July 29, 2014, 11:55:28 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 - TrumpetPower!

Pages: 1 ... 43 44 [45] 46 47 ... 64
661
As Wikipedia puts it, the dew point is the temperature below which the water vapor in a volume of humid air at a constant barometric pressure will condense into liquid water. Condensed water is called dew when it forms on a solid surface.

So, all you need to do to prevent condensation on your gear is to keep it warmer than the dew point.

In most environmental conditions, that's not a problem. However, when the air temperature is below the dew point, you're going to have to heat your equipment to prevent condensation from forming.

I haven't had to deal with this, myself, but I've heard that portable hand warmers are popular amongst astrophotographers for this sort of thing. You might think of wrapping the camera and lens in a blanket and tossing in a low-power electric hand warmer, for example.

Probably the best option is to do your astrophotography in a high altitude desert environment such as Mana Kea, Chile, or Flagstaff. That, of course, can pose different logistical problems....

Cheers,

b&

662
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 40mm f/2.8 STM Firmware Available
« on: August 21, 2012, 08:01:46 PM »
I've yet to have a problem, so I'll be waiting for the next version of the firmware before upgrading.

b&

663
Haven't yet. I'll eventually send it to Canon with a lens or three for AF adjustment after I sign up for CPS Platinum; at that point, I'm sure they'll take care of it.

Will I bother checking to see if they did or not? No.

b&

664
Canon General / Re: To CPS or not to CPS...That is the question
« on: August 13, 2012, 01:39:07 PM »
I'm interested in this discussion, too.

I'm thinking of going with Platinum, but mainly for the extra CLR coupons for some gear I'm planning on selling and because I'm not looking forward to the hassle of shipping the 400 for the firmware fix.

b&

665
Canon General / Re: Large Prints
« on: August 13, 2012, 10:58:36 AM »
but i guess that´s not the case for everyone here who wants to print his images at poster size for 6 bucks....!!

so i can only advice people to do their own sharpening and resizing when using a company that does not treat images individually.

You get what you pay for. If you're buying "fillet mignon" at bulk chuck prices and wondering why the meat is tough as shoe leather and has an off taste to it, I ain't got nothin' for ya.

Cheers,

b&

666
Software & Accessories / Re: Upsizing pictures for large canvas
« on: August 13, 2012, 10:53:46 AM »
Printers, just like any other business, the higher the workload, the less personal attention and QC each item will get...

So stop wasting your money on businesses that aren't selling what you want.

If you wanted a 1DX, would you buy a PowerShot because it was on sale and, hey, it's still a camera and it's a lot cheaper?

No?

So why on Earth would you put all that money and time and energy into capture and processing, only to go with the lowest bidder on final output?

It's like getting a dream stereo system...and then plugging in a pair of $10 earbuds to listen to it.

Quote
Even some processing, such as CMYK for professional commercial printers...  Changing it from RGB to CMYK on personal computers using photoshop gives a more pleasing look at times for out of gamut processing than commercial printers drivers conversion methods...

If that's the case, then the print shop doesn't have an ICC color-managed workflow. And, in this day and age, that's absolutely inexcusable, unprofessional, and incompetent. Yes, even though it's a common problem.

Might as well complain about a tire shop where the mechanics don't know how to use a torque wrench when putting the wheels back on the car. Would you really go back there ever again?

Cheers,

b&

667
Software & Accessories / Re: Upsizing pictures for large canvas
« on: August 13, 2012, 10:43:05 AM »
Resizing is a job for the printer operator. That's what you're paying for.
LOL... do you think there is an operator looking at your individual picture when you send an image to a company like MPIX?  get real!! they process probably over a million images a day.

You get what you pay for.

If you want Walmart prices, you'll have to settle for Walmart quality and customer service.

It should have been obvious from context that I was suggesting to build a professional relationship with the printer operator. A consumer-oriented mega-printer obviously isn't going to do that. If you're unhappy with the quality you get from a consumer-oriented mega-printer, spending five seconds in Photoshop to uprez and sharpen isn't going to solve your quality problems; you need to take your business to somebody who's selling what you want to buy.

Really, your rant is on the bizarre side. If people were comparing the produce selection at Whole Foods and Trader Joe's, and complaining that they weren't happy with what they were finding...and I suggested they try the local farmer's market (unless they wanted to get into gardening)...would you come back and suggest I'm an idiot because a bit of salt and pepper can really liven up the "fresh" salads on the dollar menu at McDonald's?

Cheers,

b&

668
Software & Accessories / Re: Upsizing pictures for large canvas
« on: August 12, 2012, 03:55:55 PM »
If I leave everything to the Pros then why shoot.  This is my hobby and I want to learn.  If I left everthing to the Pros then why take pictures?  You can hire people for that.  Eventually I want to buy my own printer but I want to work on taking and processing pictures first.

If you want to go that route, fine...but be prepared to spend a LOT of money figuring out what you're doing.

The main thing that the pros at the print shop have that you don't is a lot of experience in using those printers.

Large-format printers actually aren't that expensive to buy -- on the order of a 5DIII plus a couple lenses. Less than a 1DX, and much less than a Big White. And they're actually cheaper to operate on a dollar per square inch basis than desktop printers...you're buying ink literally by the gallon, so you get substantial discounts over buying it by the tablespoon.

On the other hand...you're going to be making a lot of test prints to figure out just how to make the thing do what you want it to. That will include color charts that you run through your spectrophotometer so you've got a color profile for every paper stock you use...but, first, for third-party papers, that'll mean experimenting with all the different media settings to figure out just how much ink you can lay down before it starts to pool and smudge. And then you'll finally get to move on to making test prints of real files that you've upsized / sharpened / whatever so you can figure out what workflow works best.

