July 31, 2014, 05:04:46 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 - Don Haines

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 190
16
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?

17
you can get decent stills from it. I recently shot a time lapse driving through Labrador and caught a few good stills....

18
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! :)

19
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 :)

20
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.



21
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.

22
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

23
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.

24
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.

25
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: DXO uh-oh?
« on: July 30, 2014, 08:58:56 AM »
...
I'm sure people took some great shots of birds on film John, I've seen them in books when I was as kiddy windy.

The BBC doesn't shoot their nature docos in HD at 12800, I'm pretty sure of that, as I have the blu rays and on my 65" TV they look mostly noise free :-)

The main difference here is that the BBC and National Geographic photographers aren't idiots that think ISO12800 is going to make up for shooting when the conditions favour the photographer. They're also patient in that they wait for the weather to give them the light they need or plan their photography so that the odds are in their favour.

I don't pretend to understand why neuro thinks it is a good idea or useful to shoot flying birds in cloudy conditions (or worse) but it sounds to me like he's confined his shooting to a corner where nobody can produce  a better camera system for what he does than the one he owns (or so he thinks.)

Why would anyone want to shoot birds flying when it is cloudy I don't know. Any colours that might be in/on the birds are going to be greatly subdued and unless you're shooting B&W, isn't the goal to get good colour?
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.....

26
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: DXO uh-oh?
« on: July 30, 2014, 08:42:30 AM »
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.
OK.... I accept that I have a low skill level. Now tell me what I should have done here. This is the unedited jpg out of the camera, and yes, I do shoot in RAW....

ISO12800, F1.4, 1/25th of a second, in a venue where flash or other lighting is not permitted. What should I have done to have avoided using ISO12800?


27
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: DXO uh-oh?
« on: July 30, 2014, 08:00:50 AM »
Hey John, how you going. Dean here.

I think now we have a clearer picture of you, and I hope you have one of me.

As I've said before, you're a smart guy and now we know why, and thank you for the insight.

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.

The skill of moving with the subject, a staple of F1 and other sports photographers for decades, has seemingly disappeared in the digital age if you want me to take you bird example seriously?

That's harsh of me in some ways, and honest in others. Clean 12800 would be great (no need to get clients eyes on the same plane in low natural light for example).

It has it's applications, but let's be honest, to assume it's needed for more people that need clean high DR 100 ISO is not only a stretch, but an insult to both of us in any debate.

320 ISO, and this bike was moving very fast, and this isn't what I do really. I'm not good at tracking fast objects, but I didn't need 12800 to freeze this bike.

http://client.deanagar.com.au/0001.jpg

Now this sucker really was moving, around 180mph, faster than most birds I'd guess, on an overcast day in Melbourne.

ISO? 100 funnily enough :-)

http://client.deanagar.com.au/sauber.jpg

This is a sad shot for me, given the state Michael is currently in, but again 100ISO, D60, 2004, his last championship winning year.

http://client.deanagar.com.au/shuey2.jpg

12800? Really? Isn't that just a technology to replace actual skill for most applications beyond scientific?

How many times does a skilled photographer need 12800? More than skilled photographers need 100 ISO?

I highly doubt it.

Anything in a studio is shot at 100 ISO, and that counts for a lot of paid work in this, or any other world.

Most shots you'd sell for actual real money are taken from 100-1600 and even 1600 is a push if we're honest for pro shots that aren't concert, wedding or editorial, and while there are commercial applications for higher ISO's, let's not insult each other by pretending they amount to more than a small percentage of amateurs that can't afford lights, or specialists trying to spot Neptune on a dark night.

I'm sure people took some great shots of birds on film John, I've seen them in books when I was as kiddy windy.

The BBC doesn't shoot their nature docos in HD at 12800, I'm pretty sure of that, as I have the blu rays and on my 65" TV they look mostly noise free :-)

your logic is flawed. You ask people to accept that for the photography that the D800 (for a variety of reasons) is the best choice for what you wish to do. You can not accept that for other people, a 1DX and 600F4 is the best choice for what they wish to do and criticise those trying to do so as having poor technique because they may need ISO12800 to freeze motion under the shooting conditions.

