December 20, 2014, 01:49:57 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 - Hector1970

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7
61
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Better Dynamic Range in a Camera
« on: February 19, 2013, 12:04:37 PM »
Wow the answers are getting even better and more detailed.
When I look at a scene I often can see the bright and the dark and not lose detail in the bright or the dark.
When I take a photo of the scene depending on where it's metering it might make a photo too bright or too dark (losing detail in either case). It might also (if I meter correctly) do a kind of average where I lose some detail in the bright and some detail in the dark.
The dark bit I might dodge and the light bit I might burn (or use a lightroom filter).
Could a sensor have dark but retain all the detail (ie it's not black unless it  is black) and bright light but also retain all the detail (it's bright but not completely white)?
Then there would be no need to dodge or burn or use filters.

I suppose in the end a photographer is trying to capture what they see (or at least what they think they see).
The photo is often under or overexposed or both.
In their chase of more expensive equipment (bodies, lenses, filters, software) they are trying to combat these possibilities.
In the morning or evening light the dynamic range is less and they can capture the scene with their sensor.
By midday this possibility may be gone.
Could it be possible to capture this by camera and lens alone by a magic sensor which captures the scene as an eye would?
By the answers so far it doesn't seem to be so easy to do.
Maybe the eye fools us because it is all the time processing the information to show us all the scene.

62
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Better Dynamic Range in a Camera
« on: February 18, 2013, 05:28:52 PM »
Maybe I'm sorry I asked this question. :)
The answers are great but making me even more confused.
I'm suppose I'm missing what's missing to get a photograph to have all the dynamic ranges I see with my eyes.
Is it impossible to translate it to a photograph?
Does it take a combination of photos to get a photo to resemble that?
It continues to astound me the technical knowledge people on this site have.
I read alot about photography but feel like a beginner compared to some of the experts here.
It's brilliant to have this source of knowledge.

63
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Better Dynamic Range in a Camera
« on: February 18, 2013, 06:12:21 AM »
I own a Canon 5D Mark III which is a great camera. I still have my 500D which is still a very good camera which I still enjoy using. The 5D has better ISO and Focusing and lots more buttons. It has a bigger sensor which does help improve image quality and does nice things with depth of field. The ISO improvement is really great.
One thing that maybe is better (but not obviously better) is the dynamic range of the sensor.
I can't see a whole lot of improvement over a 500D (I may not be looking properly).
What would be a great leap forward would be a sensor that captures the light in a scene with all it's ranges like an eye would.
I've seen in places that some people think the human eye has a dynamic range of around 20 stops other saying 6.5.
I've also seen it said that the dynamic range of a camera (9-11) exceeds the dynamic range of print (6.5 stops).

I am not a techical expert in this area and I know the eye is quite a complex mechanism and the brain also tinkers with an image but:
When I look at a scene with alot of different light I can take it all in and I see a picture in my mind.
When I take a photograph of it certain areas are lighter or darker than I saw.
I then have to edit my image to something approximately to what I saw (or thought I saw).

How hard is it to make a sensor with a higher dynamic range?
Can it be translated into something you see straight off on a screen or a print?

I'm sure a company that could produce a camera that produces images more like how a human sees the scene as would really be onto a big winner.
What would it take to do that?
Is it better dynamic range ability or is it something else that's required?

Kind Regards
Fergal
http://www.flickr.com/photos/fergalocallaghan/

64
Landscape / Re: Need some advice & guidance about night/astrophotography
« on: February 16, 2013, 11:42:09 AM »
Some great advice above from Noisejammer.
I must check out Cartes Du Ciel. I hadn't heard of that before.
The iPhone Apps are good for finding out what is what in the sky (amazing really - but we are just getting so used to the technology).
My little piece of advice is to check out a Samyang (Rokinon/Wallimax) 14mm F.28 Lens.
It's super on Full Frame for Wide Field Astrophotography.
There isn't a hard infinity stop, infinity is a little before the end of the focus
This is a relatively cheap lens (all manual - which I think actually helps learning - but may cause initial confusion).
I've used their 8mm Fisheye on an APS-C camera as well with good results (this is F3.5).
I shoot at ISO 1600, F2.8 and 30 Secs normally on a 5D Mark III.
The sky helps too.
I was in Australia recently - it was amazing at night time away from civilisation.
It's not so easy at home in Ireland when you can't guarantee what the sky will be like (and will be cloudy most nights)
Here's an example from Australia

http://www.flickr.com/photos/fergalocallaghan/8398523233/#in/photostream

65
Lenses / Re: Fellow stargazers & nighttime landscape loners!
« on: December 18, 2012, 04:26:00 AM »
I'm delighted to see this topic up here.
I've been using on an APS-C Camera the Rokinon (Samyang) 8mm Fisheye F3.5.
It was quite good.
On the 5D Mark III I can tolerate higher ISO's so I've been using the 17-40mm F4.
Maybe I should have gone for the 16-35mm 2.8 and the wider the better to reduce the time.
I now have the Rokinon 14mm 2.8
I hope I will get good shots from this and am waiting for the opportunity to try.
Any tips on focusing to infinity - I can't see anything on the screen at 10X at these wide angles (except maybe the moon - which I would focus on if it's out).

