July 28, 2014, 10:04:06 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 - awinphoto

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 132
16
Marketplace viability is a reasonable topic of conversation.... especially when we are their target demographic... if we have no interest, they are doing something wrong.

Yesterday you had no Irista, today you have 10GB of Free Cloud service to use at your discretion.  If you aren't interested, that's no a them problem, thats a you problem.  Frankly i dont think they give 2 poops whether or not we use it or are interested, but those who do use it and are interested, all the more brand loyalty, and i'm sure it costs them little to nothing.

17
Guys, there's a lot of negativity here going on... (yet another reason why i try to limit my involvement here... )  It's a storage option... not an overly big storage option, but a FREE option to store your best photos to show any one any time any where...  They dont owe you anything...  If they had a 1TB option for a couple hundred i'm sure people would still gripe...  Just be grateful they are trying to look after us a little bit and if you dont want to use it, dont use it.  And BTW, the site worked for me and I was able to set up my free account.  Stop whining. 

18
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 70D Mode Dial Failure?
« on: June 04, 2014, 11:35:02 AM »
sounds weird...  How old is the camera?  Any chance it's within the "return" period for the store to swap out for another body?  How close are you to a Canon repair facility?  Irvine, CA, NJ, NY?  Maybe you have an authorized repair guy near you that can do it quickly under warranty? 

19
Portrait / Re: Mobile studio portraits - am I doing this properly?
« on: June 03, 2014, 01:09:22 PM »
This is my 2 cents... I do paid photos for a local talent agency who needs updated head shots on a regular occasion.  They provide a room that is about 10 feet by 10 feet give or take.. it's painfully small but it is what it is.  I'm trying to convince them to send the actors to my studio instead where i have more room to play with, but until then i got what i got.  I bring 2 of my studio strobes with me.  1 Beauty dish, 1 softbox and 1 reflector.  Beauty dish for face, softbox for rim light/hair light, and I bring about 5-6 different backdrop choices (muslins) and background stand.
I often use a similar set up for portraits but I like to use a wide angle (180 degree) reflector behind the subject.  It serves 3 purposes - (1) light the background, (2) bounce light for a rim light (with lighter backdrops), and (3) adds a nice hot spot behind the subject for a vignette effect around them.

Thats a pretty good setup...  For the most part, my main light, and bouncing of the light, tends to be what lights my backgrounds... I prefer darker backgrounds if I can help it, which is where the nice soft rim-light comes in beautifully to separate them from the background.  In a perfect world, I would bring more lights and have all the bases covered, but then in a perfect world I would be in my studio, or a bigger studio where I have space to add that light and not run out of space and have to worry that by adding that additional light, my overall combination of lights doesn't overpower the overall exposure allowing me to have a nice wide aperture without the use of a ND filter =)

20
Portrait / Re: Mobile studio portraits - am I doing this properly?
« on: June 03, 2014, 10:35:21 AM »
This is my 2 cents... I do paid photos for a local talent agency who needs updated head shots on a regular occasion.  They provide a room that is about 10 feet by 10 feet give or take.. it's painfully small but it is what it is.  I'm trying to convince them to send the actors to my studio instead where i have more room to play with, but until then i got what i got.  I bring 2 of my studio strobes with me.  1 Beauty dish, 1 softbox and 1 reflector.  Beauty dish for face, softbox for rim light/hair light, and I bring about 5-6 different backdrop choices (muslins) and background stand.  The one upside to shooting in such a confined space is I can have my flashes at their lowest settings and still get great lighting at ISO 100.  They also do a good enough job with their "studio" space where I get no stray ambient light so everything is lit by my lights and no anything else.  They require both indoor and outdoor shots for a good variety so for outdoor shots I bring reflectors, canon flashes, and modifiers and look for open shade with no dappled lighting.  I bring basically my whole studio with me minus ottomans/chaises/props, but I get a great result overall.  Good luck with your ventures!

21
And this is why I dont spend much time anymore on this forum... but is fun to watch the banter back and forth... let me get the popcorn warmed up... extra butter this time!

22
The pricing is right on this lens, easily worth spending the 275 over 17-40/4L.

16-35 II is a different ballgame though.  If you are interested in doing indoor event work, IMO the 16-35 II f/2.8L is the better purchase; there simply isn't enough light at many indoor events to use an f/4 lens.  In fact, often f/2.8 isn't even enough; f/2.8 is more useful in low light than f/4 IS at 35mm, and with shutter speed needing to be 1/100 minimum to freeze motion f/4 will hurt in the ISOs department.  A noisy picture caused by five digit ISOs or motion blur will be much more noticeable in low light than less than perfect corner sharpness, and IS aside from not being as effective at wide focal lengths also will not freeze motion.  I do have primes that are below f/2.8, but none of them at 16mm which can be useful in tight quarters like a dancefloor.  The 16-35 II is one of the rare lenses that has a UWA-wide/normal zoom range, f/2.8, and accepts filters (I don't know how I'd feel with a bulbous element at a crowded event).

