Messages

31

5D MK III Sample Images / Re: Single raw real estate photos

« on: February 19, 2013, 01:20:49 AM »

Krispupis, I'm sorry if you felt attacked by what I said.  I was mostly speaking to Cgdillan, not to you.  Apparently I somehow may have gotten the two of you mixed up, perhaps I was reading a quote within a post?  I don't know.  Somehow my eyes got crossed with my brain!

Cgdillan, sorry if it looked like I was faulting your work ethics.  I didn't mean to do that at all.  I wasn't saying it was unethical.  And I assume someone else referred to those shots you posted at the top as "half assed", it was not me.  In fact, my whole point was that they were more than nice enough.  Then you seemed to take offense to that!  So it seemed like you were taking it all a bit too seriously.  I mean, I don't think I could have done any better (or maybe not as well)...in the same situation...even if I had done a lot of RE on the ground, which I have not.

I really was responding to the criticisms of others, who just seemed to be raising this type of photography to an art form that I personally don't think it is, that's all I was saying.  It's just my opinion.  I'm sure to many of you it is a high art form.  Certainly high end homes can be quite stunning.

I mean...I think of landscape photography, such as your other work, as more the aspirational high art form.  I guess it kind of goes back to "beauty in the eye of the beholder".  I aspire to the same art form, myself...for fun, and would also like to sell some of it sometime.  You certainly live on the correct coast for it!

I was not upset with your responses at all.. I was more responding to kirispupis.. I appreciate your effort to clear the air very much though. Thank you.

32

5D MK III Sample Images / Re: Big Sur and San Fran 5D3 Long Exposure

« on: February 17, 2013, 04:01:30 AM »

It should be evident, that my edit is the superior picture.  If nothing else,....

WOW! 
1st - We're in a Gallery -> Sample Images forum.  At no point did anyone ask for your $0.02.
2nd - One does not simply come in, tear apart another's copyrighted image w/o asking, re-post a badly photoshopped low rez version and stand on a box proclaiming to the entire forum ones clear superiority in every way.  How embarrassing this must be for you, had you been born with any shame.

At lease that's how we roll where I'm from. 
Maybe I'm just too Canadian.

I'm Canadian too!! well... only half canuk.. but it still counts!

33

5D MK III Sample Images / Re: Big Sur and San Fran 5D3 Long Exposure

« on: February 16, 2013, 09:42:30 PM »

No Bixby Bridge?


692A9977 by Jesse Herzog, on Flickr

Pfeiffer Beach?


692A0136 by Jesse Herzog, on Flickr

Nice Shots! We didn't know any of the main attractions at all. We had only decided to do the road trip the night before and had never been to big sur. I wanted to stop at Pfeiffer Beach but we were running out of time =-( We will definitely be going back though! Thanks for sharing =-)

The second photo is just a tad too glow-ee around the edges for my taste but it is a nice shot.

34

5D MK III Sample Images / Re: Big Sur and San Fran 5D3 Long Exposure

« on: February 16, 2013, 05:46:40 PM »

Awesome shots.  Lucky you had the opportunity to get out there.  I had a look at the whole gallery on your site.

Some C&C:

• Remove the obviously blurry ones (due to camera shake) from your web gallery, they detract from the rest.
• Towards the end you've got visible sensor dust in the sky towards the right side of the frame in a series of shots.  This tends to show up the worst in narrow aperture shots, which was pretty much the order of the day for your long exposures.  It's easy to correct in post but you need to give that thing a wipe with an Arctic Butterfly or something.
• There are some really great long exposures in there, but a few of them don't seem to have a long enough exposure.  They're merely a bit blurry in the areas of motion & lack that nice silky fog of reality that comes with a dark ND filter & a good solid tripod.

But don't let my comments detract from the good ones, there are some really sweet shots in there.  Good luck & keep shooting :-).

Thank you very much. I am actually going through a huge website overhaul right now. I make my money with wedding video so the only ND I have is a variable 2-8 stop ND. I would love to get a nice one, i'm just short on mula right now.

35

5D MK III Sample Images / Re: Big Sur and San Fran 5D3 Long Exposure

« on: February 16, 2013, 05:45:13 PM »

The GGB looks great with the reflection on the water. To cool the color temperature a bit down gives the edge. But that is up to one's personal preferencies...Keep them coming. Are you on flickr?

