July 31, 2014, 10:29:29 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 - RLPhoto

Pages: 1 ... 131 132 [133] 134 135 ... 220
1981
TIFF was used for print back in the day before jpegs could support CMYK color with variable levels of compression.  I find no reason to use TIFF anymore (TIFF can also preserve layers, which might be useful for sending files between PS and gimp?).  Not sure, I dont use gimp so i havent tested that.  Either way, a PDF can do everything a TIFF can + more.

As far as saving the most efficient flattened file, if working with a file that is going to be printed massive and viewed close (best quality), I'd work in CMYK color and save a flat version of my PSD as a PDF.  Otherwise, there is no real reason NOT to save something flat as a jpeg (or PNG).

The benefit of using a PDF is that it's viewable by pretty much everyone, but can preserve vectors and photoshop layers potentially if someone reopens it with PS.

Maybe I am forgetting something...?


TIFF support 16Bits per channel while JPEG only supports 8bit.

Thats the only reason I would export TIFF to the client. If they want additional editing done elsewhere, They have that extra data there.

IE: This link below
http://www.photoshopessentials.com/essentials/16-bit/

1982
Lenses / Re: Need comparisons between Canon 135L vs 100L
« on: November 09, 2012, 12:46:48 PM »
After spending some weeks thinking about this 135 and especially it's massive price tag (at least for me it is), I decided to trash my 70-200 4.0L non-IS (don't use it that often anyway) and get the 135 instead.

So now I own the 100L and the 135L. I am going out for a testdrive later this weekend to see if it's really that magic. But I very much hope so.

Enjoy! If you recieved a good 135L copy, You'll find it's just as sharp as your 70-200 F/4 @ F/2.

1983
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Convince me to shoot in RAW
« on: November 09, 2012, 12:38:51 PM »
If you must shoot JPEG, I'd recommend being conservative with the picture control settings. Clip your blacks or highlights, and you'll never see them again.

Not too much sharpening, low contrast, and not too much saturation on the picture control. This will give you some room if you do need to edit a bit more.

If you are being creative with the picture control, Your tweaking the JPEG in camera and wasting time with that when you could be shooting.

What I've been doing quite a bit lately is shooting RAW, Rating the good shots and Processing them in camera w/ the 5D3. I print 4x6's for 10$ a pop at a photo booth straight from a selphy printer w/ a battery. It works out really well.

Infact, In-camera RAW processing is rapidly becoming my favorite feature on my 5D3!!! Which makes decent prints and a good profit for the occasional photo booth I hold from time to time.

1984
Portrait / Re: maddie
« on: November 09, 2012, 11:53:28 AM »
I like the punchy-colors much better.

You must have been eye-level when shooting these shots because the first photo has a-lot of headroom. If your going for atmosphere around your model, a lower angle would seperate and yet, make the background present. Eye level or above eye level tends to put emphasis on the foreground in-front of your subject.

1985
Lenses / Re: Canon Announces New Lens Caps!
« on: November 09, 2012, 11:05:03 AM »
This has been an interesting (and humorous at times) thread!

I'm going to weigh in... I do *not* like the pinch-type caps, I have some experience with the Tamron caps, and they were finicky, and I hit inside the filter threads all the time.  I find the Canon caps more intuitive, because you're pretty much "fingering" the filter thread area when you put the Canon type cap on, whereas you're blindly aiming the Tamron pinch-type cap.

Also, I wanted to ask... why are folks putting caps on their lenses, with the hoods not reversed?  What's the point?  I can certainly see the desire to either a) leave the hood on, skip the cap or b) reverse hood, put cap on, but why have the hood + cap installed?  Are you worried about dust with the hood on?  If so, then why aren't you worried about covering the felt inner surface of the hood with dust while it's not reversed?

Discuss!

I reverse the lens hood and place the cap on solely for storage purposes. I don't worry about caps when shooting because thats what hoods + UV filters are for.

