Messages

31

Canon General / Re: Large Prints

« on: August 13, 2012, 11:49:32 AM »

First, can we all use DPI and PPI correctly?  They're being tossed around in this thread incorrectly, and may be confusing to the OP.  Image resolution is defined in PPI - pixels per inch.  DPI, or dots per inch, is a function of the print machine itself, and has nothing to do with the image.  I think most people here are referencing DPI when they mean PPI.  Here's a basic primer... http://www.andrewdaceyphotography.com/articles/dpi/

Now, with that mess out of the way, the method for enlarging/printing varies from printer to printer.  For example, most modern LightJet printers can print images at 150 PPI with no quality loss whatsoever.  I print most of my larger art prints at 150 PPI, which helps a lot with native print dimensions. 

If I do need to enlarge it, I can usually get some significant upsizing from PerfectResize before I start seeing any type of resampling artifacts.  I know one world renowned fine art landscape photographer who shoots exclusively with a 5D Mark II and relies solely on PerfectResize to get his 10' wide prints and larger.  I won't do any name dropping here, but he explained his editing process to me from camera to print (which I have totally adopted), and this is it in a nutshell:

- Import to Lightroom from camera body
- Basic exposure/correction edits within Lightroom
- Export image at 150 PPI with embedded printer profile (I use TIFF at this stage)
- Open in Adobe Photoshop to softproof and enlarge with PerfectResize (if enlarging is needed)
- Perform any final color edits/corrections as needed
- Apply final sharpening within Photoshop (sharpening is always a final step - apply NO sharpening in LR!)
- Save final version as max. quality JPG and send to printer

I have enlarged a photo I took 3 years ago with my 40D to 60" in the longest dimension with no quality reduction whatsoever.  PerfectResize is the schitt.

32

Landscape / Re: Perseid Meteor Shower. Share your photos.

« on: August 12, 2012, 04:09:20 PM »

Great picture under adventerous conditions! At which ISOs do you shoot nightsky regularly? While shooting with my 30D yesterday night at Iso 800 I just made up my mind to go definitely for a 5D3. Moonless or small crescent moon nightsky shots don't produce very usable material at these Isos. Especially if you aim for the Milky Way. As I really like to take these pictures, I kinda feel the limits gearwise. Which are the highest ISO you shoot at? 3200, 6400 or higher? Thanks for any hints. Cheers, Peter

Thanks, Pedro, Victor and Brett!

This was really the first time I had attempted to do "frozen" stars with my 5D3.  I've done them on my 7D with an f/2.8 Tokina lens at lower ISOs with some decent results.  But the fastest lens I have for my 5D3 is my 17-40 f/4L.  Being limited to f4 on the widest end, I really had to push the ISO up to 6400 with a 30 second exposure.  30 seconds is about as long as you can go at 17mm before you start seeing star movement.  Even on this image, at original size, you can see the stars slightly blurred from the earth's rotation.  Even with this reduced size version, you can still see some movement blur on the stars in the far right of the frame.

So to answer your question, the ISO 6400 leaves a little to be desired from a noise/potential-print standpoint, although it's workable with heavy NR in post.  If I were to do this again I'd rent an f/2.8 lens, so I could drop a few stops in ISO and get a cleaner result.

On a side note, I started doing astrophotography on my 40D.  As long as you stay below ISO 400, and don't mind star trails, you'll get results plenty clean enough for printing from your 30D!

33

Landscape / Re: Perseid Meteor Shower. Share your photos.

« on: August 12, 2012, 01:48:45 PM »

Here's my image and my story....

When I heard about the Perseid meteor shower I decided early on that I wanted to try and shoot it from the summit of Mount Evans in Arapaho National Forest.  I mainly do long exposure star trails, but I thought I'd try some shorter-exposure high-ISO work with the 5D3 to get "frozen" stars with a meteor streak in the the shot.  That requires a lot of luck, I know, but I set out none the less with this goal in mind. 

I spent most of yesterday getting my gear ready, charging batteries, testing speedlights, getting the color gels laid out that I would use, etc.  I even got my cold weather gear out since I knew the summit would be chilly.