Thank you! I'm not on flickr. Should I be?

36

5D MK III Sample Images / Re: Big Sur and San Fran 5D3 Long Exposure

« on: February 16, 2013, 05:44:34 PM »

These are nice, although I will have to find fault with the Golden Gate shot.  You need to either select the orange slider in the gray scale menu, and reduce it...or else (preferably) change the overall color temperature and tint a bit (to the cooler side)...or some combination of both...besides reducing the overall saturation and vibrance.

I disagree, I like it as it is. Matter of personal preference I suppose ...

Thank you sir =-)

37

5D MK III Sample Images / Re: Big Sur and San Fran 5D3 Long Exposure

« on: February 16, 2013, 05:44:18 PM »

Oh, and here's my edit.  I'd also like to say, that if I had the raw file, then I could have really made it look like it's supposed to look.  But I'd wanna get paid! 

I know what you mean =-) If this wasn't photo I was trying to sell I'd hand over the Raw. I tend to do photos just for fun like this though. Don't really need to be paid for landscape photography. I just enjoy it too much!

38

5D MK III Sample Images / Re: Big Sur and San Fran 5D3 Long Exposure

« on: February 16, 2013, 05:42:28 PM »

So you were at ISO 640, f/7.1, for 30 seconds.  I assume you used highlight tone priority?  Even if you did, I’m a bit surprised the lights didn’t blow out more than they did.  Like I said, nice exposure.  The 5D3 is a nice camera.  I’ll probably buy one at some point.  Or a 6D.

It should be evident, that my edit is the superior picture.  If nothing else, you can tell by comparing your sky, with mine, that your white balance is wayyy off.  Now, again…sure it’s a matter of preference…but your color of the bridge, well it just looks like puke…and your sky is just not the correct color temperature.  Perhaps you just wanted to make SF look a bit like a smoggy LA evening?

I feel my street lights, car headlights, and city lights in the background, all still look natural enough…they are not overly “cooled down”…they still look yellow and warm.  They just don’t look like they were shot through some kind of orange gel filter, like yours.

You might first notice I corrected the barrel distortion of your lens (shot at 24mm).  Maybe you did some correction already, but you still left a bit much for my taste.  Sure, the closer bridge tower is now leaning to the left a bit…frankly I feel you may have not had the camera perfectly level.  However, without using a tilt shift lens, there can also be converging lines factoring in here too (since your location is putting you a ways above halfway up the tower, you are effectively looking slightly down at the towers…so that would also pull the left tower outwards toward the top) .  I didn’t bother correcting the picture level, as the barrel correction already cut off a bit more pixels toward the corners than I would have liked.  The level isn’t severely off.
 
I did some tweaking of various sliders and curves.  Reduced exposure a bit, added some brightness and fill light (I feel this adds some texture to the tonality), along with some recovery, reduced overall contrast, but tweaked the tone curve sliders to add mid tone contrast, and try to keep from losing the darkest shadows.  Also I reduced global saturation, but added a bit of vibrance.  Also tweaked several of the individual colors in the gray scale, by changing all 3 aspects:  the tint, saturation, and luminance.  (I usually only like to mess with the saturation, but this awful white balance required all three!)  I think I recovered even a bit more of the highlights, not a lot.  Not an easy task with a jpeg.  But again, you did do a decent job of exposure, perhaps spot metering on headlights or streetlights…but then that may have also affected your in-camera white balance…or rather overwhelmed it…I don’t know.  Certainly “auto white balance” begins to fail as it gets dark, and city lights confuse a camera…or at least they do mine.  But I have no idea whether you did a custom WB or an auto. 

Either way, again…your end result is very orange-yellow, looks flat, and ruined the bridge.  I could not abide that!  I love that bridge!  I did it all in Adobe Camera Raw, didn’t even bother opening in Photoshop.

So I will now pat myself on the back sort of like you do for yourself.  The difference is, I didn’t get paid by billionaires to do it, I just did it for fun.  I need to start getting paid what I’m worth, though!  It might require moving to Taiwan or Shanghai, and employing a league of Asian concubines to drum up business…but hey I’m game!!

