July 31, 2014, 01:41:05 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.


Messages - Don Haines

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 190
1
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: DXO uh-oh?
« on: July 30, 2014, 10:30:36 PM »
This conflicts with the whole idea of having ISO anyway (the "s" being for standardization). If it were different between film and digital, light meters, etc. wouldn't work properly.

You might think so, but in fact, they are governor by different standards (which is actually what the 'S' stands for, lots of different standards for lots of different things).  ISO 6, ISO 2240, and ISO 5800 define speed for B&W negative, color reversal, and color negative film, respectively.  ISO 12232 governs sensitivity for digital sensors.
I did a metering comparison tonight... My Olympus OM-1, my Nikon FM, and my light meter all agree... They all date back to the good old days of film and film speeds are ASA numbers. On the test scene they all agreed at 1/400th of a second.

In the digital world, My 60D says 1/1000 sec, my Olympus E-510 says 1/800 sec, and my SX-50 says 1/1000. sensor speeds are ISO numbers.

I know ISO and ASA are supposed to be the same... but this is curious....

2
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: DXO uh-oh?
« on: July 30, 2014, 05:55:44 PM »
...
Then I am told "you're saying you need 12800 for to avoid motion blur has been done and it's been done well, on 400 ISO film, by people who took pride in practising it over and over again" despite that ISO400 would have required a shutter speed of 1 1/3 seconds, and then told "Don't use current tech to make up for not knowing what you're doing".
...

About 10 years ago I tried an experiment where I used the same speed settings on a film cameras as I had used on a digital camera. It didn't work - the film was exposed very differently to digital (I don't remember if it was under/over.) The ISO number that you get when you take a picture with your DSLR is not the same as the ISO number used for film. Try it for yourself.
Thanks for a good laugh....I tried the exact same experiment ages ago and found that the two cameras were off by a factor of two... and I can't remember if it was twice as high or twice as low... DOH! Glad to be in such good company :)

3
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: DXO uh-oh?
« on: July 30, 2014, 02:53:23 PM »
... I guess I should be shooting the subject a 1/3 second....

That might work...if you're a pro.  Are you a pro?  Are you??

 ;)
I am a pro..... just not a photography pro...

4
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: DXO uh-oh?
« on: July 30, 2014, 02:41:27 PM »
"What should I have done to have avoided using ISO12800?" The only advice I got from anyone is to get a camera that shoots better at high ISO.... so if 12800 is bad, then 25,600 must be evil and 51,200 would make me the spawn of Satan...

so perhaps someone else can answer this question.... Why does my use of technology to shoot at ISO12800 make me a bad photographer, yet someone else`s use of technology to shoot with an additional 2 stops of DR make them a great photographer?

The one answer you got for your first question – get a camera with better high ISO performance, is one reasonable answer (even if only renting to meet an occasional need).  With a current Canon FF body you could shoot at ISO 25600 and still have less noise, allowing you an extra stop to 'spend' on shutter speed or DoF.  Depending on your RAW conversion software (I know you said that was SOOC JPG, but you also shoot RAW), with the 60D you could have underexposed by a stop or so, pushed in post, and used the best available NR tools (DxO PRIME, for example), and that might have been better, but might not.

As to your second question, the answer is bias - if you think more DR at low ISO is important to you (especially if you spent a lot of money to get it), but you don't shoot at high ISO, then more DR is critical for your professional photography, but less noise and more DR at very high ISO is a technological crutch for unskilled amatur pichur takers like us.
That's what I thought.... I can borrow a 5D2 and get a 2 stop jump in noise, or buy a 5D3 or 6D and get an additional stop in value, or I could go out and get a Sony a7S and shoot at ISO409,600... but however you slice it, I would still be shooting at ISO12800 or higher. I am told not to go above 1600 so I need to find 3 stops somewhere... I checked at B+H and they don't sell a 50MM F0.50 lens so that option is out... I guess I should be shooting the subject at 1/3 second....

5
and the time lapse.... a drive from Goose bay down to the Labrador coast at the strait of Bell Isle...

https://vimeo.com/102139645

it was about 48Mbytes of GoPro images...

6
Finally packing to go to Boston then Halifax next week. I was given helpful advice of places for bird photography and nature in http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=19255.msg360984#msg360984

Any updates, more help and advice of where to go would be much appreciated.

