December 18, 2014, 06:51:06 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 - pdirestajr

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 52
Lenses / Re: What was your first L lens?
« on: June 05, 2014, 01:41:40 PM »
My 'gateway lens' was the EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS.  The 100L backfocused slightly on my T1i/500D, which led to the 7D, which had lots of noise and led to the 5DII, which was slow with weak AF and led to the 1D X.  Oh, and I shot a bird with the 100L, which led to the 600/4L IS II.   :)

If you give a mouse a cookie...

Lenses / Re: Canon 10-22 vs 10-18
« on: June 05, 2014, 01:39:03 PM »
I rarely shoot ultra wide, as my widest lens is 24mm (on ff). I might buy this lens with an SL1 just to throw in the bag to play around with.

Animal Kingdom / Re: Show your Bird Portraits
« on: June 03, 2014, 06:14:30 PM »

Portrait / Re: Mobile studio portraits - am I doing this properly?
« on: June 02, 2014, 09:52:31 AM »
The lighting is really harsh and unnatural looking. You said you had the light in an umbrella- was it really far from your subject? A poster above said to move it further away from your subject, that is actually wrong. You want it as close as possible to your subject. The further away the light is, the smaller the light source is in comparison to your subject, and the harsher the light will become. Put light almost in frame.
(Note: Unless you were going for a harsh/ horror effect)

I'd start with one flash on a light stand with a shoot through umbrella (to camera left or right), slightly above and angled down on subject.

Also read this:

The crop is also odd in that it looks like there is a wax hand stuck to this guy's chin! I'd hold off on trying to add hands into the frame till you nail the other aspects.

On the good side, your subject looks totally comfortable being photographed by you, and that is 90% of the challenge.

Good luck!

Wow for 17 pages in am IMAGE GALLERY there are very few images here! What a wasted thread people!
More photos less chatter!!!

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 7d2 IQ thoughts.
« on: May 27, 2014, 08:39:30 AM »
The 7D2 will be amazing and change the world. Nothing will ever be the same.

Canon EF Prime Lenses / Re: Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II
« on: May 24, 2014, 11:24:31 PM »

Canon General / Re: Let's confess our disgusting perversions
« on: May 24, 2014, 01:30:39 PM »
Oh, and I've never micro adjusted a lens' AF, and all my shots are in focus ;)

Canon General / Re: Let's confess our disgusting perversions
« on: May 24, 2014, 01:24:21 PM »
I think the Pentax K-01 is a brilliant camera that was ahead of it's time. I actually own 2 of them now (bought when they were on serious clearance)! I love using old pentax SMC film lenses on them.

Pricewatch Deals / Calumet NYC store closeout!
« on: May 22, 2014, 01:22:04 PM »
Hey anyone in NYC area should pop into Calumet as their closeout discounts are now 50-80% off. Most of the big things are gone (cameras and lenses), but they still have tons of bags, accessories, Bowens studio lights & mods, Calumet brand light stands, umbrellas, lens filters and other light mods.

Canon EF Prime Lenses / Re: Canon EF 85mm f/1.2L II USM
« on: May 21, 2014, 04:56:19 PM »

Canon EF Prime Lenses / Re: Canon EF 24mm f/1.4L II USM
« on: May 21, 2014, 09:45:45 AM »

Having fun with my kid's new trampoline (Shot a second image of lawn without trampoline, then merged images).
Flying Fairy by Philip DiResta, on Flickr

Lenses / Re: Canon EF 16-35 f/4L IS Sample Images
« on: May 17, 2014, 04:46:30 PM »
Just FYI, you can see a full-resolution jpeg of the samples by clicking on:  (点击此处查看大图)  located directly below each image.
-brought to my attention by Bryan over at TDP.
Doesn't look very sharp in the corners (photo of the white house and the church). Or am I a pixel peeper now and does it look better than the 16-35 f/2.8 II?

This new lens seems pointless to me - it's even longer than the f/2.8II and weighs almost the same. The 17-40 is the hands down winner for travel and portability in general. If I'm going to lug a WA that big, then it better have a 2.8 aperture.

Totally disagree. I could care less (grammar police, using this in the NEW accepted form so shhhhh :D) about f/2.8 for this range. IS matter a lot more as does raw image quality.

Wouldn't it have just been faster to make it "couldn't" instead of going through the whole disclaimer?!

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 52