1986
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Would I benefit from going full frame?
« on: November 09, 2012, 10:57:13 AM »
i am not sure why people complaining about not being able to push iso over 2000 with 7d.  as for me, it is still usable up to 6400.  i do not have my 7d here, but i do bring my 30d with me when traveling to work (keep learning after working hours) and this following picture was taken with max iso of 30d (straight out of camera, just re-size with ACDSee as you can tell from exif).  i choose to use my 7d and 5d iii for events; therefore, i always leave them home.

what i am trying to say here is to choose your angle of shooting and shift your exposure to the right... do not shoot low key with high iso on any crop body...  you can see noise even with FF when shooting low key with 400 iso...

note:  i do not have macro lens, but this is should same kinda shot... "bright background"

just a thought...

I got usable files up to 3200, 6400 was for High-speed B&W's in my use of the 7D. 12,800 was just mush.

Infact, all my graduations shots on my website were from my 7D @ 1600 - 3200 ISO. Perfectly fine.

1987
Lenses / Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS
« on: November 09, 2012, 10:52:24 AM »
Seems like I'm part of that minority of people who are actualy grateful of having IS in a 35/2 lens.

I like the 35 f/2 IS. The old 35mm f/2 was absolute garbage and wouldn't mind this lens if sigma didn't release a 35mm 1.4 for the same price.

1988
Portrait / Re: maddie
« on: November 09, 2012, 10:49:49 AM »
I Like the first shot, but you might want to get alittle tighter. Perhaps a touch of saturation?

I'm not a fan on dutch frames but the occasional one is ok.

Good stuff.

1989
I think you would miss your 24L... When I went on my cruise, it seemed like everything on the ship was BIG, and my WA got a lot of use... Same with Cancun - if you take any day trips and visit the ruins or tidal fish ponds - you will want the WA... The skies and the clouds are vibrant - bring a CPL...

I will definitely bring my CPL's.

My A1000 IS sucks. It doesn't even have manual controls or Raw shooting. Maybe a used s95 or s100 or G12 to use with my 580EX II?

1990
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Convince me to shoot in RAW
« on: November 09, 2012, 10:10:36 AM »
Once I started shooting RAW, I found JPEG's to be absolute garbage. I use Small Jpeg + Raw so i can deliver the little jpeg file if needed ASAP but the RAW for real processing.


1991
The squeaky wheel gets the grease I suppose.


1992
Lenses / Re: 50mm
« on: November 09, 2012, 08:15:20 AM »
The canon 50mm 1.4 is a good lens. It's not perfect but I prefer it over the unrealiable hit rate on the sigma 50's.

If your doing a lot of tight portraits, the 100mm f/2 or the 135L are better choices.

1993
Lenses / Re: Canon Announces New Lens Caps!
« on: November 09, 2012, 08:09:16 AM »
Canon releases the EOS M. It gets 3-4 pages of conversation.

Canon releases new lens caps. Almost 10 pages of controversy.

Whaaaaaaaat?!

1994
I would try to have as much fun as possible!  When I was in Cancun, all I wanted to carry was a little point-and-shoot, and I highly recommend:


IMG_6352ps by drjlo2, on Flickr


IMG_6329 by drjlo2, on Flickr


Love the party shot! Sweet.

1995
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 5D3 Color Balance vs 5D2
« on: November 08, 2012, 03:29:50 PM »
I'm not sure if this has been discussed before but I recently upgraded from Mark2 -> Mark3 and one thing that I noticed instantly was the improved colors/character in the RAW files compared to the Mark2. Not only do they look (according to my tase) more pleasing and vidid but the entire files seem more balanced and neutral yet punchy out of cam. It's almost like I don't need to color correct (which I ALWAYS need to do with the Mark2 files, even with accurate WB, there's a warm/reddish bias)

And when processing the Mark3 files further it only gets better. I'm not sure if this is thanks to a much better AWB or the new color filter, improved profiles or whatever. The last time I got this "feeling" straight out of cam was when shooting with the old classic 5D original - and that's a good sign! Of course, we are talking about subtle observations here but still to me very very noticeable - and I thought it would be fun to share and perhaps hear your opinions as well.

Cheers,

I admit the 5D3 files are fantastic. I went from 5Dc ------> 5D3 and it has a similar color tone. I still like the 5Dc a-little better but the 5D3 is close enough.

Pages: 1 ... 131 132 [133] 134 135 ... 220