On the other hand, for landscape work this new 16-35 f/4L IS looks like an easy winner over the 16-35 II f/2.8.

So it depends what you are going to do with it, as is often the case :)  IMO, 16-35 II f/2.8L remains king for now for event photography.

I'll definitely pick this one up, shortly after my daughter is born my bills are all in order...  As far as the 2.8 vs 4 debate, i've been well vocal enough on this...  and for giggles, as a weekend long event we were hired for to do photography coverage for, (all indoors) we played with different lenses and combinations...  Needless to say, Regardless whether it was F4 or 2.8, we needed flash.  And 2.8 made the DOF even more shallow and unforgiving than the F4 was to boot.  In the end, i instructed my assistant photographer, and my wife and I to use our 24-105's.  Had Flash, chewed through batteries but got a good thousand or so images after culling that were sharp, ISO was ok (manually set at around 4000 which on our 5d3 and 6D came out gorgeous), and flash...  I personally feel the argument that you NEED 2.8 for indoors is just wrong.  If F4 cant pull it off, 2.8 really isn't going to buy you much latitude, and you have a narrower DOF.  1.4 and such is even tougher with DOF, especially for event coverage.  It's good for artistic expression and isolating subjects, but shooting groups of people, shooting moving subjects, shooting events, you will likely still need flash or ISO to get good shots, and with modern cameras, ISO is becoming even better.  I've had indoor wedding shots around 20,000 ISO that came out gorgeous with minimal noise...  It is what it is.

I agree with most of what you say. I shoot my 16-35 2.8L II at 5.6 - 11 most of the time, and I probably use f/16 more than I use f/2.8 on that lens.

 f/ 1.4 DOF can be difficult to get a subject in focus, but mostly on lenses >50mm FL. I think the 24 1.4 is not hard to get the whole subject in focus unless you are  less than 5 ft away. The 35 f/2 IS is not hard to get a sharp focus on subjects at f/2, and I suspect the 35 f/1.4 is not much harder either.

Thanks for your reply.  I would say that it isn't so much that it's hard to get focus as that the DOF is so thin, especially for indoors and shootings, lets hypothetically around 8-10 feet, if I were to shoot a small group, or even a couple, at 1.4 the DOF is still less than a foot (2.8 on average about 1.5 feet).  That would be tough to pull of in a studio setting let alone a grab shot, wham bam thank you mam kinda thing.  So, since most people equate needing fast lenses FOR INDOOR EVENTS, that 1.4 or 2.8 is still very thin. I would estimate the vast majority of event indoor work still settles at around 5.6-8 so most small group shots are in focus, which throws out the advantage of 2.8 or faster anyways.  Now there can be that argument that it may let more light into the lens for AF, and that's always nice, but at the inherent tradeoffs such as weight, cost, and bang for the buck), IMHO Meh

f/2.8 is not that thin DOF as you go to UWA. A 50 mm FL at 6 feet away f/2.8 gives DOF 0.78 ft (very thin, and difficult to manage), whereas a 24mm FL gives 3.4 feet, which is more than enough. At 15 feet away for a group, 24mm lens gives a whopping 36 feet of DOF. The razor thin concern doesn't apply at ultra wide.

An extreme example here: 24mm f/1.4 at 15 feet still has a DOF of 11 feet (but Canon's 24 1.4L is very soft in the corners at 1.4, different issue).

16mm f/2.8 at 6 feet away still has a very easy to manage DOF of 11 feet. Even as close as 3 feet, gives about 2 feet DOF.

So, f/2.8 really can help indoor photography for ultrawides without causing DOF problems.

Totally fair enough, but under very few circumstances you would ever want to use 24mm for group shots... way too much distortion on the edges, even with the best of lenses...  the guys in the middle of the frame would look good, the poor guys on the end would look huge.  That being said, it is what it is... 