The clear sky charts were questionable, but a clearing was indicated between 1am - 4am, so I thought I'd go for it.  I set out early, around 9:30pm, and I'm glad I did.  The base of Mount Evans is about an hour from Denver, and then there's the summit road to drive.  I forgot how dicey that summit road is, and in the middle of the night, the sheer drop-offs make for quite a white knuckle drive.  I think the 14-mile summit access road took me an hour alone.

When I got to the top, I immediately started setting up my gear and taking some shots.  The sky was clear, and I didn't want to waste it.  Good thing too - because within about 40 minutes heavy clouds rolled in and the rest of the night was a bust.  The shot below is my favorite of about only 12 photos I took last night.  This is by far the fewest number of photos I've ever taken given the amount of preparation and driving I did. 

Even with only one good photo to show for my efforts, it was well worth it....

34

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: How good is the 7D autofocus system?

« on: August 11, 2012, 02:42:41 AM »

A lot of the photography I do is done low light areas which is why this accuracy and speed in lightly lit areas will be the deciding factor. Can one of you more experience canon guys give me an unbiased opinion on the AF system in comparison to the D7000? Does the 7D low light accuracy resemble the godly 5D3 system I've heard about?

Thanks in advance!

Not even close.

I own both cameras, and in my experience the 7D doesn't even come close to the 5D3's AF accuracy.  Don't get me wrong, the 7D is a strong performer, but for my low light event photography, the 5D3 is my go-to. 

Before I got my 5D3 I used my 7D in plenty of low-light event shoots, however, the keeper rate was less than ideal.  When I couldn't use a speedlite for an AF beam, and had to rely solely on the sensor/lens, the 7D left a lot to be desired.  At least in my opinion.  Missed focus was a constant issue (check some of my old 2011 posts for rantings on the 7D's AF), and I ended up throwing away more shots than I ever had even on my 40D.  With that said, the 7D is still my backup, but 10 times out of 10 I'll grab my 5D3 first for low-light shoots where no flash or AF beam is allowed.  It's just that good.

Also - I hate to stir the pot, but in order to be fair I feel I must disclose all sides... hop on Google and search for "7D AF issue."  Yes, there are some people who get a little crazy when discussing the 7D's AF performance, but there is definitely a consistent group of people who feel the 7D's AF is shoddy.  Info here, and here.

If I were you I'd rent both, and judge for yourself.  But if low-light AF is your thing, there's really no discussion as far as I'm concerned.  The 5D3 is your only answer.

Also, check the post just a couple topics down from this one if you want to review some of the science behind both AF systems.  According to Roger Cicala, the standard deviation performance of the 7D was the worst of all Canon bodies he tested (tied with the T3i).  As for the 5D3... well... it was the best:  http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/08/autofocus-reality-part-3b-canon-cameras#more-8458 

35

Lenses / Re: Looking for a EF 70-200 IS USM II. Used is fine. Ideas?

« on: August 10, 2012, 07:58:05 PM »

For long lenses, always check over at the Sports Shooters classifieds:  http://www.sportsshooter.com/classifieds.html

Its membership is by invite/referral only, so most of the sellers on there are pretty reputable.  I bought a 70-200 classic on there last year, and when I asked about its condition he offered to send it to Canon Irvine for a check before he shipped it to me.  Turns out it needed a focusing ring replaced... it was out of warranty but he covered the cost himself (totally honored the original price) and even included the Canon repair receipt when he shipped it.

That's my only experience with SS so far, but it was a damn good one.

36

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Battery Drain on Pixel Vertax Grip for 5D3?

« on: August 09, 2012, 06:17:04 PM »

Canon says not to store batteries in the camera or grip when the system is not in use in the manual shipped with the 5D3 because of battery drain. In fact is says to leave the batteries in for no more than 24 hours prior to a shoot.

Perhaps the drain that is been seen is excessive, but is it really an issue? If you're not going to use the camera for 5 days take the batteries out like Canon says you should.

