November 28, 2014, 06:31:28 PM

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 ... 146 147 [148] 149 150 ... 236
Lenses / Re: Revenge of the Primes
« on: November 12, 2012, 02:32:25 PM »
24L - 50L - 135L were my choice. Very expensive and took time to get but well worth it.


28mm 1.8 - 50mm 1.4 - 100mm f/2. Much more reasonable setup.

That's what I've got: 28mm 1.8 - 50mm 1.8 - 100mm f/2. All nice lenses, the 100 is great for sports. Although I have to say I never use the 28 anymore since I got the 17-40 a few months ago.

Usually I switch between the 17-40 and the 50. Since I've got the cheapy 1.8 this new rumored 50 sounds very interesting to me!

But to answer your question: if you do a lot of landscape/wide-angle then I wouldn't go for primes. The comfort of being able to zoom beats shallower DOF. ;)

I do hope your not excluding the 17mm & 24mm T&S.

EOS Bodies / Re: Has Canon entered the Graveyard Spiral?
« on: November 12, 2012, 02:27:24 PM »
If you don't like canon, Well Shoot Nikon.

If you Don't like Nikon, Well shoot pentax.

If you don't like pentax, Well Shoot sony.

If you don't like Sony, Err... Shoot Canon?

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Sigma 35mm f/1.4 Pricing
« on: November 12, 2012, 01:09:48 PM »
One UK online retailer has come out early with a price on the Sigma 35mm, of £599. For comparison, that is slightly less than the Sigma 85mm f/1.4.

I like the Price. If its any good, I will Buy one ASAP. I tend not to buy first gen products immediately.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Convince me to shoot in RAW
« on: November 12, 2012, 01:07:02 PM »
I suppose the guy at Sports Illustrated shooting JPG because the photos need to go to website live is shooting junk.  You shoot in RAW for one set of circumstances and shoot in JPG for another and neither has to do with quality/junk photography.  That is a gross misinterpretation of their uses.  I've had to shoot JPG at sports before and of course I've shot RAW at sports before.  To say one is better than the other in all situations is assanine. 

Personally I shoot RAW because I like to have it.  Yes I've shot sports before and racked up 500 RAW files.  I simply picked the best 50-70 and deleted the rest.  It wasn't that hard.  And no I don't use RAW as a crutch, I use it because I can and it's available to me.  It's called technology.

To My knowledge, Sport illustrated Photogs shoot RAW because they will crop the crap out of the pictures later.

Lenses / Re: Revenge of the Primes
« on: November 12, 2012, 08:17:47 AM »
24L - 50L - 135L were my choice. Very expensive and took time to get but well worth it.


28mm 1.8 - 50mm 1.4 - 100mm f/2. Much more reasonable setup.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Convince me to shoot in RAW
« on: November 09, 2012, 10:00:57 PM »

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Convince me to shoot in RAW
« on: November 09, 2012, 09:59:48 PM »
This is a Minolta Dimage 7. This camera was released in 2001 with a 5MP sensor. It has RAW shooting capabilitys.

With modern programs like LR4, I was able to squeeze my Maximum IQ out of this camera that JPEG could never do. If you shoot RAW, Your files will only get better with time with better software.

Lenses / Re: Canon Announces New Lens Caps!
« on: November 09, 2012, 01:45:37 PM »
Canon, if you are listening there are lots of catch up ....
were not are. Now Canon stroke back with the mighty caps  ;D
What a might stroke that was too ;D

Who knows? Maybe canon will deliver a death blow with NEW REAR LENS CAPS!  :o

EOS Bodies - For Stills / What do you Love about the 5D3? POLL!
« on: November 09, 2012, 01:39:16 PM »
The 5D3 seems like an under-whelming camera to some CR users. Instead, lets flip the conversation on its head.

What do you like most about your MK3 or about the MK3? My Fav's are the AF and In-camera RAW processing.

2 Votes per person.

Poll Above!  ;D

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

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.

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.

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.

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?


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.

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.

Pages: 1 ... 146 147 [148] 149 150 ... 236