76
Lens Giveaway Contest / Re: *Contest* Flora - Post Here.
« on: November 15, 2011, 05:20:12 PM »
Hydrangea Portrait
May 24, 2013, 05:11:42 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.
77
Lens Giveaway Contest / Re: *Contest* Wildlife - Post Here.
« on: November 15, 2011, 05:18:34 PM »
Blue Heron Amor
78
Lens Giveaway Contest / Re: *Contest* Wildlife - Post Here.
« on: November 15, 2011, 05:17:55 PM »
The Bear Swimmer
79
Lens Giveaway Contest / Re: *Contest* Wildlife - Post Here.
« on: November 15, 2011, 05:17:20 PM »
Osprey Aerials
80
Lens Giveaway Contest / Re: *Contest* Wildlife - Post Here.
« on: November 15, 2011, 05:16:02 PM »
The Bear Fisherman
81
Lenses / Re: Good yet affordable telephoto lens?
« on: September 09, 2011, 10:37:55 PM »
I believe the original question mentioned "affordable" - the 400mm f5.6 is an incredible value. Though without IS, it is a very lightweight and maneuverable. Very popular for birds-in-flight, and just razor sharp for any telephoto need. Remember, you will almost always be using a 400mm lens on a tripod - so you can work around the IS and f5.6 issues while you save for something more expensive.
Of note is the fact this lens focuses very quickly. Also of note, I find when I set out with a super-telephoto (I once owned the Sigma 50-500), I am almost exclusively at the long end. This convinced me a prime 400 or 500 mm is totally justified and often used. It also steered me away from the 100-400 option (more expensive than a 400mm f5.6). When going less than super-telephoto, you can get by with a 70-200.
Of note is the fact this lens focuses very quickly. Also of note, I find when I set out with a super-telephoto (I once owned the Sigma 50-500), I am almost exclusively at the long end. This convinced me a prime 400 or 500 mm is totally justified and often used. It also steered me away from the 100-400 option (more expensive than a 400mm f5.6). When going less than super-telephoto, you can get by with a 70-200.
82
United Kingdom & Ireland / Re: My first online portfolio!
« on: July 23, 2011, 12:50:37 PM »
Background looked fine to me - white on white for size changes?
What I liked - (1)General simplicity of the look, (2)Photo transitions are nice
Some things to consider - (1)On my screen, with its reolution settings and 16:9 aspect, the slide transition buttons fall below the bottom of the screen which means I had to scroll down a little bit to see and click the transition arrows. If you can resize a bit to bring the bottom up, this would be alleviated. (2)Though I love the simplicity, you may want to include a bit of bio or contact info directly on the main screen (could be small and along the bottom or something.) Believe me, many people love my work and have expressed interest in buying, but because my phone or e-mail or something was not readily available to them, they let it slide by. This can also be done by having a simple intro/splash page which conveys the clean look and having a little more info on the pages once someone delves into the site.
I agree you should always be putting your best foot forward by eliminating anything which is not ruly your very best. Right now I wouldn't sweat it, just keep it in mind - you'll be moving images in and out regularly now that you have a site.
Don't forget to launch e-mail/text/facebook blasts when you add new stuff!
What I liked - (1)General simplicity of the look, (2)Photo transitions are nice
Some things to consider - (1)On my screen, with its reolution settings and 16:9 aspect, the slide transition buttons fall below the bottom of the screen which means I had to scroll down a little bit to see and click the transition arrows. If you can resize a bit to bring the bottom up, this would be alleviated. (2)Though I love the simplicity, you may want to include a bit of bio or contact info directly on the main screen (could be small and along the bottom or something.) Believe me, many people love my work and have expressed interest in buying, but because my phone or e-mail or something was not readily available to them, they let it slide by. This can also be done by having a simple intro/splash page which conveys the clean look and having a little more info on the pages once someone delves into the site.
I agree you should always be putting your best foot forward by eliminating anything which is not ruly your very best. Right now I wouldn't sweat it, just keep it in mind - you'll be moving images in and out regularly now that you have a site.
Don't forget to launch e-mail/text/facebook blasts when you add new stuff!
83
Canon General / Re: Portrait photography - suggestions
« on: July 18, 2011, 08:58:38 AM »
If you intend to upgrade for portrait use, the full-frame 5d mkii is the proper choice. Some may recommend you wait as a mkiii version may be on the near horizon, but there is no certainty there.
Depending on the style of portrait work you want to pursue, other equipment is almost certainly going to be needed (monolights, backgrounds/supports, scrims, grids, etc.) The 7d is also a great camera and allows savings to be used for thes other items - something to consider.
