March 03, 2015, 07:41:15 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.

Topics - awinphoto

Pages: 1 [2]
Canon General / Large Prints
« on: February 24, 2012, 03:38:58 PM »
I know this topic is a sensitive issue with some photographers, and each has their own techniques on how they do this, so I'm just curious how each of you handle this topic.  I was trained and brought up in the early digital age that the magic resolution to print at was 300DPI and common acceptance was that you could always reduce an image file with little to no image quality loss, BUT, enlarging an image was questionable your basically making up information that isn't there.  I know and have seen people take photos from a 5d mark 2, 7d's, 50d's and even the 40 and 30D's and print 20x30's or larger.  What is YOUR technique to do such prints given that the 5d mark 2 native resolution when converted at 300DPI is only 13"x19" or the 7D's resolution is roughly 11"x16".  Do you interpolate the file so they are that size @300 DPI?  If so what program do you use?  Do you print at 150 DPI?  Have some other method?  Me personally I try never to print below 240DPI and if I need to, then I interpolate my image in photoshop.  What do you do to your files?

Canon General / Tiffen DFX V3 anyone?
« on: January 04, 2012, 10:49:56 AM »
Hey guys... not that i'm looking for any guinna pigs or anything, but I stumbled across this software package and was wondering if anyone has used it, especially in it's latest version, 3?  From what I gather, it has just about any filter you could every wish to have in your bag, can stack filters, without worrying about stops less light like you would with the filters on camera, you can dial in the opacity of the filters, customize the effect of each filter, etc... Sounds like an incredible package (and prevent me getting any more gray hair worrying if I have my polarizer with me on a shoot or gradiant or whatever... )  Plus I wouldn't have to worry about spending $150 on a top of the line filter that wouldn't degrade my image...

But drawbacks... How are the final outputs?  Does it add noise where noise wouldn't be there otherwise?  How are the quality of files?  Does it have any inherent softening or such (other than the use of diffusion filters in the software package or such)...  Before i get too excited or ahead of myself I just wanted to check with you guys if any of you guys have played with this or similar software (stand-alone or plug-in) and what results you had.  YES i expect to be able to print full resolution if not bigger with the resulted images so if there's any degradation of image file, It would be apparent. 

EOS Bodies - For Stills / 5d Mark 2 Battery Life
« on: December 27, 2011, 10:18:12 AM »
Hey guys... this is geared for those who own 5d Mark 2's and those especially who own the 7D and 5D mark 2's... I have the 7D and loved most of all the wonderful battery life... I could shoot around 500-700 shots on one battery charge... It went on and on and on... I recently got the 5d Mark 2... when I got it, it came with a package including a vertical battery grip, an extra Canon OEM Battery amongst other things... So with the 2 genuine batteries and grip, I had an expectation that I could get a nice chunk of battery life... but even with the two batteries, when I checked the battery status option in camera, it said my 2 batteries, off of a full charge, were both around the 170 shot mark and were both around 40%... Granted, to be fair, the kit included the 24-105 IS L Lens, but does this camera and lens, really have this crappy of a battery life?  The LCD review is only on like 3 seconds or something like that, shooting primarily through the VF with little to no Live View and for the most part, all photos, no video's... I'd love to hear your guy's feedback.   

Canon General / Professional Photography Marketing
« on: December 21, 2011, 10:21:47 AM »
In a previous thread, the topic of Amateur Photography and Professional Photography popped up.  Amateurs are the new up-and-coming competition for Professional Photographers as they can offer lower prices, sometimes free services, and all they want is recognition... So how can we Professionals compete?  How do you compete with craigslist photographers who can shoot a wedding for $100?  How do you make the sell and push your brand as a more desirable service than those who can offer the same job for a fraction of the cost?  This thread is not about the rights and wrongs about the Pro/Amateurs, however this is merely to bounce ideas, share strategies, and to help each other better separate ourselves from the rest. 

EOS Bodies / New Canon 5D Mark III rumor
« on: July 08, 2011, 01:41:25 PM »
I dont know how long it will stay on youtube, but here is a link to a "preview" of the Canon 5d mark III...

Camera looks the same as the current 5D mark II but with a Mark III badge... claims to have 45 pt AF, 8 FPS, digic 5, 28.1 MP, 50-12800 ISO...  Interesting except for the ISO kinda sounds iffy to be lower than the Mark II.  Nicely done but short clips of the camera and too similar to the Mark II sounds off to me...  Claims to be coming soon in the fall... No mention of video... anyways enjoy and it'll be interesting to read the reply's haha. 

United States / Heat Waves
« on: July 07, 2011, 04:05:22 PM »
This is an open question for anyone who has opinions/solutions... Given it's summer, this phenomenon happens more often, and especially in photography, it can be a blessing and a curse depending if you want them in your shots... These can be seen on roads, tarmacs of airports, desert scenes, etc...  the bouncing heat wave effect could make sharp in focus images look out of focus, especially if your shooting telephoto trying to shoot from a distance.  Anyone have any suggestions to beat mother nature and minimize this effect?  I've heard of photo filters that could cut through fog (even though I haven't used any) so i'm wondering if there is any photo filter or technique or whatever that could help.  I've had photoshoots that turned out not quite as I was expecting/hoping because of these waves so any help is welcome. 

