October 23, 2014, 02:03:16 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 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 20
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.

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.

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?

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 =-)

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!

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!

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...

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

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

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.

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..

so why do you think time codes exists?


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

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.

5D MK III Sample Images / Re: Single raw real estate photos
« on: February 02, 2013, 10:56:15 AM »
I shoot RE photos and personally strive to do the best possible job regardless of the property.  The way I look at it, whenever a home is listed with my work it is a public example of my skills.  It does not matter if the property is a $6M waterfront mansion or a $20k half destroyed condo.  If I accept the job, then I put all of my effort into it.  If I believe the effort is not worth the pay, then I do not take the job in the first place.

Sorry to be blunt, but IMHO it is not right to do a fast job just because the pay isn't enough.  This is an example of your work broadcast across the world.

I understand what you mean, this has always been my idea as well. It is absolutely the way I am with my wedding videography. But RE photos are more for my free time and the client asked me if I would be will to shoot the cheaper houses for less money so he can end up with better pictures then what he would take and so he wouldn't have to deal with shooting the shots on his t2i or deal with processing the photos or anything. I agreed, and this was the first cheap job. I am happy to provide him with better photos then he would have otherwise, and still get the money for my time accordingly. I respect your opinion, and everyone does things differently.

What I said to him

"let me know if these are too saturated for you. I went kinda crazy with them and could easily tone it tone a bit."

Direct quote from his response email

Beautiful! I like them. Thanks for getting them over so quick."

If it was any less than that at all then I would either re-shoot or re-edit, or do whatever it takes for him to like the photos.

5D MK III Sample Images / Re: Single raw real estate photos
« on: February 02, 2013, 10:44:16 AM »

I do try and keep a certain standard, and I know these aren't the worst RE photos out there, I know they are not the best , but certainly not of the lowest standard. I simply did not have the time, or experience, to be able to shoot and edit this in 1 hour and produce amazing photos. Honestly, RE photos are only something I do on the side for two different agents and if they come to me with a $75-200 job and I have nothing else going on, then I am happy to do the work, and happy to do it quick and dirty if that is what they need. If I really got into RE photography then would take it much further and buy the Canon 17mm TS-E and maybe the 24TS-E and make sure I had all the proper lighting necessary for every job. Then it would no longer be a side job for me. I real work is in wedding videography. And that is something I have done ALOT of and have based all my gear purchasing decisions around. I also do wedding photography, but video is more my bread and butter and is where I believe I shine. RE photos are just a side thing for me and keep my mind fresh and learning by posting the images here. I am only 20 and have only been shooting photography for 1.5 years and video for 3. But I really do appreciate your critiques. I think a little bit of it just came off a little strong.

By no means was that to say that your work was bottom of the barrel...what I intended to say was that it's always best to hold high standards rather than to 'settle' with what the client wants, even if it is only $100 per job - "always shoot like it was a million dollar set". I started a computer company when I was 18 and one of my goals is still one that I teach & lecture today - I always educate my client to what should be a minimum standard (my minimum standard, that I've decided is the lowest I'll go - which may be way above what somebody else would accept). "An educated client is a good client and good client's pay good". I don't shoot full time, I write specialty software. However, when I am shooting, I block out a few days from the programming and go shoot like it was the only thing I did.

And, I didn't mean for you to think that I meant you HDR'd the images, just that the images were processed to the point where they had an HDR effect to them - the re-edits are much better and seem much more "real" to the originals that you posted.

I hear ya about not wanting to drag out all the gear for such a fast and cheap shoot - but I would have done it anyways so that I could "educate" my client on what I could do. I've had a few clients who wanted to pay $100 for a set of shots, but I lit it properly, rich and bright, and showed them the shots compared to what they wanted (the "quick" shots). The next time, they paid me extra to "work my magic" with the properties. I even gave them an out by choosing the "cheap and quick" or "purdy" shots and they chose the latter. Kinda like giving yourself a raise!

...that's all that was meant, no intentions of "coming off a bit strong"...

I appreciate your response, and I understand where you are coming from. This however is something I have done. I've been doing work with this client for the last year and a half or so. I've always shot his expensive listings, where I spend more time and polish the images to much higher standards than these. For all of his cheaper houses, he has been shooting "standard" jpeg with T2i and Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8. He recently asked me if I would be willing to shoot those cheaper houses for him and keep it much more basic than normal. So I can make a few bucks and get in and get out. He know what he can pay me for nicer jobs and he know what that looks like, and for his $1 million+ houses he does get the nicer ones. The reason I posted these here was just to share what I did fairly quickly.

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 20