Depending on the style of portrait work you want to pursue, other equipment is almost certainly going to be needed (monolights, backgrounds/supports, scrims, grids, etc.) The 7d is also a great camera and allows savings to be used for thes other items - something to consider.
84
Software & Accessories / Re: Filters - Screw on or not ?
« on: July 07, 2011, 10:21:06 AM »
The color rendition issues were with the Cokin solid ND's not the GND's and especially with the 2 and 3 stop versions. We're not talking about a slight variation here - we're talking about a full purple/magenta cast which is not easily addressed in post processing including RAW files. A quick internet search will provide plenty of examples with side-by-side comparisons which demonstrate the issue clearly.
I have many Cokin filters as well as B+W, Hoya, etc. and have no problems with them except these.
I have many Cokin filters as well as B+W, Hoya, etc. and have no problems with them except these.
85
Software & Accessories / Re: Filters - Screw on or not ?
« on: July 06, 2011, 01:25:33 PM »
I have had, and others have shared a similar experience with, noticable color problems with Cokin ND filters. Their stronger ND's tend to create "purple" color casts. The graduated filters seem better, but the solid ND's are not true ND. Not knocking Cokin overall, or rectangular filter systems, just had poor exoeriences with the solid ND series.
86
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS or EF 70-200mm f/4L IS
« on: May 04, 2011, 10:28:19 AM »
An option for your consideration would be to look for a used 70-200 f2.8 IS version I. Just be aware they sell very quickly!
I have not used the new 70-300 but have used the 70-200 f4 IS and the 70-200 f2.8 IS. The image quality, weight and ease of use of the f4 version is as good as it gets. Of course the f2.8 version is legendary, but its only attribute over the f4 is the extra stop and associated bokeh (which is huge for certain shooting conditions.) But, I would only use the f2.8 if I need the f2.8 aperature because this lens is VERY heavy in comparison to the f4 version. For example, last weekend I spent the entire day shooting an outdoor mixed sporting event. For this I used the f4 version and it worked great - plenty of light, fast focus and very easy to carry/hold up all day. Later at night, I switched to the f2.8 version for photos at a dance where there was some flash and non-flash photography and the f2.8 aperature helped in the low-light conditions. Fortunately this was only several hours long!
I have not used the new 70-300 but have used the 70-200 f4 IS and the 70-200 f2.8 IS. The image quality, weight and ease of use of the f4 version is as good as it gets. Of course the f2.8 version is legendary, but its only attribute over the f4 is the extra stop and associated bokeh (which is huge for certain shooting conditions.) But, I would only use the f2.8 if I need the f2.8 aperature because this lens is VERY heavy in comparison to the f4 version. For example, last weekend I spent the entire day shooting an outdoor mixed sporting event. For this I used the f4 version and it worked great - plenty of light, fast focus and very easy to carry/hold up all day. Later at night, I switched to the f2.8 version for photos at a dance where there was some flash and non-flash photography and the f2.8 aperature helped in the low-light conditions. Fortunately this was only several hours long!
87
Lenses / Re: Purchasing a 70-200 F4 L (is)advice
« on: April 25, 2011, 09:21:47 AM »
I have owned the 70-300 IS non-L zoom and the 70-200 f4 L IS zoom and have to say there was no comparison between the two. The 70-200 L lens produces fantastic color/contrast and images at or near the sharpness of a prime. Simply put, this lens is as good as it gets for this focal range. The quality here outshines the loss of the additional 100mm. The only thing you give up here is the 2.8 aperature available on the much pricier 'big brother.'
As for the 70-300 L, I do not have first hand knowledge of its image quality, but I feel anytime you can get a fixed aperature zoom at the lowest (widest) aperature you can afford you are ahead of the game. This lens is much larger/heavier than the 70-200 f4 which is very light, narrow and easy to handhold.
As for the 70-300 L, I do not have first hand knowledge of its image quality, but I feel anytime you can get a fixed aperature zoom at the lowest (widest) aperature you can afford you are ahead of the game. This lens is much larger/heavier than the 70-200 f4 which is very light, narrow and easy to handhold.
88
Contests / Re: Giveaway - Blue Crane Digital DVD's
« on: March 01, 2011, 01:13:02 PM »
I believe they are in the order you presented them in, ie.:
•1Ds
•Digital Rebel / 300D
•5D Mark II
•1D Mark IV
I'm interested in the "using the 580ex II speedlite" DVD
•1Ds
•Digital Rebel / 300D
•5D Mark II
•1D Mark IV
I'm interested in the "using the 580ex II speedlite" DVD