You can not ask for understanding from others without reciprocating.

and by the way, I have said time and time again on this forum, "who cares what the DR is of a blurry picture". To my way of thinking, the big strength of the 1DX is it's autofocus system. Trying to track a bird in flight, through a 600mm lens with a 1.4X teleconverter attached, where the bird is only a quarter the width of the view, is not a trivial task and take a phenomenal amount of skill and practice PLUS a kick-ass AF system.... and unlike race cars, birds do NOT fly in straight and level lines nor do they follow a repeatable pattern. Photographing race cars is a trivial problem in comparison.

28
EOS Bodies / Re: Photokina 2014
« on: July 29, 2014, 10:47:16 PM »
So, Photokina in September, what do we expect to see ?

I'm not expecting all, just some...

Canon EOS 7D MkII with 24mpx and next gen 70D AF tech
Canon EOS 750D with a 18mpx sensor and trimmed down 70D AF tech
Canon EOS M3 with same sensor and AF as 750D

Lol Canon 18Mpx sensor made it to most rubbish bottom model 1200D. Why do you expect they repeat this and put the same sensor into 750D and M3?
If they put in an 18Mpixel sensor, who says that it is the same old sensor?

Safe bets for the future is that ALL of Canon's new DSLR sensors will be DPAF. Keep in mind that one of the reasons why the 7D2 has been delayed so long is that they are having problems manufacturing the sensor. (statement by Canon executive) They have no problems making the 70D sensor, so why is this one any different? They should be able to churn them out easily.... plus the camera will not sell as many units as a lower priced 70D so volume should not be a problem....

The most likely explanation is that there is new technology involved (also said by a Canon executive). This is either a new fabrication process, a new way of doing things, or most likely, both. I expect to see finer lithography and the migration of the A/D circuitry onto the sensor. This should give slightly better efficiency and lower the noise level.... and that's a big thing! drop the noise by two stops and you should be able to 5D3 IQ out of your crop camera. Of course, if this happens then the 5D4 will get the same treatment and the 2 stop advantage will be restored.

This has to happen..... it is only a matter of time. The big question is if the time is now?

An extra 2 stops on my current 5dMK3 - that'd be very interesting.
The DR of a camera is the ratio of the signal to the noise.... if you want to improve it you either need more light or less noise. It's the superior A/D system on the Nikons that gives them more DR than the Canon cameras and there is nothing to say that Canon can't improve theirs. Even with the same way of doing things, moving it onto the sensor will get rid of some noise and improve things. If they institute a system with an A/D converter on each row of the sensor, they will be able to drastically drop the frequency they run at... and that allows for a more accurate/less noisy design. Who knows.... they may even go to 16 bit A/D..

I have test equipment at work that has 32 bit A/D running at 60Ghz and some that has 48 bit A/D running at "only" 42Ghz. the requirements of A/D in cameras are trivial in comparison and they should have no problems improving the design.

29
It's certainly on my wish list. I was planning to go for a Hero 2, but with the announcement of the Hero 3, the 3 Black Edition seems to be the one for me!

Yeah, i ordered the black one bcause i thought the wireless remote and better low light might come in handy.  I really cant wait to try out ths camera, it has so many features and capabilities for $400.  Underwater and time lapse in places where i dont want to risk my 5d3 and L glass.
Yeah.... my friend would not let me put her 5D2 and 24-70 on my stunt kite :)

I have been playing around a lot lately with time lapse photography on it... it is quite the toy!

30
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: DXO uh-oh?
« on: July 29, 2014, 10:12:44 PM »
jrista,

If you wouldn't mind, I'd love to get a walk through of your post processing. You mentioned using DeepSkyStacker and PixInsight to boost the DR of your files. I'd love to get a a step-by-step look at what you do. Thank you!

+1

I'd love to see it too!

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 190