July 26, 2014, 05:51:17 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 - Cgdillan

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 19
46
5D MK III Sample Images / Re: Engagement shoot
« on: February 22, 2013, 02:49:57 AM »

Nicely done...5D III + 70-200 f2.8 IS II = Gift from heaven.

Except for the fact that he has a version I of the 70-200. ;)  (Still nice combo - no flames please.)

!FIRE! =-)

Very nice shots!

47
With all the police I thought a foreign army was invading.

Shots look good, but oh what a difference anti-shake filtering would make.

Yeah no kidding. And for the filter.. i rode over there on my bike and was mostly handheld with one hand and wanted to get it all in the computer quick and online.. I had totally forgot about stabilization =-/

48
Deputy Shooting Leucadia, Encinitas, San Diego, California Small | Large


I just walked outside of my house and notice a lot of commotion on the freeway nearby and  I would say about 20 cop cars passed by in the period of 3 minutes. Apparently 2 deputies were shot and swat team was called in. This is the footage I got.

49
5D MK III Sample Images / Re: Big Sur and San Fran 5D3 Long Exposure
« on: February 19, 2013, 01:33:59 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.

The OP thanked me for my criticism.  I certainly expect harsh criticism whenever I post anything (although I haven't received any yet, that I know of.) 

The whole point of posting images in a gallery here, is for people to look, to comment, to enjoy.  Corey, I think you might be in need of a chill pill the size of the meteor over Russia...But at least a couple users thought my edit was better.  I do apologize if I offended anyone for altering the image!  And I apologize for not getting permission first.  However, he did post it here in a public forum...the original posted image itself is not a full resolution image...and thus could never be printed even postcard size at high quality.  I made no effort to remove the copyright tag, nor would I.  If it had been a full resolution image...I would not have even attempted to copy and edit it. 

I simply like the bridge and the picture, and wanted to show what I remember the color looking like, when I visited what must be almost the exact same location...also at night, back in 2005. 

Cgdillan, I didn't mean to imply you were getting paid to do this shot, but I see where you would like to sell prints of it.  I hope you do. 

It's also nice to see that you are admitting you like a warmer color balance.  That's fine, I even said it certainly is open to interpretation.  I just didn't like what the color did to the bridge itself.  It's an American Icon!  If it were just the city or something else that wasn't painted orange, where the amber city lights would give a nice urban feel or something, then I wouldn't have thought as much about it. 

Also, what I posted was not a reduced resolution picture...it is only barely smaller than his original post, due to the barrel correction edit that I did...unless of course someone else altered what I reposted and made that image smaller.

And the exif didn't show whether it was the f/2.8 or the new f/4 lens...or rather which f/2.8 it is (old or new).  If that's the old f/2.8, then that appears to be quite a bit sharper than the one my cousin uses on his 5D3.  I can only guess, but the corner sharpness is quite decent, and middle 2/3 is very sharp.

I think some of the comments about having the superior edit is offensive to some people. And the lens is the 24-70mm f/2.8 version 1 at 24mm and f/7.1

50
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.

51
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!

52
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.

53
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.

54
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?

55
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 =-)

56
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!  :P

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!

57
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!

58
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...

59
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

60
EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: 5D MK III High ISO Video
« on: February 04, 2013, 09:42:25 AM »
Impressive for such high iso

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 19