66
Lenses / Re: Lens to take to Ireland
« on: December 18, 2012, 04:05:12 AM »
I presume you are driving around Ireland rather than treking. The 70-200mm is a great landscape lens. As there alot of Islands dotted around the coast the extra length can also be very useful. The weight is definately the disadvantage. As to the weather the winters have been getting drier and colder and the summer's wetter. Hopefully you will get good weather because Sunrise and Sunset are at very good times.
Locations I could recommend are
Dingle Peninsula (especially  out to Slea Head to see the Blasket Islands)
Beara Peninsula (Castletownbere to Ahillies)
Sheep's Head
Mizen Head (amazing walk to the lighthouse - I'm not 100% sure if it's open  in winter -check on line)
Iconic Cliffs of Moher
Ring of Kerry
Come to Blarney Castle and Gardens (you can kiss the Blarney Stone while you are at it).
This is a look out to the Blasket Islands
http://www.flickr.com/photos/fergalocallaghan/8080855621/#in/photostream

Enjoy your trip - if you can avoid rain you will get some amazing shots.
I've travelled all over the world and still the west coast of Ireland takes my breath away.

Kind Regards
Fergal

67
Lenses / Re: Difficulties choosing next L series
« on: December 16, 2012, 06:33:41 PM »
For sharpness you should go for 70-200mm IS II - Really brilliant.
But in the focal length you are talking about I like the 17-40mm for it's quality at it's price.
17mm TS-E L is a wonderful lens too but the bulbous front always makes me nervous.

68
Lenses / Re: 50 1.4 on 5d3 anyone?
« on: December 16, 2012, 06:28:31 PM »
Another vote for the 50mm 1.4 on a 5D3. I think it's a great lens.
Some of the negative comments make me wonder if they ever used it.
It has a lovely shallow depth of field on full frame.
I'd be a big fan of it.
Sometimes people have a habit of rubbishing lens instead of improving technique.
No modern lens is that rubbish really if you take care with the photograph.
F1.8 50mm is also a good lens for it's price. People criticise it's plastic construction  I'd say you'd be lucky to ever wear it out.
50mm is way more flexible on full frame. It really improves your photography as you have to move around a bit.

69
Lenses / Re: help!! 40mm f/2.8 or 50mm f/1.4?
« on: December 16, 2012, 04:42:27 PM »
Having owned the 50mm 1.8 (but someone else accidently dropped it) I replaced it with a 50mm 1.4 which I love. (Alot of people say the 50mm 1.8 is not well made and don't like it's plastic mount - but I can never understand this - it's a very good lens for the price and reasonably well made - I don't think anything would have survived the drop that damaged it  -strangely it kept working - just visually it was falling apart).
I own the 40mm F2.8 - I've never really used it - it's lovely and compact but it's too close to 50mm in length.
If you want something different you could try a Samyang (Rokinon) 8mm Fisheye. It's a great lens on a APS-C sensor. It's manual everything so you learn alot about Aperture and manual settings on your camera.
If you didn't have the 50mm 1.8 I'd say definately the 50mm 1.4 but since you have it probably 40mm would be better but you should consider other primes like 28mm or 35mm.

70
Video & Movie / My First Video - Short and Sweet
« on: December 11, 2012, 06:28:30 PM »
This is my first attempt of video on the Canon 5D Mark III.
Alot of room for improvement but I've been inspired by some of the people here to give it a go.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/fergalocallaghan/8265738680/#secretfc61824cd1in/photostream

71
Abstract / Abstract Interiors
« on: December 11, 2012, 04:23:54 PM »
I was looking for a spot to place this so I created a new subject called Abstract Interiors.
This is the inside of a Hotel in Cork City Ireland shot with a Fisheye Lens.
It reminded me of something out of a Stanley Kubrick movie.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/fergalocallaghan/8264366397/#in/photostream
Would love to get some comments or some other abstract interiors.

72
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Too much dynamic range?
« on: November 20, 2012, 06:25:00 PM »
I was a bit bamboozled with the question.
Having read it I wondering with the camera with the higher dynamic range it could have if the dynamic range of the scene was wider gone two more stops but because its not required the extra dynamic range would be redundant therefore the cameras are equal for that scene.
The conclusions being if you own the lower dynamic range camera don't take high contrast scene or else you should have bought the camera with the higher dynamic range (which is probably more expensive) . This would lead to severe buyers regret and a need to sell the camera purchased at a loss. This would be sad

73
I use live view to focus. At 10x it's great to manually focus to the part you want in focus.
Everything from Macro, to Landscape, to portrait , to shooting the moon benefit from Live view.
If's it clear at 10X on Liveview it's very in focus.
I'd recommend using it.

74
HDR - High Dynamic Range / Re: Post your HDR images:
« on: November 20, 2012, 05:51:37 PM »
Hi All,
HDR is like Marmite/Vegamite - you either love it or hate it.
Me - I'm a fan , I like it can do to a scene to make it pop :o.
I accept though that others don't like. I think it's pretty fair.
It can be overdone and doesn't suit everything.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/fergalocallaghan/8204550572/#in/photostream
This is my attempt at one. Would love feedback (postive or negative :-\).
Kind Regards
Fergal

75
Landscape / Re: Shooting a moonrise - Need advice
« on: November 09, 2012, 03:42:45 PM »
Glad I was able to convince someone the moon is a moving object.
Even though I see it all the time I still find it a fascinating object.
www.flickr.com/fergalocallaghan

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