April 16, 2014, 10:28:53 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 - AprilForever

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 48
31
Canon General / Re: Irritating photography advice
« on: October 08, 2013, 10:10:35 AM »
That the 7D is bad...

That only noobs shoot APS-C...

That people who shoot APS-C do so because they don't have enough money to shoot FF...

That only FF can deliver good pictures...


32
Lighting / Re: Long exposure Portrait with second curtain Flash - Advice.
« on: October 08, 2013, 10:02:49 AM »
While you are at it, I would CTO gel your flash, to get the color temperature on your model a little less cool, a little more natural to the surroundings looking.

33
Software & Accessories / Re: What would you do without Photoshop?
« on: October 07, 2013, 02:31:41 AM »
Quote
Just because people use electronic post processing rather than mechanical post processing really makes no difference to me.
 
Film images were doctored just as electronic images are, objects and people were inserted or removed from images, areas of the image lightened or darkened, exposures changed, colors changed, contrast changed, its just that some people do not know how it used to be done and think that post processing is something new.

this +1000

people romanticize the film days and wet processes like they brought some unquestionable truth to the medium. it has always been about image capture --> image processing --> image presentation. nothing has changed in the fundamentals of photography...nothing.

how it is done is far less important than how well it is done.
4


Yes. Also, not everything can be gotten right in camera. Bord photography, for example... Most of it requires a lot of post processing. Read any of the major bird photography blogs, especially Birds As Art.  I do grow tired of hearing the "well you could just get it right in camera" mantra spewed repeatedly...

As for a PS replacement? GIMP.

34
Camera Body Gallery / Re: 7D - Anything shot BY a 7D
« on: October 04, 2013, 04:30:46 PM »
Some more...

35
Camera Body Gallery / Re: 7D - Anything shot BY a 7D
« on: October 04, 2013, 02:38:01 PM »

36
Camera Body Gallery / Re: 7D - Anything shot BY a 7D
« on: October 04, 2013, 12:06:24 PM »
...

37
Camera Body Gallery / Re: 7D - Anything shot BY a 7D
« on: October 04, 2013, 12:04:55 PM »
A few more...

38
Camera Body Gallery / Re: 7D - Anything shot BY a 7D
« on: October 04, 2013, 11:55:08 AM »
Some Bird Images...

39
I have often wondered if Canon would revive the APS-H. They made they fishie lens, what had special markings for it, then abandoned it.  Something I find amusing is to use my 11-16mm Tokina on my 5d mk II. It works to about 14mm, then starts to  vignette. The amount without filter is ok to about 12.5, after which it's just wasting space, except that it becomes maddenling wide angle on the top and bottom of the frame. I would love to try a sigma 8-16 on, but I digress...

 Anyway, what if the 7D mk II were APS-H? Would angle would be workable.... But, would longer become sadder? Mayhap if they increased the pixel density, we could cheer.

My wife has called supper, and, reading htis post, it makes no sense (I work night shift), and must stop become it confuses any more!

40
Lenses / Re: I Repaired my own 50mm 1.4, and so can you!
« on: September 06, 2013, 08:59:25 AM »
You can bend that piece back a couple of times and then you have to replace the barrel.  It's easier to just always leave the hood on and to develop the habit of just setting the focus to past infinity when you stow the lens.

Also worth noting is that for as deep in as you dug, you're not that much further from being able to replace the focus motor and gear train assembly (it's all one part).  The motor burns out and the gears can tear up.



The Ballad of Brave Sir Fifty

Bravely bold Sir Fifty rode forth from Calumet
He was not afraid to die, O brave Sir Fifty!
He was not at all afraid to be killed in nasty ways,
Brave, brave, brave, brave Sir Fifty!

He was not in the least bit scared to filled with fungal growth,
Or to have his aperture fail, and his blades broken;
To have his casing split, and his motor burned away;
And his gears all hacked and mangled, brave Sir Fifty!