If you really want to do all that yourself, there's no deep magic to it...just the time and expense of doing all that grunt work.

But...the catch is, it will get very expensive to do all that on somebody else's printer, because they're going to charge you full price for each print. And that price will have factored into it not only the capital expense of the printer, not only the cost of the consumables, not only the cost of the maintenance, not only the cost of the salary of the operator, not only the cost of the building rent and all the rest of the business expenses, but enough to make a bit of a profit at the end of the day.

So, my advice -- take it or leave it -- still stands.

Don't do any resizing or output sharpening; just make the photo look good on your monitor. Leave that to the pros.

Or, be prepared to invest at least as much time and money (and floor space!) into printing as your service provider....

Cheers,

b&

669
Canon General / Re: Large Prints
« on: August 12, 2012, 10:31:24 AM »
Really, the only person who should be worrying about this sort of thing is the one who owns and operates the printer.

If you're not that person, leave well enough alone and don't touch a thing. You're paying the shop to get the best possible print out of that piece of equipment, so either trust them to do their job or take your business elsewhere.

In other words, don't do any resizing or final output sharpening or anything else like that. Leave all that to the pros.

Of course, if you have your own large format printer...well, in that case, what are you doing here asking for advice on how to get the most out of it?

Cheers,

b&

670
Software & Accessories / Re: Upsizing pictures for large canvas
« on: August 12, 2012, 10:21:22 AM »
Eh, I see lots of bad advice on this thread.

Let me try to cut through it all with but a single bit of advice.

DO NOT RESIZE.

Either you have your own large-format printer that you'll be using or you don't.

If you do, you're not coming to the Canon Rumors forum for advice on how to use it, which means that, if you're here and reading this, then you're not the printer operator.

Resizing is a job for the printer operator. That's what you're paying for.

Just prepare the file to the best of your abilities, and let the printer operator figure out how to get the best possible output for that particular printer.

You're not only not going to do even as good a job as the seasoned pro, you're going to make things worse. Once you've done your resizing, the damage you've done to the file can't be undone.

So, just hand over the file and be done with it. If you don't like the results, discuss it with the printer operator and be ready to take your business elsewhere.

Cheers,

b&

671
Unfortunately, automatically implemented HDR features aren't of interest to me in their current state. I need the raw files.

That's exactly what the 5DIII does. It saves all the original RAW files plus a JPEG preview rendering in your choice of a few styles (including a not-hideous "Natural" mode that avoids excessive tone-mapping).

And, as I mentioned, it does this at six frames per second.

It's also got a pretty extensive auto-bracket mode that does the same thing but without the JPEG rendering.

b&

672
Dynamic range isn't just about not knowing how to expose. If you don't control your lighting, you quickly find that the world offers way more than ten stops of range in everyday scenes. Shooting black and white 4x5 I frequently had to do N- (pull) development to get 15 or more stops at a useable range. With the d800 I get a bit over 12 without the noise becoming objectionable. This is a big deal for me in the kinds of urban landscapes and unlit interiors that I do.

The problem I see with this is that, if the 12 stops of the 5DIII isn't enough, then the 14 stops of the D800 is unlikely to be sufficient, either...and, in any case, you'll get far superior results with even a two-exposure HDR rendering.

Now, consider that the 5DIII has an in-camera auto-HDR mode that will do a 6 frames per second bracket and even give you a not-miserable JPEG preview of the results...and the dynamic range advantage of the D800 vanishes in a flash.

That leaves the only remaining real-world advantage to the D800's dynamic range being for high-contrast scenes not suited to tripod work where you'll still have the luxury of being able to do significant amounts of post-processing...and, for the life of me, I can't think of anybody who actually shoots like that. Outdoor daytime sports published in high-end magazines? If so, good luck getting the shot in the first place, between the D800's framerate, autofocus, and Nikon's heavyweight supertelephotos....

Cheers,

b&

673
<sigh />

The D800 wins on megapickle count and the fact that, at ISO 100, you can push the shadows by four stops to get ISO 1600-equivalent noise whereas if you try that on the 5DIII you might get ISO 6400-equivalent noise in your pushed-four-stops shadows.

That's it.

Every other metric, starting with white balance and color rendition (which have a much bigger impact on image quality) and continuing on through framerate, autofocus performance, and all the rest...the 5DIII smokes the D800.

So, sure. If you're shooting in bad light and / or underexposing your images and if you're also printing bigger than 36" x 54" and if you've adapted a Canon TS-E lens to your Nikon and if you're too cheap to go to medium format...then the D800 is the choice for you. Or, of course, if you're already heavily invested in Nikon glass.

Existing Nikonians aside, that leaves, like, nobody except for a small handful who get their jollies by making underexposed out-of-focus extreme macro images of the insides of lens caps.

Cheers,

b&

674
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 35 f/1.4L II [CR2]
« on: August 08, 2012, 05:39:15 PM »
How about 9 aperture blades, please?


And here I thought <a href="http://www.theonion.com/articles/fuck-everything-were-doing-five-blades,11056/">five blades</a> was overkill....

b&

675
Software & Accessories / Re: Need advice - Pixma P9000Mk2 or P9500Mk2 ?
« on: August 08, 2012, 05:37:26 PM »
If you do a lot of black and white, you'll definitely want something with neutral grays in the inkset.

Your best bet may well be to get something like the Epson Stylus 1400 and a third-party inkset (inksupply.com is one of the more-mentioned sources).

That, or make sure that your printer has at least four different neutral inks in its inkset....

Cheers,

b&

Pages: 1 ... 43 44 [45] 46 47 ... 64