re: Stop Using Instagram
« on: December 18, 2012, 11:14:25 AM »
I thought this was an interesting quote about Facebook and its ilk:

If You're Not Paying For It, You Become The Product

More info here:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/marketshare/2012/03/05/if-youre-not-paying-for-it-you-become-the-product/

Shawn L.

14
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 1D X AF in Low Light action
« on: December 14, 2012, 02:23:16 PM »
Drizzt321:

I do have the software and I will check it out (probably won't find the time until next weekend, though).

To Studio1930's point, I've never had an issue with my 70-200 II in low light -- even inside an ice rink. Kind of sad to see the issue with the 24-70 II. Though, I will say that I have used the 24-70 II at night on a moving train and still gotten fairly good pictures (at 1/200 sec with a more fully charged battery).

Still haven't ruled out user error on my part.

Shawn L.

15
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 1D X AF in Low Light action
« on: December 14, 2012, 11:23:38 AM »
I'd say low 60s (F)

Here's the photo in question for those interested. Note that the focus is supposed to be on the chin, according to DPP.

http://home.comcast.net/~sal6/BY5R7623.CR2

(Hoping that upload worked, Comcast has been having FTP issues as of late.)

Shawn L.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 7