The drain with the Pixel Vertax grip is real, and they've since acknowledged the issue.  I wrote a blog post on my site specifically about the problem and the resolution:

http://www.akphotodenver.com/pixel-vertax-bg-e11-battery-drain-issue-canon-5d3/

Pixel has fixed the problem in newer grips.  If you have a grip with the battery drain problem, simply contact them for a replacement.

37

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 5D3 review: If you don't own Canon, buy the Nikon D800

« on: August 09, 2012, 12:27:56 PM »

I would recommend a newbie to go with the 5DM3 + 24-105L kit

I think recommending a $4,300 investment to a newbie photographer is poor advice.  A used 40D with a 28-135mm lens for $600 is more than enough for some one who is new to photography.

38

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Craigslist 5D3 for 2900, good deal or buy 5d2 or 6d?

« on: August 09, 2012, 11:38:41 AM »

With the rumors of a new FF body this fall (EOS 6D) and a high MP body being announced around Christmas (likely launching Q1 2013), I wouldn't make any significant camera purchase right now.  Canon is currently in the mode of responding to the D800, and I have a feeling we won't see the full breadth of their EOS lineup for another 90-120 days. 

If I were you I'd sit tight for a few months.  I know that is sometimes hard to do, but I have a feeling it will be well worth the wait.  If you just can't wait, go 5D Mark II, it's still the best selling FF of all time and holds its value well.  Having used the 5D3 for more than three months, I can honestly say that it's really not worth the cost increase over the 5D2.  I know I'll probably get slammed for saying that, but that's my honest opinion.

39

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 5D3 review: If you don't own Canon, buy the Nikon D800

« on: August 09, 2012, 11:24:05 AM »

Ok, if the 5D2 and 5D3 have relatively poor DR as some say, at all ISO's, what about the 1Ds3?  Does that have poor DR?

It's all relative, and in that respect I don't think "poor" is the correct term.  The 5D3 has great dynamic range; it just isn't as good as the the D800's.

40

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 5D3 review: If you don't own Canon, buy the Nikon D800

« on: August 09, 2012, 11:20:28 AM »

<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.

That's it?  That's quite a lot.  But in reality this discussion has occurred a million times since both cameras were released - and I guess we need to do it again. 

The review posted by the OP isn't far off base.  A lot of Canon loyalists - me being one of them - felt the 5D3 was more of a dot upgrade than a complete overhaul.  I'm not complaining, but let's be frank, the 5D3 is really a 5D MarkII.2.  The AF and burst upgrades are nice improvements, and the new ISOs are great, but there's no honest photographer who can say he's not jealous of the D800's dynamic range and megapixel count.  And for those who don't always need 36MP, the Nikon crop mode allows for shooting smaller sized files. 

Many people try to argue, "hey - you don't need that DR or those MPs!"  And for the average editorial, wedding, action, portrait and photojourn shooter, that's entirely true.  And this is where I agree that the two bodies serve almost two separate classes of customer, 1) the wedding/portrait or general shooter, and 2) the studio or landscape shooter.  Without a doubt the D800 has become the go to for serious landscape photographers or those looking to expand their commercial work in the studio.  The megapixels are what editors and graphic designers are looking for in the commercial realm, and the DR and huge print sizes make landscapers giddy with joy.  And in those regards, the 5D3 just cannot compete.  No way, no how, so let's not pretend that it can.

That said, the wedding/event/portrait shooter doesn't need or want 36MP and that's where the 5D3 shines.  I would never even consider taking a D800 on a event or wedding gig!  Can you imaging trying to handle 800 36MP photo files in post?  NO THANK YOU! 

So each camera is incredible, and each serve their respective markets incredibly well.  But to totally discount reviews because of our own Canon bias is a little silly.  And besides, if we all weren't so jealous of the D800's capabilities, there wouldn't be rumors of Canon dropping a high MP body early next year.

Let's be adults and face the facts... Nikon caught Canon off guard with the D800.  Canon is listening to its user base, and will respond accordingly.  Just hold tight - we'll get our DR and MPs soon enough.

41

Portrait / Re: Portrait Feedback Please!