His threads smashed in and his barrel torn out
And his switches popped off and his ribbons unplugged
And his electronics scraped and his mount fall off
And his primary--

The 40 mm lens may pancake, or the 135 focus softly, or the 90 shift and tilt, yet these are not strangers to our lands!

41
Lenses / Re: Recommend websites for lens reviews
« on: September 04, 2013, 11:33:40 AM »
Hi,

I'm looking for a good lens review website.

One site that I really like is DPReview (http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews?sort=brand), in particular their sharpness charts (example: http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/canon_100_2p8_is_usm_c16/4). However, they have a very limited database, only 11 Canon lenses as of now.

I also like The Digital Picture (http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-Lens-Reviews.aspx) and Ken Rockwell (http://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/lenses/), but they tend to be more on the subjective side of reviews: not a lot of numbers and charts to compare across. Nothing wrong with that, but not exactly what I'm looking for.

DxOMark (http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Lenses/Camera-Lens-Ratings) has a pretty extensive database, and although some of their reviews can be very controversial here, I have no reason to believe they are not doing a proper job. However, I find most of their charts using colors instead of lines and numbers difficult to compare objectively. Also, sometimes I don't understand their testing criteria.

For instance, the 85/1.8 vs. the 100/2 on the 5DIII: http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Lenses/Compare-Camera-Lenses/Compare-lenses/%28lens1%29/241/%28brand%29/Canon/%28camera1%29/0/%28lens2%29/798/%28brand2%29/Canon/%28camera2%29/0

The 85 is sharper (15 vs 14), has better transmission (2 vs 2.2) and less aberration (3 vs 5). The 100 has slightly less distortion (0.3% vs 0.4%) and vignetting (1.4 vs 1.6). Pretty similar numbers, I'd say. Yet, the 100 has a score of 30 while the 85 gets only 26. And I don't understand why they always seem to say that all lenses are best wide open ("Best at f=100mm & f/2", "Best at f=85mm & f/1.8")

Another example, Sigma 18-35/1.8 vs. Sigma 35/1.4 on the 7D: http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Lenses/Compare-Camera-Lenses/Compare-lenses/%28lens1%29/1141/%28lens2%29/1056/%28brand1%29/Sigma/%28camera1%29/0/%28brand2%29/Sigma/%28camera2%29/619

The 35 has better transmission (1.6 vs 1.8 ), distortion (0.2% vs 0.3%), vignetting (0.8 vs 1.1), and aberration (5 vs 7). The 18-35 is only slightly sharper (13 vs 12), yet the 18-35 has a score of 24 and the 35 only 22. I don't understand their numbers.

Also, highly regarded lenses, like the EF-S 10-22 or the 16-35/2.8L, have some relatively poor numbers on DxOMark.

My ideal site would be like DPReview with a database the size of DxOMark :-) What do you recommend?


The problem with DXO is that art is a subjective matter. Just because a lens scores oddly there, or even badly, does not mean it is a bad lens. Their numbers are meaningless to me, and I suspect in any real world setting, more or less. Also, the DXO scores do not take into consideration something unbelievably important yet often overlooked: the system. A nice lens which does not work with your system or methods will not help much.

42
Site Information / Re: Banning ankorwatt
« on: September 04, 2013, 09:42:31 AM »
I wonder how Ankorwatt feels about this thread... Anyway, I am sure this is not the appropriate way to deal with someone whose actions you may not like. PM's, PM's to mods, but this? It's pretty ridiculous. It's ok for exchanges to get a little heated at times, it's human nature. Judging him in place of the moderators though is not respectul to him or them.

43
Canon General / Re: EF 800 f/5.6L IS II [CR2]
« on: September 03, 2013, 07:01:26 PM »
800 f4!!!

44
Looks pretty good!

45
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: I jumped ship...
« on: September 03, 2013, 06:58:53 PM »
Whaaa....

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 48