23
The pricing is right on this lens, easily worth spending the 275 over 17-40/4L.

16-35 II is a different ballgame though.  If you are interested in doing indoor event work, IMO the 16-35 II f/2.8L is the better purchase; there simply isn't enough light at many indoor events to use an f/4 lens.  In fact, often f/2.8 isn't even enough; f/2.8 is more useful in low light than f/4 IS at 35mm, and with shutter speed needing to be 1/100 minimum to freeze motion f/4 will hurt in the ISOs department.  A noisy picture caused by five digit ISOs or motion blur will be much more noticeable in low light than less than perfect corner sharpness, and IS aside from not being as effective at wide focal lengths also will not freeze motion.  I do have primes that are below f/2.8, but none of them at 16mm which can be useful in tight quarters like a dancefloor.  The 16-35 II is one of the rare lenses that has a UWA-wide/normal zoom range, f/2.8, and accepts filters (I don't know how I'd feel with a bulbous element at a crowded event).

On the other hand, for landscape work this new 16-35 f/4L IS looks like an easy winner over the 16-35 II f/2.8.

So it depends what you are going to do with it, as is often the case :)  IMO, 16-35 II f/2.8L remains king for now for event photography.

I'll definitely pick this one up, shortly after my daughter is born my bills are all in order...  As far as the 2.8 vs 4 debate, i've been well vocal enough on this...  and for giggles, as a weekend long event we were hired for to do photography coverage for, (all indoors) we played with different lenses and combinations...  Needless to say, Regardless whether it was F4 or 2.8, we needed flash.  And 2.8 made the DOF even more shallow and unforgiving than the F4 was to boot.  In the end, i instructed my assistant photographer, and my wife and I to use our 24-105's.  Had Flash, chewed through batteries but got a good thousand or so images after culling that were sharp, ISO was ok (manually set at around 4000 which on our 5d3 and 6D came out gorgeous), and flash...  I personally feel the argument that you NEED 2.8 for indoors is just wrong.  If F4 cant pull it off, 2.8 really isn't going to buy you much latitude, and you have a narrower DOF.  1.4 and such is even tougher with DOF, especially for event coverage.  It's good for artistic expression and isolating subjects, but shooting groups of people, shooting moving subjects, shooting events, you will likely still need flash or ISO to get good shots, and with modern cameras, ISO is becoming even better.  I've had indoor wedding shots around 20,000 ISO that came out gorgeous with minimal noise...  It is what it is.

I agree with most of what you say. I shoot my 16-35 2.8L II at 5.6 - 11 most of the time, and I probably use f/16 more than I use f/2.8 on that lens.

 f/ 1.4 DOF can be difficult to get a subject in focus, but mostly on lenses >50mm FL. I think the 24 1.4 is not hard to get the whole subject in focus unless you are  less than 5 ft away. The 35 f/2 IS is not hard to get a sharp focus on subjects at f/2, and I suspect the 35 f/1.4 is not much harder either.

Thanks for your reply.  I would say that it isn't so much that it's hard to get focus as that the DOF is so thin, especially for indoors and shootings, lets hypothetically around 8-10 feet, if I were to shoot a small group, or even a couple, at 1.4 the DOF is still less than a foot (2.8 on average about 1.5 feet).  That would be tough to pull of in a studio setting let alone a grab shot, wham bam thank you mam kinda thing.  So, since most people equate needing fast lenses FOR INDOOR EVENTS, that 1.4 or 2.8 is still very thin. I would estimate the vast majority of event indoor work still settles at around 5.6-8 so most small group shots are in focus, which throws out the advantage of 2.8 or faster anyways.  Now there can be that argument that it may let more light into the lens for AF, and that's always nice, but at the inherent tradeoffs such as weight, cost, and bang for the buck), IMHO Meh

24
The pricing is right on this lens, easily worth spending the 275 over 17-40/4L.

16-35 II is a different ballgame though.  If you are interested in doing indoor event work, IMO the 16-35 II f/2.8L is the better purchase; there simply isn't enough light at many indoor events to use an f/4 lens.  In fact, often f/2.8 isn't even enough; f/2.8 is more useful in low light than f/4 IS at 35mm, and with shutter speed needing to be 1/100 minimum to freeze motion f/4 will hurt in the ISOs department.  A noisy picture caused by five digit ISOs or motion blur will be much more noticeable in low light than less than perfect corner sharpness, and IS aside from not being as effective at wide focal lengths also will not freeze motion.  I do have primes that are below f/2.8, but none of them at 16mm which can be useful in tight quarters like a dancefloor.  The 16-35 II is one of the rare lenses that has a UWA-wide/normal zoom range, f/2.8, and accepts filters (I don't know how I'd feel with a bulbous element at a crowded event).

On the other hand, for landscape work this new 16-35 f/4L IS looks like an easy winner over the 16-35 II f/2.8.

So it depends what you are going to do with it, as is often the case :)  IMO, 16-35 II f/2.8L remains king for now for event photography.