I appreciate your opinions very much. I actually didn't get paid anything for this trip, I simply did it with my girlfriend for fun when we had 3 days off. I do like my picture better however. But again that's just opinion based. =-) I see where you are going with the color temp and orange saturation, I tend to enjoy warmer pictures my self. Thank you for the compliments as well!

39

5D MK III Sample Images / Re: Single raw real estate photos

« on: February 16, 2013, 05:32:31 PM »

This post was not to judge anyones work ethics. I do RE photos part time. The agent asked me to do a quick cheap job last second for a RENTAL property. I did not post this for people to judge me, but for people to judge an extremely quick RE job with single raw photos and no additional lighting. I usually spend much more time on RE photos but this was a special situation. So I thought I'd share. It's not half assed. It's quick. Now for the amount of time that I was able to shoot, I gave it my all. I would say that is a full ASS in a short period of time. rather than half assed...

40

EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: can anyone share a basic easy multicam video set up with 5d3s?

« on: February 04, 2013, 07:31:24 PM »

Aha. I see. Yeah. The 5D mkiii is more for reference rather than sync. And unless they come up with some magical update, it is pretty much just a marketing scheme

41

EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: 5D MK III High ISO Video

« on: February 04, 2013, 09:42:25 AM »

Impressive for such high iso

42

EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: Video Tiem for 650D

« on: February 04, 2013, 09:40:57 AM »

I just purchased Cannon 650D for videoing as my son said it’s the way I gotta go rather than video camera. I’m impressed with the contrast & colour, BUT I just discovered it only videos 29mins then turns off…
Does anyone know if there is any way around this as I needed it to record 1-1.5hrs continual?

Sorry there is no way to make it actually record longer than that with stopping and starting again. There are camera hacks that auto restart the camera, but you still have a 1 second delay between shots.

43

EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: can anyone share a basic easy multicam video set up with 5d3s?

« on: February 04, 2013, 09:33:43 AM »

I answered a thread with a question about "a basic easy multicam video set up with 5d3s". The easiest method with 2 or 3 5D mkIIIs is to capture half way decent audio on each camera and record audio to a separate continuous audio recorder to use as your main sync track. Then use pluraleyes to auto sync, which only takes a few minutes on the computer.

Trying to do anything with timecode on a Canon DSLR, for now, is only going to cause trouble. With other cameras and other situations, timecode is better. NOT with a Canon photography camera.

Yes I have made commercials for TV and full 30 minute spots... Yes I have had to sync 5 continuous cameras for 2 hours running time... And I don't work for other people, because I don't like to work for other people, and I love what I do.

I am sorry your DSLR that shoots video doesn't run timecode professionally =-( it probably never will.. your probably better off selling it and getting the VERY least a c100 or some other super 35 video camera..

44

EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: can anyone share a basic easy multicam video set up with 5d3s?

« on: February 03, 2013, 01:20:34 AM »

so why do you think time codes exists?

explain

Because when time does we're created, auto sync with sound didn't exist yet. Lol =) well because in a nicely controlled environment timecode easier

45

5D MK III Sample Images / Re: Single raw real estate photos

« on: February 02, 2013, 01:36:53 PM »

I think you have done well to develop a workflow that will make a cheap customer happy.
My only advice would be on the front exterior image.

Try to avoid shooting the house from the garage side. This puts a large boring plane in the front of your composition . In this case the low angle is not helpful but does have  a certain drama the unsophisticated realtor may see as sizzle.

It looks to me that the opposite side view with a tighter  composition could work well.

I am also in SoCal and wrestle with the harsh lighting on daylight shoots. I use LR and have presets for these things with a ton of highlight and shadow correction. I usually add clarity of snap as the opposite seems a bit smeary for me.

Aha. I see what you mean with the garage door. Thank you =-) I think something I need to get away from is only using my 14mm for pretty much all the shots. After you saying that I could have backed up and used 24 or 35mm. What photo tripod would you recommend for the higher angle? The more RE work I do the more willing i will be to invest in photo gear. I primarily shoot video, but dabble heavily in photography. In other words, by tripods don't go higher than eye level..

My primary workflow with these shots were to bring the highlight to -100 and shadows to +100. Then contrast somewhere between +75 and +100 then clarity down a bit to smooth it out. Which I may have over done a bit. I'm still experimenting.