EOS Bodies / Movie Post Production
« on: June 13, 2011, 11:12:29 AM »
Hello, question is around compression and post productions.  First let me mention that while I understand for the best videos I shouldn't be using a DSLR and Imovie, but until I get enough paying clients wanting videos who can make me justify final cut pro, this is what I'm using to get my feet wet for the time being.  I did a short film the other day (full HD settings on my 7D) and trimmed it down to a short and sweet 2 minute thing that I intended to email to friends and family (of our kids outting).  Well anyways I understood that when I exported the movie, i dumbed it down to the medium sized option (not HD and not ipod) and it compressed down to 23mb.  While that was fine, that's not what I would consider email friendly or even website friendly due to upload times.  They had a option to export via quicktime and I was able to lower the resolution down to low/medium quality and 640x480 resolution, and still that compressed to almost 50mb!  Am I being unreasonable and 23mb for a 2 minute movie acceptable or is there a better compression method/setting in post that would make that even smaller.  Ideally I would like to get proficient enough to have a few short films that wont take half and hour to load on my website where I could really start marketing myself as a hybrid photographer, but until I get stuff like this ironed out, it cant happen yet.  Please let me know your suggestions...  Please no criticism about equipment because I have to make the most with what I got.  Lastly, while I would feel more comfortable with final cut express than imovie, I heard that it doesn't have any better compression methods than imovie so I would still be in the same situation.  Anyone with experience with imovie/FCE please give me your suggestions.  Thanks.

EOS Bodies / Diffraction, MP and the great beyond
« on: April 22, 2011, 10:33:55 AM »
There has been quite a lot of talk lately regarding bodies and where they are going, especially with MP, Diffraction, and image quality.  Given the length of time within this profession, I thought I would give my 2 cents regarding these issues...

Ever since Canon and Nikon started making digital DSLR's with the D30, D60, and 10D for canon and Nikon's first digital DSLR (that I'm aware of), the D1x, the D30 was 3 MP and the D60, 10D, and D1x were all 6 MP.  At that time photographers criticized the cameras and MP and resolution because it maxed out at just under an 8"x10" print resolution.  Keep in mind photo printers needed and required at that time 300dpi to get anything photo quality, so photographers lived and died by that resolution.  It was determined by people much more technical that me that the resolution of the top slide film was in the low to mid 20mp's and so Canon took notice and slowly started edging up the MP to reach that holy grail. 

Now that the 1Ds and 5D mII has reached that holy grail, canon is thinking on how they can push the limits beyond film and produce something within the medium format realm which I would welcome as long as the image quality doesn't suffer from where it is already.  Nikon hasn't been so aggressive in the MP race and has suffered in the early stages of digital photography because of that.  Nikon has recently started playing the same game with canon regarding MP however they have a slightly different approach with only umping the top tier cameras of each class leaving plenty of room for upgrades and division between classes of photographers.  Canon on the other hand tries to save money by having fewer sensor option trickling down sensors (1Ds to 5D mII, 7D to 60D to Rebel T2I, etc... )  I'm sure they would trickle down the 1D sensor if they made another camera that format size.

There are photographers who say "I dont need X amount of MP!  Nikon only makes 12 Mp and that's all I need"  Well congratulations, you find yourself in the majority of all photographers in the world.  While I have my 5D and 7D, it is not often I print larger than 11x14 and not too often I print 11x14's at that unless there is a reason such as someone is buying it or I'm shooting a commercial shoot for a client.  Back in the days of film, with full frame 35mm's, most people printed 4x6's, 5x7's, and the occasional 8x10's.  Photographers rarely ever printed 11x14's with film negatives because the quality would be slightly compromised.  Lab technicians at film labs would question the photographer to make sure they wanted that size.  Not much has changed from now to then in that regards except even fewer prints are printed and instead put of digital picture frames, facebook, flickr, and email.  You hear the argument that the difference between a 70-200 2.8 lens and the 70-200 F4 lens is that the F4 can never go to F2.8 if and when you need it.  Same goes to MP... you may rarely need to use the sensor at full resolution and down-sample in post production everything you shoot, however if you have a low MP camera, it will never quite be the same upsampled as if it was shot with a higher resolution camera.  It is really as simple as that. 

Lastly, diffraction.  Yes, that is a pain in the butt.  With that said, lens, especially entry level lenses, have not changed dramatically from the film days in regards to quality.  The common rule of thumb with film was you should spend twice the amount on lenses than the body.  This wasn't hard because bodies were so simple and relatively cheap.  With digital, lenses, for the most part minus inflation, have remained pretty stable in pricing with bodies double, tripling, and in some cameras, skyrocketing compared to their film counterparts, so people now try to skimp on lenses because of the high prices of cameras.  Earlier I said in the film days, people rarely printed 11x14's let alone anything bigger cause of image quality issues.  If you take a 11x14 printed from a film camera 35mm, hold a lupe up to it, you would see the exact same diffraction limits as a 7D at full resolution at 100% with an entry level lens.  The difference between now and then because people used to not dare print at that size and now since things are so cheap and its quite easy to throw images in photoshop and zoom to 100%, it's much much easier to notice now.  This falls in the same realm of you get what you pay for.  This isn't anything new.  This isn't something that magically appeared because light hits a sensor rather than a slightly curved plane of film.  Its just much easier to dissect an image now than it was 10 years ago.  Plus I would also dare to say there is double to triple the quantity of "professional photographers" than in the film days because it's easier than in the film days.  The technique and prices have overall lowered with the lack of dark room, and it is easier to learn.  The limitations are there and will not be going away so we as photographers need to raise the bar, learn to compensate, overcome, and enjoy photography.  People who complain about current cameras are the same who complained about the D30, D60, and 10D.  Some people will never be happy, however they are also important because if it wasn't for them, there would be no need for Canon and Nikon to improve. 


Pages: 1 [2]