I'll definitely pick this one up, shortly after my daughter is born my bills are all in order...  As far as the 2.8 vs 4 debate, i've been well vocal enough on this...  and for giggles, as a weekend long event we were hired for to do photography coverage for, (all indoors) we played with different lenses and combinations...  Needless to say, Regardless whether it was F4 or 2.8, we needed flash.  And 2.8 made the DOF even more shallow and unforgiving than the F4 was to boot.  In the end, i instructed my assistant photographer, and my wife and I to use our 24-105's.  Had Flash, chewed through batteries but got a good thousand or so images after culling that were sharp, ISO was ok (manually set at around 4000 which on our 5d3 and 6D came out gorgeous), and flash...  I personally feel the argument that you NEED 2.8 for indoors is just wrong.  If F4 cant pull it off, 2.8 really isn't going to buy you much latitude, and you have a narrower DOF.  1.4 and such is even tougher with DOF, especially for event coverage.  It's good for artistic expression and isolating subjects, but shooting groups of people, shooting moving subjects, shooting events, you will likely still need flash or ISO to get good shots, and with modern cameras, ISO is becoming even better.  I've had indoor wedding shots around 20,000 ISO that came out gorgeous with minimal noise...  It is what it is.

25
Photography Technique / Re: Am I the only one this has happened to?
« on: April 20, 2014, 11:31:05 PM »
I'm sorry to hear about your experience.  I've had this happen in numerous of times, places, and situations.  It can be unnerving at times, but it's best to let it roll off your shoulders.  If someone asks you not to take a picture of them, fine, of their kids, then ask who are their kids and just kinda keep them in the back of your mind to frame around, and so on and so forth.  I've had people request no photos and had people slip me a $20 to take a pick of them and email it to them.  You know, just learn to roll with the punches and not let anything get in the way of getting your primary objective done, and that's to get photos done. 

26
Canon General / Re: Helen Oster
« on: April 18, 2014, 07:55:11 AM »
Happy Birthday Helen!

27
Lenses / Re: just hit the purchase button
« on: March 12, 2014, 03:49:58 PM »
Congrats!  We got a larger tax return but instead of buying the camera equipment we wanted to, we have to pay it on a new baby and insurance and copays and all that other fun stuff that comes along with it. 

28
Animal Kingdom / Re: Your best animal shots!
« on: February 24, 2014, 12:27:43 AM »
Eagles diving for afterbirth in Nevada

29
Software & Accessories / Re: Is Adobe CC going to plan?
« on: February 18, 2014, 11:13:10 AM »
J.R., I cant speak for the adobes branch and pricing philosophy in your neck of the woods, but I was concerned about that also when I signed up for the current photoshop plan back in november...  From what I could tell, most of the review sites talking about the current pricing structure seemed to all suggest that with adobes wording, it appears that if you sign up for their plan and stay current paying the plan, then your price appears to be locked...  However if for whatever reason you cancel your plan, let it lapse, or for whatever reason do not continue your account with adobe, prices likely would be going up in which you would not get this current rate you are seeing now.  Of course everything is subject to change, but from everything I saw, that seems to be the overall consensus. 

30
Photography Technique / Re: Photography fail moments !!!
« on: February 06, 2014, 06:39:51 PM »
Honestly, I think your comments are unfair and directed at the wrong "idiot" in this situation. These people obviously used their cameras on "auto" mode. So, the question is, why is the camera not clever enough to actually figure out what's going on, huh? Badly designed "auto" mode from the manufacturers, in my opinion.
The auto mode is only there to help you in the beginning if you're new to photography and started with digital so you can check the exposure settings the camera chooses, see in practice how all those numbers relate to each other and if they get smaller or bigger when it gets darker, and then you're supposed to switch to manual mode when you've got enough of a handle on how exposure works. It's supposed to help you along while you study exposure and basic photography. It's not supposed to be used indefinitely, it's like training wheels for a camera.
I think camera manufacturers spend too much research on the Auto mode as it is, but since it goes hand-in-hand with autofocus and autofocus is a very good thing it's nothing to be scoffed at. What is unreasonable is to expect the auto mode to work in a situation like the one described above. I can already see people complaining about some cars not being fully automatic with gps guiding systems and auto drive so you can sleep on the wheel in the near future when those systems become more common. Non-satellite controlled cars won't be bad cars, and cameras without Auto modes or with auto mode that isn't sentient and all-knowing aren't bad cameras. If you want your camera to take pictures in the most challenging of conditions, learn to take pictures in the most challenging of conditions. Same goes for driving. If you're straight off driving school don't go driving on slippery roads full of curves in the mountains in a lightning storm.

Now now... remember, P is for professional =)

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 132