« on: August 08, 2012, 06:22:40 PM »

I strongly believe some practice and reading are in order as well as pre shoot planning...

Sit down and plan what it is you are going to do, what results you want and what the subject expects and try again and you will see the difference.

A wise photographer once told me... "failure to plan, is a plan to fail."

42

Portrait / Re: Portrait Feedback Please!

« on: August 08, 2012, 11:02:08 AM »

pubis

+1

BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHahahahhaha.  That +1 just made me snort my coffee. 

43

Portrait / Re: Portrait Feedback Please!

« on: August 07, 2012, 07:04:55 PM »

That squatting pose is really not good delete it from your shot list, very very unflattering to the poor girl
Also try not have straight joints  like the main supporting leg where knee is locked solid
and get her to wear heals it will make her poses a lot better due to creating better shape to her legs
Search for some posing guides there is a lot of resource around on the net get a few good poses and practice those shoting at different angles

I was about to write the same... the pose on #2 is a no no.. seriously...

And here's a +3!

I saw that squat pose and gasped out loud.  Straight on pread leg squat poses of a female model with short shorts is totally unflattering and inappropriate - unless you're going for a porno type look.  "Nono - squat here, with your hands between your legs - really, it's gonna look killer!"  If this was a client you were taking on location for her senior photoshoot, her parents would smack the sh*t out of you... leave without paying... and then call the police.

So, not to beat a dead horse, but be more appropriate with your posing.  As wickidwombat suggested, google for posing ideas and basic guides.  Also, don't be afraid to take reference shots on a shoot.  I often times work from older photos, or even photos I've found online, to keep my creative juices flowing during a shoot.  It helps me come up with pose ideas when my mind goes blank, and shows the client you're committed to creating a quality product.  Remember, the model is relying on YOU to know how to pose them!

Other than that, keep up the good work.  Oh, and buy a cheap reflector.  More

here	Small | Large

, and

here	Small | Large

.  You can thank me later. 

44

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 1D X NOT compatible with Pocket Wizard!

« on: July 23, 2012, 02:31:52 PM »

That is of course a very valid point, and I'm glad you pointed it out.

But I must admit, I reeaally don't care about what law says what when I'm buying a very expensive product that promises gold and unicorns and fail on every single level when I wanted to use them.

Like I said, to each their own.  If functionality is your only factor when purchasing gear, then Phottix offers a very attractive solution.  Those seeking other points of satisfaction may be swayed by the competition.  Throwing my own two cents into the hat... I've dropped Flex units, suffered the 580EX flash tube failure, and every item damaged has been serviced by PocketWizard free of charge and returned with expedited shipping. 

That's a very big plus to me.  But I can certainly understand how others might be less interested by service, when their only requirement is instant gratification with compatibility with the latest gear.  That's why competition exists!

45

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 1D X NOT compatible with Pocket Wizard!

« on: July 23, 2012, 06:35:59 AM »

Just to toot THAT horn again, it works perfect with the Phottix Odin and always has. Tried with the first firmware on a Sample 1d X and it worked. Used it a lot on my 5d3 and it works without a single hitch, no matter which speed I shoot.

The Phottix Odins come up from time to time when compatibility issues with PocketWizard is discussed.  One must keep in mind that the two companies are from two different countries that operate under different laws.

Phottix is a Chinese company, and is simply forwarding the stock Canon flash code on to its receivers.  They can only get away with this by operating outside the USA.  On the flip side, as an American company PocketWizard cannot use Canon's codes without violating US patents.  To get around this, they reverse engineer the flash codes, transmit a proprietary PocketWizard code, which is then converted back to Canon's coding on the receiving end.  A bit of a mess which requires the long and tedious process of reverse engineering when new products launch.  Unfortunately, it's the only way PW can operate in the USA and remain legal.  If all they were doing was sending out Canon signals in a PocketWizard branded box (the Phottix approach), they'd be slapped with a lawsuit in no time.

There are pros/cons to both systems, and pros/cons to working with a foreign manufacturer vs. a US supplier.  To each their own.  I just think it should be understood why one system often works "out of the box" when the other does not.