I don't know whether to take my 300mm f/2.8 II plus extenders or settle on the Tamron 150-600mm for lightness and versatility at the expense of IQ at 600mm. What a terrible dilemma!

I am a lot more familiar with the area around Kentville than the Halifax area. There are quite often wading shorebirds along the mud flats on the Bay of Fundy and I seem to spot eagles every visit. There are also a number of places on the Fundy side offering whale and seabird cruises in the Digby area...

and saving the best for last.... take a look through here and see what tickles your fancy....
http://maybank.tripod.com/BSNS/HRM.htm#sites

7
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: DXO uh-oh?
« on: July 30, 2014, 01:12:10 PM »
Here's my problem....

I am told "12800 wasn't even a possibility not long ago, and in film, an impossibility, and now we have photographers with such a low skill level they require it simply to get their shot."

So I post an example shot at ISO12800, F1.4, 1/25th of a second, in a venue where flash or other lighting is not permitted.  and I ask "What should I have done to have avoided using ISO12800?"

I get lots of advice on changing lighting, even though this was not an option. I had a studio flash in the back of the car and a 600EX-RT in the bag with me. If I could have used them, I would have.

Then I get advice such as "to shoot on the beat", which I had already done.... note the lack of blur in a 1/25 second exposure... and to "hit that moment of a performer when everything stops, just for a 100th of  a second" which is very hard to do at 1/25 of a second, but I did anyway.. and then I am told "someone with true skill and astronomical ISO's available to them will catch something even better, than the guy who needs 12800 to catch a frozen moment on the beat because he doesn't have the skill to get it any other way".

Then I am told "you're saying you need 12800 for to avoid motion blur has been done and it's been done well, on 400 ISO film, by people who took pride in practising it over and over again" despite that ISO400 would have required a shutter speed of 1 1/3 seconds, and then told "Don't use current tech to make up for not knowing what you're doing".

So lots of insults, but none of this answers the original question... "What should I have done to have avoided using ISO12800?" The only advice I got from anyone is to get a camera that shoots better at high ISO.... so if 12800 is bad, then 25,600 must be evil and 51,200 would make me the spawn of Satan...

so perhaps someone else can answer this question.... Why does my use of technology to shoot at ISO12800 make me a bad photographer, yet someone else`s use of technology to shoot with an additional 2 stops of DR make them a great photographer?

8
you can get decent stills from it. I recently shot a time lapse driving through Labrador and caught a few good stills....

9
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: DXO uh-oh?
« on: July 30, 2014, 11:23:04 AM »
*sigh*  ???
Congratulations Jon..... you are the first person to say anything intelligent in this thread.....

Perhaps the thread title should be changed to DX-DOH! :)

10
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon to Make a Big Splash at Photokina? [CR2]
« on: July 30, 2014, 11:20:11 AM »
Two years ago, I was salivating for a new 100-400L.  Now, I'm not sure I'll buy one even if it comes out. I recently sold my 100-400 due to lack of use.  The 70-300L delivers excellent IQ and is a very convenient size for travel.  When I need a longer focal length, I use the 600/4L IS II. 

But, I hope Canon releases a new 100-400L - when the current was my primary birding lens, I was very happy with it.

The more "1DX" they put into the 7D Mark II, the more I will like it!   8)

What if most of what the 1D X they put in the 7DII is retail cost?   :o  ;)
Ah Neuro.... you can be evil :)

I expect the camera to be somewhere in the $2500 range.... so yes, I do expect that a bit of the 1DX price will be included :)

11
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: DXO uh-oh?
« on: July 30, 2014, 11:09:43 AM »
If I were shooting that same venue today, I would be shooting at ISO 25600 and 1/100th of a second. Once again, my choice of ISO does not make me a bad photographer, but my ignoring the tools available to me would.


To break my voluntarily silence, I'll bite.

The skill of shooting musical performance (my daughter is a professional dancer) in low light, is to shoot on the beat.

Cars don't stop for you, dancers and musicians etc do.

A dancer, a violinist, etc, stops on a beat, on a stroke, and it's a moment. Not long, but long enough to catch.

That's when you shoot, and it doesn't take some astronomical ISO to do it. it helps, but that's not the point.

Every classic performance photo you've ever seen was shot with a lot less than 12800 ISO available.

There's a moment, you dance with it, you follow it, and you hit that moment of a performer when everything stops, just for a 100th of  a second, and you get it.

Do astronomical ISO's make it easier? Sure, but then someone with true skill and astronomical ISO's available to them will catch something even better, than the guy who needs 12800 to catch a frozen moment on the beat because he doesn't have the skill to get it any other way.

Learn how to do a job right, then use the current tech to improve it and go to new places and take photos that weren't possible before.

Be rest assured, what you're saying you need 12800 for to avoid motion blur has been done and it's been done well, on 400 ISO film, by people who took pride in practising it over and over again.

Don't use current tech to make up for not knowing what you're doing.

Do you do this for a living?
you did notice that she is paused at the end of a stroke? ? ? ? ?

and if I had the option of changing the lighting conditions, I would have gone back out to the car and brought in a studio flash or used the 600EX-RT that was sitting in my bag.



12
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: DXO uh-oh?
« on: July 30, 2014, 09:40:31 AM »
You can only do so much with a flash. I suggest you go outside on a rainy night and try illuminating a couple hundred meters of roadway...

And he shot from 1950 to 1985.... I think that predates digital photography.

And predates 12800 ISO, completely negating your whole point.

He seems to have done his job fine without studio lights and 12800 ISO cameras.

What was your point exactly?
my point is that you make do with what you have and do the best you can with what you have. When a better tool comes along, you use it. For some conditions, ISO12800 is a better tool. using it when the conditions require it does not make you a bad photographer, but ignoring it when you need it does.

Go back to my picture of the lady playing the fiddle... it was taken with a 60D and this was pushing the camera to the absolute limits. ISO did not go any higher, faster lenses were not an option, and even this shutter speed was not enough to stop blur. Right now I can take the same quality with a 5D3 at ISO51200.... but 6 years ago I could not have pulled it off because my camera at that time produced absolute garbage above ISO800.... I would have had to shot at 2/3 of a second exposure and the motion of the bow would have been extreme.

If I were shooting that same venue today, I would be shooting at ISO 25600 and 1/100th of a second. Once again, my choice of ISO does not make me a bad photographer, but my ignoring the tools available to me would.

13
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: DXO uh-oh?
« on: July 30, 2014, 09:17:54 AM »
Studio photography is a niche. A niche is a subset of the whole.


A niche is specialised small market. Studio photography is not a niche, it is the main place commercial photography is taken.

Say it's 50% of the income of the worlds photographers (I'd guess it's a lot more). Is 50% a niche?

Not on this planet.

Thanks, you made my day. I was going to watch a comedy tonight, but don't need to now.


I don't think you know what that word means......

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/niche?show=0&t=1406726074

niche noun \ˈnich also ˈnēsh or ˈnish\ 

: a job, activity, etc., that is very suitable for someone

: the situation in which a business's products or services can succeed by being sold to a particular kind or group of people

14
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: DXO uh-oh?
« on: July 30, 2014, 09:10:28 AM »
My Dad was a police photographer. He did not have the option of saying "let's keep the debris and bodies all over the highway until a bright sunny day comes along". Sometimes you have to shoot NOW! with what you have under the conditions you are dealt... and you have to make do with the equipment you have. Setting up studio lighting is not always an option either.....

But he had a flash right? You know, those things that make a sudden bright light and your photos a lot lighter?

I think they've had them for a century now, but I may be wrong :-)

And he didn't just start doing this job in the least 2 years since 12800 was actually usable?

What did he do in 2005 exactly? What about 1995?

The poor police must have no photos of anything that ever happened after sunset before 2012.

Come on, don't take this to the level that makes every one laugh, for pity's sake.

You can only do so much with a flash. I suggest you go outside on a rainy night and try illuminating a couple hundred meters of roadway...

And he shot from 1950 to 1985.... I think that predates digital photography.

15
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: DXO uh-oh?
« on: July 30, 2014, 09:07:04 AM »
Irrelevant, and a niche example: most photography is not done at 100 ISO in a studio, is it?

Studio photography is irrelevant?

This just got stupid. Most magazine photography, most product photography, most commercial photography period is studio.

And most landscapes are done at base ISO too.

If you add the up the dollar value of commercial photography, which is a huge part of the photography worlds income, it easily eclipses everything else.

And it's done with strobes and at 100 ISO.

What is your job exactly to be making claims that it's niche?

Chuckling to myself :-)
Studio photography is a niche. A niche is a subset of the whole.

Nobody said that it was small. Nobody said that it was unprofitable.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 190